"* I’m semi-traumatized by what I witnessed and experienced during the pandemic. *" Time passes without character. When I got money and got a paid up room, long-term for over a year I mean --- I found I was not remembering the five-year no-money (not living inside) period at all. It was gone Now I slowly start to remember things that happened during this period, when I was "on the street." But there is no going back in the mind, no fleshing out of memories, giving the memories the character of remembrances, etc, My advice is just to forget about the thing. In a sense...
I'm afraid I have to agree with Name of Human taking people like you to task over not getting vaccinated. Back then we didn't have the information we have now, *and neither did you*. We turned to more knowledgeable sources than Trump and Twitter - Fauci, WHO, CDC, however fallible they might have been. *You were taking chances with other peoples' lives*, because of a fear of a vaccine I'm not clear on. Do you get a flu vaccine every year? I do, now, but I didn't for 35 years after I got the flu from one as a child. (Later my doctor said, "You know, it's improved a lot since the '60s.") Meanwhile, the unvaxxed were dying by the droves in hospitals gasping out their last if they had a giant metal phallus lodged in their throat, or sometimes expressing regrets they didn't get the vax if they didn't. I saw people like you as irresponsible toward your fellow man. Just because you were at least somewhat right today doesn't excuse your lack of social responsibility then.
I am reminded of all the parents, doctors, and 'gender counselors' who urge and encourage puberty blockers on children without knowing yet what the long-term effects might be. Their contention today *might* be right - that there are no long-term effects, *but they don't know for sure*. So it's as irresponsible for them, too.
Obama tried to get the government and the public to take seriously and prepare for a global pandemic which WHO had been warming about for awhile but no one listened. If it wasn't happening it wasn't possible. We went into this blindly, by choice.
You are mistaken. We absolutely did know - fairly early on - that COVID is a disease that disproportionately harms the elderly and people with a fairly well understood set of comorbidities (diabetes, obesity, etc). Anyone who fit in neither of these groups and had already been infected had a rational basis for declining vaccination. The fact is, groupthink reigned. The most obvious example was the disastrous decision to close schools. Your response demonstrates the point.
Nevertheless, an awful lot of people not in those risk categories died of COVID. The US, now and today, still rules the world in COVID deaths. So while I agree with your assessment re the schools, I think lockdown was a good idea overall.
There were about 20 countries with higher death rates than the United States. When I look at the data I see no clear correlation between lockdowns and safety, but I admit I haven’t actually calculated or found someone who has calculated the R value. Lockdowns may have been a sensible strategy, but the evidence is far from conclusive.
What graph did you follow? I checked the Bing COVID link daily. I never saw the US lose its #1 position. It's still there, although I stopped following the link regularly probably late 2020 or 2021.
Second link: I think we're interpreting the data differently, or I may have not made myself clear. I'm looking at overall COVID deaths globally, since the start of the pandemic. Not deaths per 1,000 or anything like that. Deaths overall have fallen everywhere, but the chart in the second link shows the US as still the only one to cap a million. And overall is what I look at - no other country seems to have surpassed us in sheer number of deaths since 2020.
This article was disingenuous, biased, manipulative and whiney. They lost me well before trying to connect COVID with antisemitism. I think the "shock" they experienced came from the fact that COVID forced Americans to consider their obligations to society for the first time since WWII and not just their personal rights. The fact that it didn't go well doesn't mean it was mishandled; it just means most people are extremely self-centered. I'm all for drawing connections between things, but this person's screed has the ring of paranoid conspiracy theory thinking, of trying to cobble together numerous disparate events into one grand condemnation...all derived from highly personal perceived snubs and relationship disappointments. One thing I will grant is that our society is no longer salvageable, and the best we can do is invest in its collapse so that humanity can dust off and move forward before we are obliterated along with our dying civilization.
Please consider what it means to write “the best we can do is invest in [society’s] collapse.” Really think that through. Consider what you are advocating, what you are proposing as the stance human beings ought to adopt towards one another. It is not often that one reads anyone casually supporting mass extinction. Is that actually what you believe?
I'm not sure if you are baiting me, twisting my words, or neither. "Supporting mass extinction" is a convenient label you've invented to attach to someone you want to cancel. Honestly, if you want to call me out for saying our civilization is decadent and dying, you'll have to argue against numerous other people on both the left and right. The truth is, ALL civilizations expire (on average about 300 years post-founding). The only thing special about ours is the rapidity with which we've laid waste to both our own humanity, and our fellow lifeforms on this planet. The sooner global civilization meets its demise, the sooner the planet can heal. So is the onus really on me to create rationalizations for saving a necrotic society that's already nose diving...or rather is it on you to tell us not only how it can be saved, but why it should be saved?
I either reason with people who post on substack or I ask them to consider things they appear not to have considered. You fall in the latter category.
You have been polite and honest enough to answer my question, and your answer is: the sooner civilization (i.e., all of us) "meets its demise" (your words), the better. I would say that a fair observer would call that an expression of hope for mass extinction.
That's what I would call a direct MISquote, since those are not my words. But your bias is interesting. It's obvious you feel that this society is worth defending. It will need defending if it is to continue, so instead of attacking me...why not defend our society? Misquoting those with whom you disagree is no less a form of sophistry than any other poorly-defended claim. I have little patience for people who attack others' positions without stating or defending their own. That's cowardice--as is misrepresenting another person's position to make it easier to attack.
You sound like a robot. Condescension is not a good look on you. Since you can't see it, please visualize both of my middle fingers in front of your face.
I’m pro-human. I’m pro-civilization. I’m for life and creation, and against death and destruction. I’m deeply grateful for the gift bequeathed upon us by virtue of the work and sacrifice of billions whose lives preceded ours. I’m for simple decency and against anger, resentment, spite and malice.
...And yet you exemplify both spite and malice in your comments towards me, which makes you just another hypocrite. What does "decency" even mean to a troll? Do you think spouting empty phrases without substance will convince me or anyone else that you are superior to the rest of us? I'm not going to go down this rabbit hole with you, and I doubt you would acknowledge it, but being pro human and pro civilization is a contradiction in terms. Even a cursory study of the social sciences demonstrates that. There is no form of existence more anti-human than civilization. The best thing that could happen to a human individual--if you claim pro-human values--is for civilization to end. It would also be better for the planet, which you don't care about (or more likely just flat out deny, preferring the rose colored glasses of your delusions instead). People who put humans on a pedestal--people who put civilization on a pedestal--are trading one form of elitism for another. Anthropocentrism, and more specifically cultural narcissism, is at the heart of tribalism, ethnocentrism, and one of the reasons why people are so divided. You go ahead and condemn me from your high horse as you fight the losing battle to prop up the banalities of modern existence. I choose to work for what's best for the planet and the humans on it, while doing to with the realization that humans and human endeavors are, quite frankly, not the point.
"Our experience set a dangerous precedent of a self-righteous 'mob mentality' toward people who entertain unpopular positions."
To the contrary, if there's a mob mentality it exists among the MAGA and MAGA-adjacent culture warriors who continue to litigate the spurious and conspiratorial claims of abuse by America's public heath establishment and other people and institutions charged with protecting health and life during the pandemic.
There was no great scheme to use (or launch!) the pandemic subjugate the pubic for nefarious ends or any end in particular. Such charges are the product of bad faith, fear mongering, anti-government agendas and fevered imaginations, among other things.
It is disappointing see that FAIR is recommending this reductionist grand narrative about the pandemic that serves only to undermine faith in American institutions, science and expertise. Furthermore, linking an unhinged interpretation of the national response to the pandemic to the fight against DEI and related ideologies harms those causes by undermining their credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of reasonable people.
Sorry, I'm not buying it. This is culture war stuff that feeds and feeds off conspiracy theories. There is no excuse for front-line personnel not to be vaccinated and those who refused to on ethical grounds elevated their own ideological purity over the welfare of society. While physical and emotional abuse are never justified, in a public health emergency it is perfectly legitimate to stigmatize noncompliance with reasonable and effective public heath measures.
