The Moral & Intellectual Degeneracy of Zionism

 

There's been a few things I've wanted to post but lack of time and energy have prevented me from doing so.  One essay had already been started a couple of days ago.  However, Caitlin Johnstone posted about the astonishing utterances of serial Democrap speechwriter Sarah Hurwitz at something called the Jewish Federations of North America Assembly last weekend:

Former Obama speechwriter Sarah Hurwitz made some very revealing remarks during an appearance at the Jewish Federations of North America General Assembly on Sunday, expressing frustration with the way younger Jews are dismissing pro-Israel arguments because of the carnage they’ve seen in Gaza.

Shooting Starving Children in the Head is Always & Everywhere Wrong (and other thoughts)

 

SHOOTING STARVING CHILDREN IN THE HEAD

Israel has declared that it wants to expel all the Palestinians from Gaza and take it over themselves.  It hasn't said the exact same thing as consistently and brazenly about the Palestinians in the West Bank, but the "facts on the ground" demonstrate that that's the intention there as well.  Both ethnically cleansing Gaza and the West Bank would seem to make the "two-state solution" that revolting Western liberals continue to yammer about something of an impossibility.

Israel has declared that no food or medicine or any other humanitarian supplies will enter Gaza.  They are going to starve the population out.  Indeed, Israel's ordinary zionist-nutbar citizens have made festival days out of blocking entrances to Gaza to prevent humanitarian aid into the Strip.  

Because ordinary Palestinians in Gaza did not "rise up" and overthrow their Hamas government, it means there are no innocents in Gaza.  Because Hamas is a "terrorist" organization.  Corrupt, empty-headed, vermin Melanie Joly said so.  Whereas the murderous, nazi Israeli Child-Killing Force (ICKF) isn't.  

But the well-armed ICKF has had two years to destroy Hamas and they haven't done it.  But untrained, unarmed Gazan Palestinians were expected to do so.

Of course, widespread support for the actions of successive mass-murdering, fascist Israeli governments by the Israeli population means that there are no innocents in Israel either.  (Do you see how that works?)

There is video evidence and personal testimonies of Israeli snipers deliberately shooting Palestinian children in the head.  These are children they are deliberately starving coming to food distribution centers that have been set up as kill-zones.  (Doctors in Gaza say that they notice that ICKF snipers often make a sport of it to shoot a different body-part on different days.)

And still almost all Western politicians support Israel while making nauseating complaints about "rising antisemitism."

Hamas's operation on October 7th, 2023 was intended to capture Israeli hostages to exchange for Palestinian hostages.  [Taking hostages, suicide bombings, firing missiles that you know might kill civilians, all these actions are illegal.  So is killing a rich man who has bribed everyone in town to look the other way after he killed your loved ones and stole everything you owned.  Sometimes the law is just something you mention in passing.  Palestinians wouldn't have to break the law if the West didn't allow Israel to break the law with impunity for seven decades.]

Aside from the fact that Naziyahoo knew Al Aqsa Flood was going to happen, and that he and the ICKF did everything that they could to increase the carnage, ... I also don't think that Hamas expected the full-on genocidal Israeli response.

Hamas' Stunning Victory - Ted Rall's Rallblog

Correctly predicting the massive scale of the onslaught Israel would unleash following the October 7th attack, Hamas created stockpiles of missiles fabricated from dud Israeli ordnance and constructed a sophisticated tunnel system to allow it to move fighters and equipment throughout the war without having to worry much about the IDF. Hamas hoped its regional Iranian-backed allies in the Middle East, the Axis of Resistance, including Hezbollah and the regime of then-Syrian ruler Bashar al-Assad, would open a multifront war against Israel, but they never viewed hope as a plan. After Hezbollah demurred and was itself nevertheless decimated by Israeli airstrikes and a vicious pager attack, Hamas carried on solo, with the exception of distant support from Yemen’s Houthis.

...

Job one was making a big splash. It was necessary to “change the entire equation and not just have a clash,” Khalil al-Hayya, top Hamas official, told The New York Times a month after the start of the war “We succeeded in putting the Palestinian issue back on the table, and now no one in the region is experiencing calm.” Hamas wasn’t merely willing to sacrifice the lives of its fellow Palestinians in order to achieve them. Provoking the Israelis to kill Gazans—the more the better—was an essential part of their plan.