It was about a year after the start of the pandemic before vaccines became available, and by then it was pretty clear that young healthy people were at little risk of serious illness. (See the Great Barrington Declaration, which the CDC attacked, demonized, and tried to suppress). Yet many state and federal agencies tried to insist that everyone, regardless of age or whether they were already immune, get a novel vaccine that, while fairly effective short term, was also a rushed, experimental technology with unknown long term effects and many reports of odd side effects.
I am in my 70s, so I got vaccinated (later that year, I got Covid anyway). My 3 grown children in their 30s, did not get vaccinated. Both daughters are of the age to start families, and positively did not want to take medications that might have negative effects on a pregnancy. One was a hospital nurse who worked right through the early epidemic and got Covid herself. In spite of already having disease antibodies, she was later ordered to get vaccinated anyway, and she wound up quitting instead. Perfectly sensible decision in my opinion. Many other doctors and nurses who could afford to made the choice to quit or retire early rather than be subjected to unnecessary and potentially harmful vaccinations.
More than anything, the active suppression of contrary views and alternative treatments, the ruthless canceling and firing and demonizing of every dissenter, the lies about the need for masks (unless you were a leftist protester), the seemingly endless demands for “emergency” powers, and the politicians hypocritically ignoring the rules they set for everyone else has brought us to the sad point of distrusting much of what we hear from the institutions that are supposed to be protecting us. With good reason.
"...we risk surrendering our collective humanity to forces that may have no concern for our welfare."
There is not any question about "may". There is no concern - NONE - for our welfare on the part of people who demand our subservience during the emergency they contrived.
COVID-19 wasn’t contrived, but the threat it represented most certainly was. Very few people - and by people I mean the experts who we trust to guide us in these situations - were able to keep their heads about them and assess the risk rationally. Some did, most notably the health minister of Sweden, and a handful of other leaders, including governors castigated at the time as mass killers.
Yes - people were scared - there was a lot of uncertainty - but that is precisely when we need our experts to speak and act modestly and precisely. Few did, since it was much safer to their reputation to adopt the most extreme risk aversion possible rather than admit to uncertainty or cop to early errors in a forthright way. The price of this cowardice and arrogance has been catastrophic: the public no longer trusts institutions like the CDC and the WHO, and I can’t say I blame them.
It's worth noting that during the Trump administration the White House interposed itself between the experts and the public in order to manipulate the message for partisan political purposes. Furthermore, conspiracy theorists and other bad-faith actors have been spreading false and misleading information to discredit the nation's public health institutions and the leading figures associated with them. I have very little trust in most of what you are saying.
“It was like The Handmaids Tale, without the crimson frocks and white bonnets.“ I stopped reading after this. You get why it’s a ridiculous comparison, right? No state sanctioned rape, misogyny etc
Our time to shine? One can hope I suppose, but historically we are accelerating to a cataclysm. French Revolution? Holocaust? Stalin level genocide? America's third civil war? World absorption into WWIII?
There is so much wrong that most human kind is incapable of picking a priority to correct the path to peace. I have spent a lifetime fighting and dealing with the fallout of societal failures...in other countries and regions. This period we reside in is worse than the 60's and the 90's in America.
People must act, take to the streets, not for a "cause" but for the "us", holistically. People like you, and others here have to find ways to influence the entire body, not the tribes, not the labels, but the people into action. None of our so called leaders is up to the task. Hope...is not a course of action. Violence is becoming the way ahead; history has shown us that actions and over corrections are in the cards.
More and more I try not to react quickly to the “ outrages”. To be measured in my response and know that even when I don’t agree with someone they mean well as I do. Nuance gets lost in social media.
The one thing I find lacking in this article is nuance. Is ANY criticism of the actions of the current Israeli government automatically antisemitic? What if the person criticizing Netanyahu's actions believes that his attempts to exterminate Palestinians will hurt, rather than help, Israel in the long term? IMO saving Israel requires smart, courageous diplomacy (I know, US doesn't do diplomacy), rather than indiscriminate violence. Does that make me an antiSemite?
No one said, certainly not Monica, that criticizing the Netanyahu government, or Netanyahu himself is antisemitic or even wrong (a majority of the Israeli people have been criticizing him very harshly, and rightfully so). What is wrong is to say that there was any justification whatsoever for the Hamas terrorist massacre on October 7. Furthermore, no one wants to "exterminate" Palestinians, this is Iranian/Hamas propaganda, nothing more, and spreading, this propaganda lie is wrong and antisemitic. Finally no one is asked to "save Israel", diplomatically or otherwise, and the ONLY indiscriminate violence in this case was committed by Hamas terrorist murderers. The IDF has been trying hard to minimize civilian causalities, more than any army at war in history.
Monica, you know I love your articles, and that you're one of my heroes, but I must agree with Daily Growler on this. Many non-Zionist Jews, both inside and outside of Israel, are opposing Netanyahu and his lunatic ethnocentric government for their oppressive actions towards Gaza that resulted in Hamas coming into existence in the first place, and none of them are in any way justifying what Hamas did. Nor are others on the Classical Left like myself.
Also, why did you not mention the 8,000 mostly innocent Palestinians massacred by Israel's "retaliation," including the 800 killed in the bombing of the refugee camp, which included many children? Or its shutting off water and electricity to Gaza? And I know Bari Weiss has opposed the SJW mentality, but I've read her work and she's a Zionist, which makes her a hypocrite IMO because the Zionists are among the most fervent promoters of the Perpetual Victim Card that justifies any type of behavior, including demands for censorship, as long as they claim it's done on "behalf" of the Jewish people. They're connecting Zionism with Jewish people is not only the cause of much real anti-Semitism in the world, but it's now being used as the next step in provoking World War III that the U.S. Military Industrial Complex wants so badly to happen.
Please read my article urging the working class to NOT take sides between Zionism and Islamic fundamentalism, but to oppose both and strive for the peaceful unification of the Jewish and Palestinian people. Nothing about that calls for the slaughter of any group of people on the supposed behalf of another group.
If you studied history you would know that antisemitism predates Zionism by many centuries. On that 8000 massacred innocent Palestinians: the number itself is coming from Hamas, hence it has to be taken with a huge grain of salt, as Hamas has been known to lie about these things (see the vastly exaggerated number of deaths at the hospital parking lot which was caused by one of their misfiring rocket but they blamed it on Israel). Same regarding "innocent", as there is no credible data on how many of the dead are actually Hamas terrorists, who are the target of Israel's justified military response to the October 7 massacre. As for the goal of "peaceful unification" of the Israeli and Palestinian people: what do you mean on unification? The goal should be an Israeli and a Palestinian state living peacefully next to each other, i.e., two state solution, but that cannot happen until Hamas is not eliminated both in Gaza and on the West Bank, as Hamas explicitly refuses to live in peace next to Israel, now or any time in the future. Their stated goal is to eliminate Israel.
Make that the slaughter of 8000 innocent Palestinians by the refusal of Hamas to let civilians get out of the way, and the refusal of surrounding Arab nations to take in Gazan refugees. The population of Gaza is approximately 2.23 million, according to a quick web search. A separate web search states 3.8 million illegal immigrants have crossed into the USA since 2021. Why can't the Arab states take in refugees? Why can't Hamas fight like men and stop using children as shields? Why can't people acknowledge the State of Israel? Why can't Hamas remove from their charter the goal of the destruction of Israel?
I'll answer your questions BeadleBlog, along with asking one or two of my own. All of which will cement my point that we should not be taking sides between an ethnocentric ideology and a fundamentalist religious belief system.
"Make that the slaughter of 8000 innocent Palestinians by the refusal of Hamas to let civilians get out of the way, and the refusal of surrounding Arab nations to take in Gazan refugees."
Why didn't the Israeli government itself do that, since it launched the attack? Why pass the buck onto other Arab states, i.e., "either you take these people in as we drive them out of their land, or we're gonna slaughter 'em. So, it'll be your fault if they die, not ours!"
Why didn't Netanyahu cancel that rave where 1,400 innocent Jewish people were killed when both the U.S. and Egyptian governments warned him that Hamas would likely be striking there? The answer is obvious: Netanyahu sacrificed those people because he wanted working class folk like ourselves across the West to get so emotionally overwrought that they would give him a blank check to do whatever he wanted in return, which is to claim all of Gaza for Israel, and provoke tensions with Iran and other Middle Eastern nations to incite the U.S. into backing them for the war with Iran that both countries have wanted for so long as another step towards starting World War III to bring the highly profitable policy of perpetual war to the next level. The proxy war in Ukraine meant to antagonize Russia and the posturing in Taiwan to antagonize China, along with the other non-stop wars in the Middle East being fought over the past 20 years, weren't cutting it anymore.
The "human shield" excuse is a poor one, since Israel has pretty much done the same thing. Most legit Hamas agents are hiding out in tunnels that could be raided by law enforcement experts. A military "solution" to terrorism is a bad idea for actually stopping terrorists, let alone preventing the conditions for new ones to be created... and both Netanyahu and those psychopathic war-mongers in the White House & Congress know this.
"Why can't the Arab states take in refugees?"
The Arab states are far smaller than even most European states, with considerably less resources available as they are Third World countries, not wealthy nations like the Western G8 countries.
So, why can't Europe take these refugees in? They will claim that the cultural differences cause them to rape women who dress scantily as "punishment" or attack LGBTs, but that is all nonsense propaganda. I live around many Muslim Arabs in my inner city neighborhood, and they tend to behave just fine around women, non-Muslims, and LGBTs etc when they are denied disproportionate power over others. They tend to liberalize in their views over time. Many of them open and run small businesses that are useful to the inner city citizens.
Better yet, why doesn't Israel stop bombing them and turning so many of them into refugees and peacefully integrate them in with the Jewish people, in a more egalitarian system that prevents both Sharia Law and Zionism from going into practice? Nothing would strip Hamas of its teeth faster than that. People do not hate simply for the sake of hating; they do it when they are forced to live in adverse conditions and denied equal access to the resources.
"Why can't people acknowledge the State of Israel?"
Because many egalitarians like myself who want peace for all groups in the working class, which includes many non-Zionist Jews both within and outside of Israel, do not support an ethnocentric apartheid system like Zionism. We believe that is the absolute *wrong* lesson to take from the Holocaust. Ethnocentric ideologies lead to repressive authoritarian nations and separatist policies that divide people against each other, much as we saw when the Aryans also did it. We need to live together in peace. That is not to mention what the State of Israel have done with the Palestinians who lived there, which is force them into what is essentially an open-air concentration camp. Again, did the Zionists learn nothing from the Holocaust?
"Why can't Hamas remove from their charter the goal of the destruction of Israel?"
Because the Israeli government keeps fanning the flames with their separatist policies, which is costing both innocent Jewish people and innocent Palestinians their lives, and is now contributing towards World War III.
"Netanyahu sacrificed those people because he wanted working class folk like ourselves across the West to get so emotionally overwrought that they would give him a blank check to do whatever he wanted in return"
That's quite a conspiracy theory.
Amazing the way people can rationalize and fabricate to their own ends. Pretty much no point in engaging with any of this.
It's hardly a "conspiracy theory" when the evidence is there. Not wanting to believe that to valorize a right-wing capitalist war-monger who is complicit with the U.S. Military Industrial Complex as some type of altruistic champion or protector of Jewish people is where the blinders truly are, Scott. I think the actual rationalizing is on the end of those trying to keep the Zionist machine going because of the misplaced emotional appeal it has for some people in a manner disturbingly similar to how the SJW mentality fills the same emotional role for Mainstream Liberals. Both are forms of identity politics, and there is nothing altruistic or noble about them.
It is well known that Netanyahu was warned by both U.S. and Egyptian intelligence officials about Hamas's planned attack on that rave in Israel. And funny how his not doing anything about it, like canceling the rave, happened to play right into his hands by getting Zionists across the world riled into an emotional frenzy in a sadly predictable manner, enough to demand vengeance, fully dehumanize the people of Palestine, and turn a blind eye towards the Israeli government finally razing Gaza to take full control of the land. And, of course, to receive a blank check of a financial sort from the U.S. government to carry this out, which just so happens to further the desire of U.S. capitalists to keep the destructive but profitable Military Industrial Complex going via taking another step towards provoking World War III -- especially since they needed a new war after the proxy war against Russia through Ukraine is rapidly losing steam.
Netanyahu was confident that the Zionist sycophants all over the globe would interpret the brutal and vengeful killing of thousands of Palestinian civilians while hardly touching anyone directly involved with Hamas as "Israel's right to protect itself" and "protecting Jewish people" -- despite the fact that thousands and thousands of non-Zionist, egalitarian Jewish people are laudably opposing Netanyahu on this and various recent authoritarian actions against the citizens of Israel itself, both within and outside the nation's borders.
What Netanyahu did is a common military tactic that is hardly a conspiracy; a fanciful conspiracy theory has to be outrageous with no evidence to back it up in order to be dismissed as likely falsehood. This situation is anything but implausible.
As I noted, the reliable demands for vengeance-driven war by Zionists around the world was something Netanyahu could obviously count on, but what did surprise him, no doubt, was the non-Zionists of the world, including many former unconditional supporters of Israel, clearly seeing this as the actions of an unhinged autocrat whose main interests are expanding his own power at any cost while hiding behind the virtue shield of being some kind of superhero protector of the Jewish people. They are all shedding their previous fear of being labeled "antisemitic" for opposing Zionism.
I believe this worldwide, mass opposition to Zionism paves a better future for both the Jewish and Palestinian peoples, as well as individuals from any other demographic who could potentially get caught in the crossfire of a mad perpetual war for power between two corrupt ideologies. War-profiteers in the capitalist class certainly want this, and Zionists from the working class are too emotionally overwrought to oppose it... but no one else is in favor of it.
Nice DARVO to try and cover for the Hamas tactic of sacrificing the people of Gaza to get the activists emotionally wrought. The Arab states aren't refusing to form temporary refugee camps for Gazans because of lack of "space." They have long refused them because they don't want the problem, as they have experience with the terrorists turning on their benefactors. Black September was a lesson for Jordan. By the way, Hussein targeted and bombed civilians indiscriminately during Black September. Anyone who refers to Israel as an "apartheid" state, a state where all citizens have the same rights, is not serious and sickens me as it belittles what actual apartheid looks like. The use of something akin to "some of my best friends are (fill in the blank)" is also telling. You apparently lump the Muslim Americans in your neighborhood with all Muslims. Talk about stereotyping. I, a sheep farmer, have Muslim customers and my husband and I have even had the customers invite us to attend the mosque. In my younger days I dated a Muslim and I've met many other Muslims over my lifetime. They are not all one big lump and they are not all created equal, pretty much like any other "group." Some would have slit my throat. The Arab terrorists that have been in control have rejected a two-state solution 3 times. Name one time where IDF soldiers were hiding in hospitals, schools and the homes of families. Name one time when the IDF specifically targeted children for torture and murder. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks
"Nice DARVO to try and cover for the Hamas tactic of sacrificing the people of Gaza to get the activists emotionally wrought."
I'm covering up nothing, my friend, as I acknowledged it and showed the concern for the innocent Jewish people killed as well as the innocent Palestinians. Understanding the cause of a terrorist cell like Hamas coming into existence is not tantamount to apologizing for it or supporting it. It's trying to understand the causes so it can be prevented in the future.
"The Arab states aren't refusing to form temporary refugee camps for Gazans because of lack of "space." They have long refused them because they don't want the problem, as they have experience with the terrorists turning on their benefactors."