I disagree.  I cannot believe that Hamas was planning on Israel to respond with full-on genocide and that the resulting losses of life would be acceptable by some sort of ruthless calculus.  Al Asqa Flood was an act of desperation.  It looked like the degenerate Arab puppet-monarchies were going to abandon the Palestinians to their fate and recognize Israel and all of its claims.  Obviously Hamas expected some sort of brutal retaliation from Israel for their attack.  Perhaps a massive bombing campaign for a week or a month.  Perhaps a limited ICKF incursion into Gaza.  But I don't think they counted on Naziyahoo cynically abandoning the Israeli hostages to their fate and testing the patience/conscience/whatever of the genuine, actual "international community."

I'm speculating, but perhaps Hamas knew that the Israelis knew about their plans, but they resolved to carry the out anyway, because (as I said before, with the aforementioned abandonment of their cause by their fellow Arabs) they were desperate.  Certainly they would not believe the cold-blooded cynicism of Naziyahoo and the ICKF to slaughter their own people as they did on October 7th, simply to blame those deaths on the savagery of Hamas.

Whatever the case, Naziyahoo's and Israel's genocidal racism has been displayed for all the world and the majority of traditionally Democratic voters reject them, as do the majority of younger Republicans.  And the majority of non-affiliated US-American voters (who now comprise the majority of the electorate as both the mainstream parties have been wallowing in shit for decades) reject Israel even more strongly.

THE DANGEROUS DELUSIONS OF US-AMERICAN GEO-POLITICAL STRATEGISTS

My next thoughts are a response to this right-wing, pro-Trump [sorta] blogger who opposes the globalist "Forever Wars."

Think-Tanks Wrestle with Russian Strategic Dilemma

In it, he discusses an article from some pro-war "defense-industry" (now "war-industry" thanks to DJT?) geo-political analyist, advising his neo-con readers about how the USA can navigate the perilous years ahead:

One of their latest pieces covers Washington’s strategic dilemma—namely, that of having to face three simultaneous adversaries in Iran, Russia, and China:

You can see it mentions a two-front war, only because the analysis immediately dismisses Iran as having already been putatively ‘removed’ from the chessboard by way of Trump’s even more putative strikes on Iran’s nuclear program, beginning thusly from the openly sentence:

America’s crippling strikes against Iran’s nuclear program in June have created a narrow window to avoid a strategic nightmare: namely, fighting China, Russia, and Iran all at once.

...

The chief challenge the author presents is in the form of the question: How do you deter or defeat both Russia and China simultaneously without exhausting your resources? He calls his solution ‘sequencing the threats’:

These competing threats spotlight America’s “strategic simultaneity” problem: How do you deter and, if necessary, defeat China and Russia simultaneously without exhausting your nation’s resources, power, and attention? You don’t. Instead, you sequence the threats.

He cites ancient powers as having famously utilized this art of ‘sequencing’, which is just a fancy way of describing the defeat of your enemies one at a time instead of fighting them all at once, with the kicker being that you start with the weakest and work your way up to the strongest:

Of course, it never occurs to these maniacs that perhaps Russia and China don't want to conquer the world?  It never occurs to these imbeciles that it is the USA that wants to dominate the planet!  Whatever the case is with Russia and the rest of the Russian federation, or with places like Crimea that are ethnically Russian and which have convoluted past relationships with Russia, ... and whatever the case is with China and Taiwan [I once met a woman from Taiwan who said she thought of herself as "Taiwanese" and I just took it as a rare <for me> glimpse at the complexities of the issue.] or China and the non-Chinese minorities in some of its outer-provinces, these matters do not necessitate nuclear war because those countries and the USA because their resolution (one way or another) does not threaten the USA.

Besides, the USA has its own imperialism to deal with.  Its own imperialism to give up and atone for, before it should attack other countries about those countries' imperialisms.  Russia, China, Iran, ... these countries are not threats to ordinary people in the West.  Our own oligarchs are a more present danger.  There is nothing to choose from between the debased and evil West and the weirdo rulers of its adversaries.

THE DECLINE OF THE WEST (SERIOUS SYMPTOMS & CONSEQUENCES)

Has China Put America Into the pre-WWII “Japan Trap?” – Ian Welsh

Here, Welsh says that the USA's reliance on China for rare earth materials is similar to Japan's reliance on US petroleum in 1941.  When the USA blocked the export of oil (and scrap metal) to Japan, to punish it for its invasion of China, the Japanese decided that their only option was to conquer those areas in East Asia (especially the Dutch East Indies) that had oil.  Destroying the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour and eliminating the US military presence in the Philippines was necessary to delay the USA's ability to retaliate.