And you consider the Zionist Israeli government to be a "benefactor," by forcing them to live in such conditions and then dropping bombs on them regularly, and shooting at them when they attempt to make peaceful protests. So, you actually think Hamas attacks various groups "just because" that's what terrorists do. No, terrorists arise because of adverse conditions raised against a certain group of people, and this results in a cycle of violence that hurts everyone.
"By the way, Hussein targeted and bombed civilians indiscriminately during Black September. "
That was Kurdish civilians, using weapons the U.S. gave him and turned a blind eye to as long as he was using them against Iran, and as long as he wasn't using them against any target important to the U.S. business interests.
"Anyone who refers to Israel as an "apartheid" state, a state where all citizens have the same rights, is not serious and sickens me as it belittles what actual apartheid looks like."
Only people who are of Jewish descent have equal rights in Israel. Zionism is entirely about Jewish supremacy, which is why so many decent Jewish people along with anyone else who is against the concept of an ethnocracy due to many tragic lessons imposed by history oppose the ideology. What sickens me, my friend, is anyone who can ignore the lessons of history and support an ethno-cratic apartheid state that oppresses a whole people in the "name" of Jewish people. Talking about using others as a shield! That is why many liberal Jewish people, including Jewish People for Peace, are against Zionism.
"The use of something akin to "some of my best friends are (fill in the blank)" is also telling."|
Because I actually respect people who show respect for others regardless of their ethnicity or beliefs? I think your issue with that, and comparing such a sentiment with a phrase attributed to bigots, is very telling.
"You apparently lump the Muslim Americans in your neighborhood with all Muslims."
I am doing no such "lumping." I am pointing to how Muslims behave within the context of a nominal democratic framework that does not allow Sharia Law (or any type of theocracy) to be opposed. If Muslims grow up and operate in a state that imposes Sharia Law on everyone who lives there, then yes, they will behave differently and have less motivation to liberalize their thinking.
"I, a sheep farmer, have Muslim customers and my husband and I have even had the customers invite us to attend the mosque. In my younger days I dated a Muslim and I've met many other Muslims over my lifetime. They are not all one big lump and they are not all created equal, pretty much like any other "group.""
See my previous point, which doesn't disagree with yours so much as putting your statement in its proper context. And Zionism is every bit as bad as fundamentalist Muslim sects, as both are based on separatist and supremacist ideas. A peaceful integration of the two peoples, along with allowing many other groups to also live there peacefully within a democratic framework that honors no ethnocentric or fundamentalist ideology, would result in no one oppressing anyone else.
"Some would have slit my throat. The Arab terrorists that have been in control have rejected a two-state solution 3 times."
First of all, the Zionist Israeli government (note that I never say "the Jews") turned down the offer of a ceasefire by Hamas:
... and also from increasing international demands for a cease-fire due to Netanyahu's increasingly psychotic behavior and demands, something many Jewish people do not want enacted in their name:
Secondly, the two-state solution would not result in two separate but equal states, because the "separate but equal" conception never works out in practice, as history will also readily attest. This is why I support a one-state solution that respects all ethnic groups will maintaining a truly democratic (meaning, non-ethno-centric) framework that will respect neither Zionism nor Sharia Law. It will still have capitalism, which sucks, but that is a problem for the international working class to solve another day.
"Some would have slit my throat."
I'm sure the IDF would be friendly to a non-Jewish person like me if I was standing among a rally of many progressive, non-Zionist Jewish people protesting the attacks on Gaza right in front of Netanyahu's luxurious mansion that most working class people of all ethnic groups (including Jewish citizens living in Israel) could only dream of residing in:
Few want Hamas around, but a growing number of people, including the many decent Jewish people within and outside of Israel, are getting sick of Zionism and it's being the catalyst for such terrorist cells. I think they would agree with me that nothing should sicken one more than defending a nutcase like Netanyahu:
"Name one time when the IDF specifically targeted children for torture and murder."
Except those reports are a bunch of hyper-exaggerated bullshit irresponsibly reported throughout the press, which have only one IDF soldier as their source, and this one only told a pro-Zionist reporter that he "heard" these things, and which even the IDF refuted:
These continued brutal attacks on Gaza are only going to create more and more recruits for Hamas and other terrorist cells in the future, as well as fuel real anti-Semitism across the world. Egalitarians like myself do not want this, which is why we oppose both Zionism and Islamic fundamentalist-based terror.
You sound like a typical bothsideist. Yes, innocent Israelis, including babies, women and old people, not to mention Americans and other foreigners, were brutally and intentionally murdered by Hamas terrorists. Trying to equate this with the unintended civilian causalities of Israel's justified military response is not only unconscionable, but also contrary to international law and the Geneva convention.
You are not my friend, and I'll go in a coma if I listen to any more of your fantastical, alternate-reality. You are in the same class as a Holocaust denier.
“the lengths to which people will go to keep themselves safe and be seen as good citizens” -- I would’ve put “safe” in scare quotes here. While it does still seem that, for some populations, being vaccinated may have reduced the risk of death or serious illness, clearly this should’ve been a individual choice (or between a person and her/his doctor, to borrow a phrase).
And at this point I cringe to see the highly educated people I work with continue to wear masks to the office, or rush to get themselves and their families vaxxed/boosted ASAP.
And yes, in that same period, people have become far more willing to vilify those who don’t share their beliefs (on COVID, politics, whatever). At the office we’re all vaxxed and boosted at least once (a condition of our continued employment) but let’s just say I’ve been pretty quiet about not having gotten any subsequent shots. And heaven forbid anyone admit to having voted Republican, at any level, in the past few years.
As a GenXer this all just saddens me so much. I really thought the world had turned a corner when the Berlin Wall fell. Sadly, we seem to have taken a very wrong turn after 9/11. Not sure what to do to turn things around again.
Fellow GenXer and free thinker here. I've been quiet about avoiding additional boosters as well in spite of leaning left. I think the "highly educated" tend to trust "experts" with credentials even though these people can be just as ideological and political as those less learned. Plus, lemmings, ya know...
As long as class divided society continues, the ruling class can always find ways to undo any social progress we make, including under the guise of promoting further social progress. This will continue in unending cycles for as long as we continue to leave capitalists in charge and their uber-competitive, dog-eat-dog system intact.
"* I’m semi-traumatized by what I witnessed and experienced during the pandemic. *" Time passes without character. When I got money and got a paid up room, long-term for over a year I mean --- I found I was not remembering the five-year no-money (not living inside) period at all. It was gone Now I slowly start to remember things that happened during this period, when I was "on the street." But there is no going back in the mind, no fleshing out of memories, giving the memories the character of remembrances, etc, My advice is just to forget about the thing. In a sense...
I'm afraid I have to agree with Name of Human taking people like you to task over not getting vaccinated. Back then we didn't have the information we have now, *and neither did you*. We turned to more knowledgeable sources than Trump and Twitter - Fauci, WHO, CDC, however fallible they might have been. *You were taking chances with other peoples' lives*, because of a fear of a vaccine I'm not clear on. Do you get a flu vaccine every year? I do, now, but I didn't for 35 years after I got the flu from one as a child. (Later my doctor said, "You know, it's improved a lot since the '60s.") Meanwhile, the unvaxxed were dying by the droves in hospitals gasping out their last if they had a giant metal phallus lodged in their throat, or sometimes expressing regrets they didn't get the vax if they didn't. I saw people like you as irresponsible toward your fellow man. Just because you were at least somewhat right today doesn't excuse your lack of social responsibility then.
I am reminded of all the parents, doctors, and 'gender counselors' who urge and encourage puberty blockers on children without knowing yet what the long-term effects might be. Their contention today *might* be right - that there are no long-term effects, *but they don't know for sure*. So it's as irresponsible for them, too.
Obama tried to get the government and the public to take seriously and prepare for a global pandemic which WHO had been warming about for awhile but no one listened. If it wasn't happening it wasn't possible. We went into this blindly, by choice.
You are mistaken. We absolutely did know - fairly early on - that COVID is a disease that disproportionately harms the elderly and people with a fairly well understood set of comorbidities (diabetes, obesity, etc). Anyone who fit in neither of these groups and had already been infected had a rational basis for declining vaccination. The fact is, groupthink reigned. The most obvious example was the disastrous decision to close schools. Your response demonstrates the point.
Nevertheless, an awful lot of people not in those risk categories died of COVID. The US, now and today, still rules the world in COVID deaths. So while I agree with your assessment re the schools, I think lockdown was a good idea overall.
There were about 20 countries with higher death rates than the United States. When I look at the data I see no clear correlation between lockdowns and safety, but I admit I haven’t actually calculated or found someone who has calculated the R value. Lockdowns may have been a sensible strategy, but the evidence is far from conclusive.
What graph did you follow? I checked the Bing COVID link daily. I never saw the US lose its #1 position. It's still there, although I stopped following the link regularly probably late 2020 or 2021.
https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths#cumulative-confirmed-deaths-per-million-people
Our World in Data puts the US at 20th.
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
Johns Hopkins puts US at 14th, but they stopped collecting and reporting data this past March.
First link: This is what I found. https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths#cumulative-confirmed-deaths-per-million-people US is still #1. How the hell we manage to beat India is beyond me, and probably India is way worse but maybe so too is the reporting.
Second link: I think we're interpreting the data differently, or I may have not made myself clear. I'm looking at overall COVID deaths globally, since the start of the pandemic. Not deaths per 1,000 or anything like that. Deaths overall have fallen everywhere, but the chart in the second link shows the US as still the only one to cap a million. And overall is what I look at - no other country seems to have surpassed us in sheer number of deaths since 2020.
Excellent
This article was disingenuous, biased, manipulative and whiney. They lost me well before trying to connect COVID with antisemitism. I think the "shock" they experienced came from the fact that COVID forced Americans to consider their obligations to society for the first time since WWII and not just their personal rights. The fact that it didn't go well doesn't mean it was mishandled; it just means most people are extremely self-centered. I'm all for drawing connections between things, but this person's screed has the ring of paranoid conspiracy theory thinking, of trying to cobble together numerous disparate events into one grand condemnation...all derived from highly personal perceived snubs and relationship disappointments. One thing I will grant is that our society is no longer salvageable, and the best we can do is invest in its collapse so that humanity can dust off and move forward before we are obliterated along with our dying civilization.
Please consider what it means to write “the best we can do is invest in [society’s] collapse.” Really think that through. Consider what you are advocating, what you are proposing as the stance human beings ought to adopt towards one another. It is not often that one reads anyone casually supporting mass extinction. Is that actually what you believe?
I'm not sure if you are baiting me, twisting my words, or neither. "Supporting mass extinction" is a convenient label you've invented to attach to someone you want to cancel. Honestly, if you want to call me out for saying our civilization is decadent and dying, you'll have to argue against numerous other people on both the left and right. The truth is, ALL civilizations expire (on average about 300 years post-founding). The only thing special about ours is the rapidity with which we've laid waste to both our own humanity, and our fellow lifeforms on this planet. The sooner global civilization meets its demise, the sooner the planet can heal. So is the onus really on me to create rationalizations for saving a necrotic society that's already nose diving...or rather is it on you to tell us not only how it can be saved, but why it should be saved?
I am not baiting you.
I don't cancel people.
I either reason with people who post on substack or I ask them to consider things they appear not to have considered. You fall in the latter category.
You have been polite and honest enough to answer my question, and your answer is: the sooner civilization (i.e., all of us) "meets its demise" (your words), the better. I would say that a fair observer would call that an expression of hope for mass extinction.
I have no further questions for you.
That's what I would call a direct MISquote, since those are not my words. But your bias is interesting. It's obvious you feel that this society is worth defending. It will need defending if it is to continue, so instead of attacking me...why not defend our society? Misquoting those with whom you disagree is no less a form of sophistry than any other poorly-defended claim. I have little patience for people who attack others' positions without stating or defending their own. That's cowardice--as is misrepresenting another person's position to make it easier to attack.
You were correct. I did misquote you. Wrong pronoun (I said "our" not "its"). I apologize. I fixed it above. Now you are quoted accurately.
You sound like a robot. Condescension is not a good look on you. Since you can't see it, please visualize both of my middle fingers in front of your face.
I’m pro-human. I’m pro-civilization. I’m for life and creation, and against death and destruction. I’m deeply grateful for the gift bequeathed upon us by virtue of the work and sacrifice of billions whose lives preceded ours. I’m for simple decency and against anger, resentment, spite and malice.
...And yet you exemplify both spite and malice in your comments towards me, which makes you just another hypocrite. What does "decency" even mean to a troll? Do you think spouting empty phrases without substance will convince me or anyone else that you are superior to the rest of us? I'm not going to go down this rabbit hole with you, and I doubt you would acknowledge it, but being pro human and pro civilization is a contradiction in terms. Even a cursory study of the social sciences demonstrates that. There is no form of existence more anti-human than civilization. The best thing that could happen to a human individual--if you claim pro-human values--is for civilization to end. It would also be better for the planet, which you don't care about (or more likely just flat out deny, preferring the rose colored glasses of your delusions instead). People who put humans on a pedestal--people who put civilization on a pedestal--are trading one form of elitism for another. Anthropocentrism, and more specifically cultural narcissism, is at the heart of tribalism, ethnocentrism, and one of the reasons why people are so divided. You go ahead and condemn me from your high horse as you fight the losing battle to prop up the banalities of modern existence. I choose to work for what's best for the planet and the humans on it, while doing to with the realization that humans and human endeavors are, quite frankly, not the point.
"Our experience set a dangerous precedent of a self-righteous 'mob mentality' toward people who entertain unpopular positions."
To the contrary, if there's a mob mentality it exists among the MAGA and MAGA-adjacent culture warriors who continue to litigate the spurious and conspiratorial claims of abuse by America's public heath establishment and other people and institutions charged with protecting health and life during the pandemic.
There was no great scheme to use (or launch!) the pandemic subjugate the pubic for nefarious ends or any end in particular. Such charges are the product of bad faith, fear mongering, anti-government agendas and fevered imaginations, among other things.
It is disappointing see that FAIR is recommending this reductionist grand narrative about the pandemic that serves only to undermine faith in American institutions, science and expertise. Furthermore, linking an unhinged interpretation of the national response to the pandemic to the fight against DEI and related ideologies harms those causes by undermining their credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of reasonable people.
Sorry, I'm not buying it. This is culture war stuff that feeds and feeds off conspiracy theories. There is no excuse for front-line personnel not to be vaccinated and those who refused to on ethical grounds elevated their own ideological purity over the welfare of society. While physical and emotional abuse are never justified, in a public health emergency it is perfectly legitimate to stigmatize noncompliance with reasonable and effective public heath measures.
It was about a year after the start of the pandemic before vaccines became available, and by then it was pretty clear that young healthy people were at little risk of serious illness. (See the Great Barrington Declaration, which the CDC attacked, demonized, and tried to suppress). Yet many state and federal agencies tried to insist that everyone, regardless of age or whether they were already immune, get a novel vaccine that, while fairly effective short term, was also a rushed, experimental technology with unknown long term effects and many reports of odd side effects.
I am in my 70s, so I got vaccinated (later that year, I got Covid anyway). My 3 grown children in their 30s, did not get vaccinated. Both daughters are of the age to start families, and positively did not want to take medications that might have negative effects on a pregnancy. One was a hospital nurse who worked right through the early epidemic and got Covid herself. In spite of already having disease antibodies, she was later ordered to get vaccinated anyway, and she wound up quitting instead. Perfectly sensible decision in my opinion. Many other doctors and nurses who could afford to made the choice to quit or retire early rather than be subjected to unnecessary and potentially harmful vaccinations.