Welsh points out that the difference is that whereas the Japanese had almost instant access to those sources of oil, it is estimated that it will take the USA many years to build up the processing capabilities to obtain alternative rare earths from other countries.  And, given that rare earths are essential for modern weapons systems the USA could conceivably be in a worse position than Japan was in 1941.

China is getting stronger over time. Everyone with sense admits that. Even before the rare-earth ban it was clear that the West is growing weaker. In ten years, let alone twenty, no one will be able to pretend America can win a war against China.

So the rare earths ban means that if the US wants war against China, it has to be soon. Within a year, I’d say.

Note that this isn’t just about China. The West supplies Ukraine and Israel, for example, with weapons which have tons (literally) of rare earths in them. The ability to keep doing this is being taken away.

Heck, forget arming proxies, the West won’t be able to produce enough missiles and drones and radar and so on for its own military needs, meaning its ability to project power and keep other nations cowed and in line will go way down.

This miscalculation on the part of the Trump Administration is a symptom of the collective cognitive decline of the USA (and the West in general):

But the reason that America officials are freaking out about the rare earth ban is it really does matter. That America and the West let themselves get into the position is insane, people (including me) were pointing out this vulnerability twenty years ago. But if there’s one thing the West can’t do any more it’s definitely think beyond three months or “but China’s rare earths are cheaper, so we can’t do anything!!!!!”

A sick system produces sick leaders.  A sick, decaying system throws up sick, decaying leaders.  The USA's government is full of octogenarians, many (such as Joseph Biden and Dianne Feinstein) are/were visibly senile.  Besides the senile, corrupt Biden, there is the demented, perverted, super-corrupt Donald Trump.  Trump is the product of the deliberate FOX News/Rush Limbaugh rage and stupidity machine.  Which itself is the product of economic decline and the elite desire to turn the majority of the population against chosen scapegoats.

But even functioning, middle-aged politicians remain stupidly wedded to their garbage culture of oligarchy and genocide.  Despite decades of failure and subsequent decline both of Canada's mainstream parties push for deregulation, tax-cuts for billionaires, slashing of public services, privatization, wars and genocide.  I'm convinced now that the stupid Liberal Party of Canada genuinely believes its own lies.  They actually think Israel is a democracy fighting for its existence rather than a genocidal, racist, degenerate shit-hole of a country.  They actually believe that crushing unions and destroying wages and etc., is the way to prosperity (because it increases the profits of the corporations and the wealth of the oligarchs which gives them more to "invest" and "create jobs") and they aren't going to allow the explosion of homelessness and the repeated "investment" in garbage like mortgage-backed securities or AI that inevitably explodes in their faces requiring government bail-outs, to change their minds.

It's the same with China.  China didn't steal our jobs.  Our oligarchs gave them to China.  China might have done some currency manipulation and what-not, but for the most part, our oligarchs put themselves in the position they are in.  Short-sighted and deluded, they are only now discovering their peril and, being greedy and stupid, they're responding poorly.

RIGHT-WING SHIT-HEADS

Lastly, some shit-head at work (who reads Ben Shapiro and watches FOX News) was saying the other day: "When it's hotter they blame global warming and when it's colder they blame global warming.  It's all politicized."

Global warming is a genuine, gigantic threat.  And, while the fossil fuels interests can simply bribe and bully neoliberal politicians to delay action to fight it, it does help if they have hordes of stupid, misinformed chumps braying like jack-asses about how global warming is a hoax.

There is no question but that AVERAGE world temperatures are rising.  Glaciers are retreating all over the globe.  Permafrost is melting in the arctic.  Heat records are being broken all over the planet.  That these massive developments might produce something like, say, the Polar Vortex, which drags colder air down from the north, temporarily producing extreme cold in places like Southern Ontario, is something deluded right-wing imbeciles can't or won't process.

It's infuriating having to endure such rank stupidity.  All around there are shit-heads defending genocide.  Racist fucks online jabbering about immigration turning Canada into a "Third-World" country.  Ignoramuses who believe that the homeless encampments in all of our cities are evidence of a "hand-out culture" when, obviously the opposite is the case.  Working class people voting for Doug Ford because he sounds like they do, even though his corruption is so brazen and his failure so evident.