More than anything, the active suppression of contrary views and alternative treatments, the ruthless canceling and firing and demonizing of every dissenter, the lies about the need for masks (unless you were a leftist protester), the seemingly endless demands for “emergency” powers, and the politicians hypocritically ignoring the rules they set for everyone else has brought us to the sad point of distrusting much of what we hear from the institutions that are supposed to be protecting us. With good reason.
"...we risk surrendering our collective humanity to forces that may have no concern for our welfare."
There is not any question about "may". There is no concern - NONE - for our welfare on the part of people who demand our subservience during the emergency they contrived.
How was the COVID-19 emergency contrived?
COVID-19 wasn’t contrived, but the threat it represented most certainly was. Very few people - and by people I mean the experts who we trust to guide us in these situations - were able to keep their heads about them and assess the risk rationally. Some did, most notably the health minister of Sweden, and a handful of other leaders, including governors castigated at the time as mass killers.
Yes - people were scared - there was a lot of uncertainty - but that is precisely when we need our experts to speak and act modestly and precisely. Few did, since it was much safer to their reputation to adopt the most extreme risk aversion possible rather than admit to uncertainty or cop to early errors in a forthright way. The price of this cowardice and arrogance has been catastrophic: the public no longer trusts institutions like the CDC and the WHO, and I can’t say I blame them.
It's worth noting that during the Trump administration the White House interposed itself between the experts and the public in order to manipulate the message for partisan political purposes. Furthermore, conspiracy theorists and other bad-faith actors have been spreading false and misleading information to discredit the nation's public health institutions and the leading figures associated with them. I have very little trust in most of what you are saying.
Nor should you trust me. The relevant question is: do you trust the CDC and the WHO?
“It was like The Handmaids Tale, without the crimson frocks and white bonnets.“ I stopped reading after this. You get why it’s a ridiculous comparison, right? No state sanctioned rape, misogyny etc
You stopped reading when you encountered something (a simile, to be precise) with which you disagreed? Ok.
Everything Margaret Attwood wrote stemmed from something happening in the real world.
Rat Own, Monica!!!!#
Agreed: No one is safe in a society that thrives on fear and vaccination
Our time to shine? One can hope I suppose, but historically we are accelerating to a cataclysm. French Revolution? Holocaust? Stalin level genocide? America's third civil war? World absorption into WWIII?
There is so much wrong that most human kind is incapable of picking a priority to correct the path to peace. I have spent a lifetime fighting and dealing with the fallout of societal failures...in other countries and regions. This period we reside in is worse than the 60's and the 90's in America.
People must act, take to the streets, not for a "cause" but for the "us", holistically. People like you, and others here have to find ways to influence the entire body, not the tribes, not the labels, but the people into action. None of our so called leaders is up to the task. Hope...is not a course of action. Violence is becoming the way ahead; history has shown us that actions and over corrections are in the cards.
Well done Monica.
Well said.
More and more I try not to react quickly to the “ outrages”. To be measured in my response and know that even when I don’t agree with someone they mean well as I do. Nuance gets lost in social media.
Does Russell Rickford represent "social justice elites"?
Yes, as do most progressive professors at American colleges and universities.
The one thing I find lacking in this article is nuance. Is ANY criticism of the actions of the current Israeli government automatically antisemitic? What if the person criticizing Netanyahu's actions believes that his attempts to exterminate Palestinians will hurt, rather than help, Israel in the long term? IMO saving Israel requires smart, courageous diplomacy (I know, US doesn't do diplomacy), rather than indiscriminate violence. Does that make me an antiSemite?
No one said, certainly not Monica, that criticizing the Netanyahu government, or Netanyahu himself is antisemitic or even wrong (a majority of the Israeli people have been criticizing him very harshly, and rightfully so). What is wrong is to say that there was any justification whatsoever for the Hamas terrorist massacre on October 7. Furthermore, no one wants to "exterminate" Palestinians, this is Iranian/Hamas propaganda, nothing more, and spreading, this propaganda lie is wrong and antisemitic. Finally no one is asked to "save Israel", diplomatically or otherwise, and the ONLY indiscriminate violence in this case was committed by Hamas terrorist murderers. The IDF has been trying hard to minimize civilian causalities, more than any army at war in history.
Monica, you know I love your articles, and that you're one of my heroes, but I must agree with Daily Growler on this. Many non-Zionist Jews, both inside and outside of Israel, are opposing Netanyahu and his lunatic ethnocentric government for their oppressive actions towards Gaza that resulted in Hamas coming into existence in the first place, and none of them are in any way justifying what Hamas did. Nor are others on the Classical Left like myself.
Also, why did you not mention the 8,000 mostly innocent Palestinians massacred by Israel's "retaliation," including the 800 killed in the bombing of the refugee camp, which included many children? Or its shutting off water and electricity to Gaza? And I know Bari Weiss has opposed the SJW mentality, but I've read her work and she's a Zionist, which makes her a hypocrite IMO because the Zionists are among the most fervent promoters of the Perpetual Victim Card that justifies any type of behavior, including demands for censorship, as long as they claim it's done on "behalf" of the Jewish people. They're connecting Zionism with Jewish people is not only the cause of much real anti-Semitism in the world, but it's now being used as the next step in provoking World War III that the U.S. Military Industrial Complex wants so badly to happen.
Please read my article urging the working class to NOT take sides between Zionism and Islamic fundamentalism, but to oppose both and strive for the peaceful unification of the Jewish and Palestinian people. Nothing about that calls for the slaughter of any group of people on the supposed behalf of another group.
lhttps://lightningpress.substack.com/p/we-need-to-stop-picking-sides-between
If you studied history you would know that antisemitism predates Zionism by many centuries. On that 8000 massacred innocent Palestinians: the number itself is coming from Hamas, hence it has to be taken with a huge grain of salt, as Hamas has been known to lie about these things (see the vastly exaggerated number of deaths at the hospital parking lot which was caused by one of their misfiring rocket but they blamed it on Israel). Same regarding "innocent", as there is no credible data on how many of the dead are actually Hamas terrorists, who are the target of Israel's justified military response to the October 7 massacre. As for the goal of "peaceful unification" of the Israeli and Palestinian people: what do you mean on unification? The goal should be an Israeli and a Palestinian state living peacefully next to each other, i.e., two state solution, but that cannot happen until Hamas is not eliminated both in Gaza and on the West Bank, as Hamas explicitly refuses to live in peace next to Israel, now or any time in the future. Their stated goal is to eliminate Israel.
Make that the slaughter of 8000 innocent Palestinians by the refusal of Hamas to let civilians get out of the way, and the refusal of surrounding Arab nations to take in Gazan refugees. The population of Gaza is approximately 2.23 million, according to a quick web search. A separate web search states 3.8 million illegal immigrants have crossed into the USA since 2021. Why can't the Arab states take in refugees? Why can't Hamas fight like men and stop using children as shields? Why can't people acknowledge the State of Israel? Why can't Hamas remove from their charter the goal of the destruction of Israel?
This^^ I ran across this the other day. It was compelling: https://www.instagram.com/reel/CzLXjxwoXxE/
I'll answer your questions BeadleBlog, along with asking one or two of my own. All of which will cement my point that we should not be taking sides between an ethnocentric ideology and a fundamentalist religious belief system.
"Make that the slaughter of 8000 innocent Palestinians by the refusal of Hamas to let civilians get out of the way, and the refusal of surrounding Arab nations to take in Gazan refugees."
Why didn't the Israeli government itself do that, since it launched the attack? Why pass the buck onto other Arab states, i.e., "either you take these people in as we drive them out of their land, or we're gonna slaughter 'em. So, it'll be your fault if they die, not ours!"
Why didn't Netanyahu cancel that rave where 1,400 innocent Jewish people were killed when both the U.S. and Egyptian governments warned him that Hamas would likely be striking there? The answer is obvious: Netanyahu sacrificed those people because he wanted working class folk like ourselves across the West to get so emotionally overwrought that they would give him a blank check to do whatever he wanted in return, which is to claim all of Gaza for Israel, and provoke tensions with Iran and other Middle Eastern nations to incite the U.S. into backing them for the war with Iran that both countries have wanted for so long as another step towards starting World War III to bring the highly profitable policy of perpetual war to the next level. The proxy war in Ukraine meant to antagonize Russia and the posturing in Taiwan to antagonize China, along with the other non-stop wars in the Middle East being fought over the past 20 years, weren't cutting it anymore.
The "human shield" excuse is a poor one, since Israel has pretty much done the same thing. Most legit Hamas agents are hiding out in tunnels that could be raided by law enforcement experts. A military "solution" to terrorism is a bad idea for actually stopping terrorists, let alone preventing the conditions for new ones to be created... and both Netanyahu and those psychopathic war-mongers in the White House & Congress know this.
"Why can't the Arab states take in refugees?"
The Arab states are far smaller than even most European states, with considerably less resources available as they are Third World countries, not wealthy nations like the Western G8 countries.
So, why can't Europe take these refugees in? They will claim that the cultural differences cause them to rape women who dress scantily as "punishment" or attack LGBTs, but that is all nonsense propaganda. I live around many Muslim Arabs in my inner city neighborhood, and they tend to behave just fine around women, non-Muslims, and LGBTs etc when they are denied disproportionate power over others. They tend to liberalize in their views over time. Many of them open and run small businesses that are useful to the inner city citizens.
Better yet, why doesn't Israel stop bombing them and turning so many of them into refugees and peacefully integrate them in with the Jewish people, in a more egalitarian system that prevents both Sharia Law and Zionism from going into practice? Nothing would strip Hamas of its teeth faster than that. People do not hate simply for the sake of hating; they do it when they are forced to live in adverse conditions and denied equal access to the resources.
"Why can't people acknowledge the State of Israel?"
Because many egalitarians like myself who want peace for all groups in the working class, which includes many non-Zionist Jews both within and outside of Israel, do not support an ethnocentric apartheid system like Zionism. We believe that is the absolute *wrong* lesson to take from the Holocaust. Ethnocentric ideologies lead to repressive authoritarian nations and separatist policies that divide people against each other, much as we saw when the Aryans also did it. We need to live together in peace. That is not to mention what the State of Israel have done with the Palestinians who lived there, which is force them into what is essentially an open-air concentration camp. Again, did the Zionists learn nothing from the Holocaust?
"Why can't Hamas remove from their charter the goal of the destruction of Israel?"
Because the Israeli government keeps fanning the flames with their separatist policies, which is costing both innocent Jewish people and innocent Palestinians their lives, and is now contributing towards World War III.
"Netanyahu sacrificed those people because he wanted working class folk like ourselves across the West to get so emotionally overwrought that they would give him a blank check to do whatever he wanted in return"
That's quite a conspiracy theory.
Amazing the way people can rationalize and fabricate to their own ends. Pretty much no point in engaging with any of this.
It's hardly a "conspiracy theory" when the evidence is there. Not wanting to believe that to valorize a right-wing capitalist war-monger who is complicit with the U.S. Military Industrial Complex as some type of altruistic champion or protector of Jewish people is where the blinders truly are, Scott. I think the actual rationalizing is on the end of those trying to keep the Zionist machine going because of the misplaced emotional appeal it has for some people in a manner disturbingly similar to how the SJW mentality fills the same emotional role for Mainstream Liberals. Both are forms of identity politics, and there is nothing altruistic or noble about them.
It is well known that Netanyahu was warned by both U.S. and Egyptian intelligence officials about Hamas's planned attack on that rave in Israel. And funny how his not doing anything about it, like canceling the rave, happened to play right into his hands by getting Zionists across the world riled into an emotional frenzy in a sadly predictable manner, enough to demand vengeance, fully dehumanize the people of Palestine, and turn a blind eye towards the Israeli government finally razing Gaza to take full control of the land. And, of course, to receive a blank check of a financial sort from the U.S. government to carry this out, which just so happens to further the desire of U.S. capitalists to keep the destructive but profitable Military Industrial Complex going via taking another step towards provoking World War III -- especially since they needed a new war after the proxy war against Russia through Ukraine is rapidly losing steam.
Netanyahu was confident that the Zionist sycophants all over the globe would interpret the brutal and vengeful killing of thousands of Palestinian civilians while hardly touching anyone directly involved with Hamas as "Israel's right to protect itself" and "protecting Jewish people" -- despite the fact that thousands and thousands of non-Zionist, egalitarian Jewish people are laudably opposing Netanyahu on this and various recent authoritarian actions against the citizens of Israel itself, both within and outside the nation's borders.
What Netanyahu did is a common military tactic that is hardly a conspiracy; a fanciful conspiracy theory has to be outrageous with no evidence to back it up in order to be dismissed as likely falsehood. This situation is anything but implausible.
As I noted, the reliable demands for vengeance-driven war by Zionists around the world was something Netanyahu could obviously count on, but what did surprise him, no doubt, was the non-Zionists of the world, including many former unconditional supporters of Israel, clearly seeing this as the actions of an unhinged autocrat whose main interests are expanding his own power at any cost while hiding behind the virtue shield of being some kind of superhero protector of the Jewish people. They are all shedding their previous fear of being labeled "antisemitic" for opposing Zionism.
I believe this worldwide, mass opposition to Zionism paves a better future for both the Jewish and Palestinian peoples, as well as individuals from any other demographic who could potentially get caught in the crossfire of a mad perpetual war for power between two corrupt ideologies. War-profiteers in the capitalist class certainly want this, and Zionists from the working class are too emotionally overwrought to oppose it... but no one else is in favor of it.
Nice DARVO to try and cover for the Hamas tactic of sacrificing the people of Gaza to get the activists emotionally wrought. The Arab states aren't refusing to form temporary refugee camps for Gazans because of lack of "space." They have long refused them because they don't want the problem, as they have experience with the terrorists turning on their benefactors. Black September was a lesson for Jordan. By the way, Hussein targeted and bombed civilians indiscriminately during Black September. Anyone who refers to Israel as an "apartheid" state, a state where all citizens have the same rights, is not serious and sickens me as it belittles what actual apartheid looks like. The use of something akin to "some of my best friends are (fill in the blank)" is also telling. You apparently lump the Muslim Americans in your neighborhood with all Muslims. Talk about stereotyping. I, a sheep farmer, have Muslim customers and my husband and I have even had the customers invite us to attend the mosque. In my younger days I dated a Muslim and I've met many other Muslims over my lifetime. They are not all one big lump and they are not all created equal, pretty much like any other "group." Some would have slit my throat. The Arab terrorists that have been in control have rejected a two-state solution 3 times. Name one time where IDF soldiers were hiding in hospitals, schools and the homes of families. Name one time when the IDF specifically targeted children for torture and murder. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks
"Nice DARVO to try and cover for the Hamas tactic of sacrificing the people of Gaza to get the activists emotionally wrought."
I'm covering up nothing, my friend, as I acknowledged it and showed the concern for the innocent Jewish people killed as well as the innocent Palestinians. Understanding the cause of a terrorist cell like Hamas coming into existence is not tantamount to apologizing for it or supporting it. It's trying to understand the causes so it can be prevented in the future.
"The Arab states aren't refusing to form temporary refugee camps for Gazans because of lack of "space." They have long refused them because they don't want the problem, as they have experience with the terrorists turning on their benefactors."
And you consider the Zionist Israeli government to be a "benefactor," by forcing them to live in such conditions and then dropping bombs on them regularly, and shooting at them when they attempt to make peaceful protests. So, you actually think Hamas attacks various groups "just because" that's what terrorists do. No, terrorists arise because of adverse conditions raised against a certain group of people, and this results in a cycle of violence that hurts everyone.