Such is humanity.  I can't really say that our wiping ourselves out will be that much of a tragedy.

Good Resource on USA's Foreign Hypocrisy

 From CommonDreams.Org:


Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US expanded NATO right up to Russia’s borders, violating multiple verbal promises given to Soviet leaders. The CIA and its sister organization, the NED, sponsored color revolutions in multiple former Soviet bloc countries. The CIA “engineered” the 2014 coup in Ukraine, according to former US Ambassador Chas W. Freeman. The US armed the Azov battalion that was killing Russian speakers in the east of Ukraine. (See also this and this.) In 2019, the RAND Corporation recommended arming Ukraine as the best way to weaken Russia; RAND predicted the actions would result in a war in which Russia would have the advantage. The New York Times and Washington Post reported on extensive CIA meddling in Ukraine since at least 2014. The New Yorker reported on CIA and National Security Agency efforts to hide what they had done in Ukraine.

Jack Matlock, former US ambassador the the USSR, said in a 2024 interview: “Why don’t we understand that trying to remove Ukraine from Russian influence and put military bases there would be, in their case, absolutely unacceptable and worthy of defense?” Matlock said the US backed the 2014 coup, and, “Obviously, to any Russian leader, not just Vladimir Putin, that would have been an absolutely impossible, hostile act, which they had to react to. And in particular, they were not going to lose their naval base in Crimea.” Finally, Matlock said the Ukrainians are “dominated in their thinking by neo-Nazis—we tend to ignore that, or when Putin points it out, we say he’s lying. He’s not lying.” And Matlock wrote: “I have been appalled that a succession of American presidents and European leaders discarded the diplomacy that ended the Cold War, abandoned the agreements that curbed the nuclear arms race, and provoked a new cold war which has now become hot.”

See this for dozens of mainstream news articles about the presence of Nazis in Ukraine and US support for them.

Lotsa links!

Liberals Trying to Destroy Canada Post

 

From one of Accidental Deliberations' helpful news round-up pages, this from André Frappier at Canadian Dimension about the federal Liberals' true intentions for Canada Post:

With the support of the CDPQ—known for its disregard for workers—Joly began a major expansion of the company’s operations. Since his purchase of Intelcom, the company has built sorting centres in Montréal and Toronto, representing investments of $31 million. During this period, the number of employees grew from 300 to 2,500, plus another 3,000 “independent” contractors—a euphemism for precarious gig workers.

Hamza Shehryar's Shitty Article

 

My last post was a response to an essay by one Hamza Shehryar.  Someone who writes about "film, culture, and global politics."  In the essay Shehryar insists that Israel didn't kill Charlie Kirk.  In fact, the "conspiracy theory" that Israel killed Kirk is harmful to the Left and to the anti-genocide movement in general, because it is not true, it is "antisemitic" and it helps to divide the anti-genocide movement.

Shehryar never explains how it's antisemitic.  Throughout the piece he admits that Israel assassinates lots of people.  He condemns Israel for all sorts of cruelties and barbarisms.  So, why the specific accusation that Israel murdered Charlie Kirk is antisemitic is entirely unclear.

He spends a bit of time explaining that Pestilence Naziyahoo repeatedly going on social media to deny any part of Charlie Kirk's assassination is proof that Naziyahoo/Israel didn't do it.  According to Shehryar, Naziyahoo is playing 5th-dimensional chess with the anti-genocide movement.  Naziyahoo is deliberately trolling when he gives oxygen to this false and antisemitic conspiracy theory with his constant professions of innocence.

Of course, if the theory ISN'T false, then it couldn't be antisemitic.  (How it's antisemitic in any case remains a mystery.  Again, Shehryar admits that Israel kills lots of people all the time.)

But Naziyahoo's 5th-dimensional chess playing is still brilliant because, according to Shehryar, Naziyahoo isn't stupid.  As I said in my own post, Naziyahoo might very well be stupid.  He might just be a corrupt, insane, stupid asshole possessed of ruthlessness and cunning.  Donald Trump, Stephen Harper, Doug Ford, ... hell, we all know of all sorts of people who are imbeciles who have clawed their way to the top of an insane system.