"By the way, Hussein targeted and bombed civilians indiscriminately during Black September. "
That was Kurdish civilians, using weapons the U.S. gave him and turned a blind eye to as long as he was using them against Iran, and as long as he wasn't using them against any target important to the U.S. business interests.
"Anyone who refers to Israel as an "apartheid" state, a state where all citizens have the same rights, is not serious and sickens me as it belittles what actual apartheid looks like."
Only people who are of Jewish descent have equal rights in Israel. Zionism is entirely about Jewish supremacy, which is why so many decent Jewish people along with anyone else who is against the concept of an ethnocracy due to many tragic lessons imposed by history oppose the ideology. What sickens me, my friend, is anyone who can ignore the lessons of history and support an ethno-cratic apartheid state that oppresses a whole people in the "name" of Jewish people. Talking about using others as a shield! That is why many liberal Jewish people, including Jewish People for Peace, are against Zionism.
"The use of something akin to "some of my best friends are (fill in the blank)" is also telling."|
Because I actually respect people who show respect for others regardless of their ethnicity or beliefs? I think your issue with that, and comparing such a sentiment with a phrase attributed to bigots, is very telling.
"You apparently lump the Muslim Americans in your neighborhood with all Muslims."
I am doing no such "lumping." I am pointing to how Muslims behave within the context of a nominal democratic framework that does not allow Sharia Law (or any type of theocracy) to be opposed. If Muslims grow up and operate in a state that imposes Sharia Law on everyone who lives there, then yes, they will behave differently and have less motivation to liberalize their thinking.
"I, a sheep farmer, have Muslim customers and my husband and I have even had the customers invite us to attend the mosque. In my younger days I dated a Muslim and I've met many other Muslims over my lifetime. They are not all one big lump and they are not all created equal, pretty much like any other "group.""
See my previous point, which doesn't disagree with yours so much as putting your statement in its proper context. And Zionism is every bit as bad as fundamentalist Muslim sects, as both are based on separatist and supremacist ideas. A peaceful integration of the two peoples, along with allowing many other groups to also live there peacefully within a democratic framework that honors no ethnocentric or fundamentalist ideology, would result in no one oppressing anyone else.
"Some would have slit my throat. The Arab terrorists that have been in control have rejected a two-state solution 3 times."
First of all, the Zionist Israeli government (note that I never say "the Jews") turned down the offer of a ceasefire by Hamas:
https://www.businessinsider.com/hamas-gaza-offer-50-hostages-5-day-ceasefire-israel-rejected-2023-11
... and also from increasing international demands for a cease-fire due to Netanyahu's increasingly psychotic behavior and demands, something many Jewish people do not want enacted in their name:
https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-news-11-11-2023-d4d272416107c02e63dabd9548395026
... especially after this brutal IDF attack on the main hospital in Gaza, which has turned the French government fully against Israel:
https://www.euronews.com/2023/11/11/israel-hamas-war-gaza-hospitals-at-breaking-point-as-macron-urges-israel-to-stop-bombings
Secondly, the two-state solution would not result in two separate but equal states, because the "separate but equal" conception never works out in practice, as history will also readily attest. This is why I support a one-state solution that respects all ethnic groups will maintaining a truly democratic (meaning, non-ethno-centric) framework that will respect neither Zionism nor Sharia Law. It will still have capitalism, which sucks, but that is a problem for the international working class to solve another day.
"Some would have slit my throat."
I'm sure the IDF would be friendly to a non-Jewish person like me if I was standing among a rally of many progressive, non-Zionist Jewish people protesting the attacks on Gaza right in front of Netanyahu's luxurious mansion that most working class people of all ethnic groups (including Jewish citizens living in Israel) could only dream of residing in:
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/protesters-outside-israeli-pm-netanyahus-house-anger-grows-2023-11-04/
Few want Hamas around, but a growing number of people, including the many decent Jewish people within and outside of Israel, are getting sick of Zionism and it's being the catalyst for such terrorist cells. I think they would agree with me that nothing should sicken one more than defending a nutcase like Netanyahu:
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/protesters-outside-israeli-pm-netanyahus-house-anger-grows-2023-11-04/
"Name one time where IDF soldiers were hiding in hospitals, schools and the homes of families."
How about the time when the IDF shot innocent, peaceful Palestinian protesters?
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2019/02/no-justification-israel-shoot-protesters-live-ammunition
"Name one time when the IDF specifically targeted children for torture and murder."
Except those reports are a bunch of hyper-exaggerated bullshit irresponsibly reported throughout the press, which have only one IDF soldier as their source, and this one only told a pro-Zionist reporter that he "heard" these things, and which even the IDF refuted:
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/despite-refutations-from-israeli-military-headlines-that-hamas-beheaded-babies-persist/3016167
Which the Israeli government itself reported that it cannot confirm:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/12/middleeast/israel-hamas-beheading-claims-intl/index.html
Which a mainstream news outlet like NBC refuted as having no evidence behind it:
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/unverified-allegations-beheaded-babies-israel-hamas-war-inflame-social-rcna119902
And the White House is even "walking back" Biden's blatant lie (typical for him) that he actually saw pics of babies beheaded by Hamas:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/12/white-house-walks-back-bidens-claim-he-saw-children-beheaded-by-hamas
... but which Zionists like yourself continue to believe whole-heartedly because you want it to be true.
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks"
The above I can counter with this gem of information:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_strikes_and_Palestinian_casualties_in_the_2014_Gaza_War
These continued brutal attacks on Gaza are only going to create more and more recruits for Hamas and other terrorist cells in the future, as well as fuel real anti-Semitism across the world. Egalitarians like myself do not want this, which is why we oppose both Zionism and Islamic fundamentalist-based terror.
You sound like a typical bothsideist. Yes, innocent Israelis, including babies, women and old people, not to mention Americans and other foreigners, were brutally and intentionally murdered by Hamas terrorists. Trying to equate this with the unintended civilian causalities of Israel's justified military response is not only unconscionable, but also contrary to international law and the Geneva convention.
You are not my friend, and I'll go in a coma if I listen to any more of your fantastical, alternate-reality. You are in the same class as a Holocaust denier.
In the early stage of AIDS pandemic people were rejecting their friends too. During plague it was the same.
“the lengths to which people will go to keep themselves safe and be seen as good citizens” -- I would’ve put “safe” in scare quotes here. While it does still seem that, for some populations, being vaccinated may have reduced the risk of death or serious illness, clearly this should’ve been a individual choice (or between a person and her/his doctor, to borrow a phrase).
And at this point I cringe to see the highly educated people I work with continue to wear masks to the office, or rush to get themselves and their families vaxxed/boosted ASAP.
And yes, in that same period, people have become far more willing to vilify those who don’t share their beliefs (on COVID, politics, whatever). At the office we’re all vaxxed and boosted at least once (a condition of our continued employment) but let’s just say I’ve been pretty quiet about not having gotten any subsequent shots. And heaven forbid anyone admit to having voted Republican, at any level, in the past few years.
As a GenXer this all just saddens me so much. I really thought the world had turned a corner when the Berlin Wall fell. Sadly, we seem to have taken a very wrong turn after 9/11. Not sure what to do to turn things around again.
Fellow GenXer and free thinker here. I've been quiet about avoiding additional boosters as well in spite of leaning left. I think the "highly educated" tend to trust "experts" with credentials even though these people can be just as ideological and political as those less learned. Plus, lemmings, ya know...
As a fellow Gen Xer I’ve heard our motto is life’s a bitch and then you die...seems about right
As long as class divided society continues, the ruling class can always find ways to undo any social progress we make, including under the guise of promoting further social progress. This will continue in unending cycles for as long as we continue to leave capitalists in charge and their uber-competitive, dog-eat-dog system intact.