Here's Caitlin Johnstone on Naziyahoo's repeated claims of non-involvement:

One of the weirdest things happening right now is how Israel’s prime minister keeps going out of his way to make public statements saying that Israel was definitely not behind the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

In a two-minute video uploaded onto his Twitter account on Wednesday, Netanyahu complained that “Somebody has fabricated a monstrous big lie that Israel had something to do with Charlie Kirk’s horrific murder,” saying the allegation “is insane, it is false, it is outrageous,” and that “Charlie loved Israel.”

A few days earlier, Netanyahu appeared on the highly sympathetic Newsmax to spend another couple of minutes ranting about how “insane”, “stupid” and “ridiculous” it is to claim that Israel was behind Kirk’s death, saying he “can’t believe that people are saying that.”

This is like repeatedly going out in public to yell “I did not have a sex dream about my cousin!” so that nobody thinks you had a sex dream about your cousin. People are going to walk away with the strong impression that you probably had a sex dream about your cousin.

But the main prop to Shehryar's stupid essay is the fact that Charlie Kirk was a committed pro-Israel Christian zionist to the end of his life.

Some point towards a seemingly mysterious change in Kirk’s attitudes regarding Israel, even though, until the moment he was killed, he spoke candidly, often with joy, about his contentment at the destruction of Gaza and the killing of Palestinian civilians.

“I used to say: ‘If you, as a gay person, would go to Gaza, they would throw you off of tall buildings.’ Now they don’t have any tall buildings left,” he gleefully exclaimed at an event, not long before he was killed. He quickly followed that comment up with: “Maybe you shouldn’t kill Jews, stupid Muslims.” Is this the behaviour of someone so “anti-Israel” that they must be taken out?

The picture at the top of this post is the comedienne Gilda Radner, playing her character "Emily Litella."  I was just a wee lad when the first line-up of Saturday Night Live was on.  But I did recall Radner/Litella would speak at length about a subject that she'd misunderstood and when her mistake was pointed out to her, she'd stop cold, process it and smilingly tell the audience "Nevermind."  

Shehryar and St Clair have made as big a mistake as anything the fictional Emily Litella made but they don't have the sense of shame to simply stop.

Because the fact of the matter is that Kirk was planning on breaking with Israel.  Max Blumenthal at the Grayzone has a detailed summary of the subject covering three whole articles.

"Charlie Kirk refused Netanyahu ..."

Charlie Kirk rejected an offer earlier this year from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to arrange a massive new infusion of Zionist money into his Turning Point USA (TPUSA) organization, America’s largest conservative youth association, according to a longtime friend of the slain commentator speaking on the condition of anonymity. The source told The Grayzone that the late pro-Trump influencer believed Netanyahu was trying to cow him into silence as he began to publicly question Israel’s overwhelming influence in Washington and demanded more space to criticize it. 

"Billionaire Bill Ackman convened stormy Israel 'intervention' with Charlie Kirk"

The Grayzone has spoken to five people with intimate knowledge of Kirk’s meeting with Ackman, which was held in early August. According to one source, Kirk was left upset after the gathering turned into an “intervention” where he was “hammered” for his increasingly skeptical views on the US special relationship with Israel, and for platforming prominent conservative critics of Israel at his TPUSA events. 

"Top pro-Israel TPUSA donor terminated support for Kirk ..."

A pre-eminent funder of right-wing Zionist and anti-Muslim causes across the Atlantic, Shillman’s millions helped transform Kirk from a young age into one of Israel’s most effective gentile assets.

However, as Kirk drifted from the official, Netanyahu-enforced line on Israel in the past year, expressing frustration with onerous demands from Zionist donors and hosting the leading conservative critics of Israel at his TPUSA events, Shillman apparently grew resentful. 

Do you see what happened there?  Shehryar wrote an entire essay condemning as an antisemitic conspiracy theory the idea Israel would have any reason to kill Charlie Kirk.  But he exposes himself as COMPLETELY IGNORANT of the FACT that Kirk was angrily breaking with Israel-firsters.  Whereas Emily Litella would humbly acknowledge her error and say "Nevermind" Shehryar's falsehoods remain on the site without any corrections. 

I realize that a lot of this post is a repeat of the previous one.  But I was moved to write it because CounterPunch is supposed to be an analysis AND a NEWS site.  And Jeffrey St Clair, on October 1st (when Shehryar's shitty article was published) posted a story that COMPLETELY IGNORED the Grayzone's reporting of Charlie Kirk's break with zionism from MID-SEPTEMBER!  Even if Shehryar's mistake is only based on abysmal ignorance as opposed to being zionist propaganda, it is inexcusable.  Shehryar was specifically writing about the thesis that the Grayzone was the leading leftist source for and he pretends that he had no idea of what they were actually saying because either he's a lazy idiot or (more likely) he's a paid shill for Naziyahoo's genocidal Israel.  Which makes the lazy, stupid, narcissist Jeffrey St Clair a conduit for either journalistic garbage, or zionist hasbara.

It being the case that Shehryar either has shit for brains or he's a pro-genocide scumbag, what is the potential damage from his shitty essay?

Charlie Kirk was a scumbag.  A racist, sexist, Christo-fascist, oligarch-serving, right-wing USA-first, nationalist.  USA-FIRST.  In his deluded worldview, Charlie Kirk (for whatever reasons) thought that Israel enjoyed an oversized influence on the USA's foreign policy, and (when one considers attacks on free speech and other issues) domestic policy as well.  

Whatever his motivations were, the fact that Kirk was thinking of breaking with the "no daylight between the USA and Israel" official consensus was a good thing.  I find it sickening that Hamza Shehryar is seeking to destroy a left-right consensus on Israel by writing an article based on falsehoods and absolutely baseless arguments about "antisemitism" and "dividing the left."

It's bad enough that liberals and so-called progressives have embraced war and imperialism simply because Democratic politicians are in power when they could be embracing right-wingers who have finally soured on the Forever Wars and who have been distrustful of pro-war propaganda about "defending democracy" and "protecting America" and "global responsibilities."  To see a hack like Hamza Shehryar trying to drive a wedge between US-Americans uniting against US-backed, Israeli genocide.

Like it or not, we'll always have conservatives.

I've written a few times about the various studies that show that conservatives have larger amygdala's than non-conservatives.  You can look for those posts if you want to.  Most people who I've spoken to about this think that I'm insulting conservatives when I say that.  Because they're missing the point.  Having your antenna more attuned to threats doesn't make you inferior or stupid.  Being more quick to anger and acting aggressively can sometimes be a rational survival mechanism. [Democrats believed Trump stole the presidency from Hillary Clinton and they whined online and committed themselves to the shithead Mueller's inquiry and then continued to whine and moan when it inevitably came to nothing.  MAGA-heads believed Biden stole the election from Trump and they rioted and invaded the Capital Building.  Which side stood up for their beliefs more?]

I say all this because I think that if conservatives have turned against the "Forever Wars" because of the weight of the evidence [whereas worthless liberals and "progressives" have decided that imperialism is okay if a Clinton or an Obama or a Biden is doing it], and if they have turned against their Book of Revelations support for Israel because it just seems that deliberately starving children to death or shooting them in the head when they come to a food distribution to try to avoid starving to death seems wrong.  And God Bless Such Conservatives if that is the case.

The Left and the Right could UNITE on opposition to genocide, and so a shameless piece-of-shit, Hamza Shehryar, enabled by another useless-piece-of-shit, Jeffrey St Clair,  writes a shitty article on how claiming that Israel killed Charlie Kirk is an anti-Semitic trope that divides the left causes some progressives and leftists to believe that, thereby slowing or stopping the bipartisan consensus that Israel is evil, and, therefore, the loss of any political support for continued USA financing of Israeli debt or currency or weapons.

It was so counter-productive in the extreme to post Shehryar's stupid, ignorant post! 

[Candace Owens is a real piece of work.  But on Gaza, she's right.  And she's been exposing the reality of Kirk's angry separation plan from zionist-firsters and the lies of those who would deny it.  The official narrative about the Kirk assassination is ridiculous and to me, it seems that the most likely beneficiary of it is Naziyahoo's Israel.]

"Israel Didn't Kill Charlie Kirk"

 

Or so says some nobody at CounterPunch.

Hamza Shehryar is a writer and journalist. He covers film, culture, and global politics.

I honestly don't really know that Israel killed Charlie Kirk.  But if you want to insist that Israel didn't do it, you'll have to do much better than this!  Let's begin ...

[Belated] News Round-Up

 

I have several paying projects on the go as well as a vibrant social life.  Blogging has taken a back seat but I still need to vent.  So hear goes!]

I've decided that Israel killed racist, right-wing grifter Charlie Kirk.  Kirk got a lot of money from zionists.  Even though he said stuff like this: