#hws ussr | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

rametarin · 20 days ago

Text

Okay. So. Why DID American society vote for George W. in 2000? I'll tell you.

Last night I saw a youtube video I will not repeat that seemed to imply that if we had social media of today back in the late 90s, W. Bush would've never become president, "because facts would've come to light educating the voters."

This is such an incredibly naive and astonishingly ignorant thing to say, and it assumes the only reason people voted for any candidate was because they just didn't know what they stood for or what they believe or what that means for a candidate. That they were just a bunch of clueless bumpkins with no agency nor education nor drive and position of their own in the process, they just voted based on shallow 30-second "candidate good, theirs bad." and nothing else.

I am 40. We've been in a post 2000 George W. Bush presidency for more than half my life, at this point (Jesus Christ....)

Lets remove the hindsight is 20-20 of the Iraq War, Afghanistan, New Orleans and FEMA fiasco of the George W. Bush presidency for a minute. None of that stuff has happened yet.

It's the year 2,000. Bill Clinton is leaving the White House. People have been talking about George W. Bush, son of George HW Bush, since he threw his had in, the summer of 1999. People have known of Bush since his father was president.

American Society in the 90s was.. decompressing. That's worthy of a few paragraphs in and of itself.

First and foremost, American Society from the 40s to 91 raised its children, lived and became mature and grey on the premise that there were two major forces on earth at the time. The Americans embodied The West. New, free of classic imperialisms, dictators, private property owning, personal liberty loving. And, then there were the Soviets, whom followed principles that ideally envisioned a more purist, Marxist idea of law and society, where the state ("Society") owned everything and people lived equally under that.

The Soviets were ready and willing to steamroll over the rest of Europe to "save it" from capitalism, as evidenced by their massive fleet of, "steamroll immediate neighbors before unnamed enemies from afar can even get their boats in the water" tanks and heavily armored vehicles. And their tens of thousands of big, heavy tanks and demolition vehicles. They claimed they needed a massive land army and heavy tanks for "self-defense." And sycophants and sympathizers for the USSR outside of it claimed the Americans were the aggressors, imperialist and militant. Sometimes they would say that in comparison to the Soviets, as if the Soviets were just intellectuals, and sometimes they'd just say it as critique of the US as negative qualities that miraculously disqualified the US, but not the Soviets. Some real "you can't get me for things I haven't said, but there's lots of quiet parts not spoken here" stuff.

The Soviet Union was a shitshow of mismanagement and idealism and a circus of corruption that finally shit itself when its dreams died, after decades of careful propaganda and grassroots guerilla informational war that tried to disparage the American military's capabilities went up in smoke, as the Sadam Houssein regime got absolutely righteously SPANKED in the most photographed and video recorded war to exist at the time. Where the American Abrams and the British Challenger absolutely decimated 3,300 Iraqi T-72s and similar Soviet made tanks, and lost 30 tanks themselves. And even then, most of those were lost to accidents like falling off bridges, or friendly fire. So the Iraqi regime can only count 10 Coalition tanks. That's a KD ratio of about 1:330.

So good job on that one assessing the Soviet war capabilities, experts. Reformists stay winning, I guess. If you're hearing the laughter of children reverb through the battlefields of Ukraine, that's my voice from 33 god damned years ago at the propagandists that declared the US entering Iraq would just be a sandy version of Vietnam, where we do nothing but try and occupy and die by the thousand per year unable to meet any objectives or hold territory in the face of supposed superior Soviet armor.

And after their biggest trump card was exposed as a limp dick, which the Soviets always relied on to feel secure and content that, at the end of the day, even if the Americans and Western Europeans lived easier, more free lives, at least the USSR had the security of military supremacy, the Soviet delusion collapsed under itself and the entire dream just DIED. Matrix rejected, Soviet citizens disillusioned.

That's not hyperbole, after Saddam's thorough SPANKING that didn't even last an entire changing of the seasons before we swept up and went home, the Soviet Union croaked. Was it the final nail in the coffin? The final insult that did it? The disillusion, on top of the economic problems? I'd say it had something to do with it.

And in the west, our Very Progressive People(tm) have always had a kind of crypto-relationship with anticapitalists, open or crypto-Marxists and all of them liked to hide under liberalism. Not Big L Liberals themselves, but predatorily mimicing it. Even if they wanted liberalism to mean opposition to what they saw as the thing permitting racism.. which.. surprise surprise.. was capitalism.

But the thing is, they're pseudo-intellectuals. They did not want the stigma of openly stanning for socialism or communism, most of the time. They instead chose to convey themselves simply and purely as positive things. Like being "anti-racist," or being "anti-sexist." Wink wink. The fact they intrinsically tied these things to capitalism and western society, to where in order to be good and not oppressive you'd have to destroy and replace western society in its current form (its entire legal system and economic system) was kind of a lower rabbithole you had to go through. They'd still tout themselves as being big fans of justice and equality, even if unknown to you those words had MASSIVE asterisks that departed from the encyclopedic definitions of those words. And unless you were in their vibe and indoctrinated and agreed with them, they weren't about to tell you that.

But the trick was, how do you secretly get Americans to more easily agree with you without even knowing what they're agreeing to? How do you control their feelings and effectively put them down a logical and linguistic corridor so the only conclusion they reach is your logic's conclusion?

You rely on some dirty tricks. Peer pressure, gaslighting, cooking books and then braying about what an educated person you are for employing them. This was the world I grew up in. With little girls being oh-so educated by their buzz cut angry aunts and handed textbooks that were too advanced for them, but contained what amounted to proverbs and bible verses for them to throw out as platitudes and things you weren't allowed to argue with them over. ("Where's your PhD? :^)" )

So. What I'm getting at here is US Society had already been dealing with pseudo-intellectual gadflies, propaganda magazines and unscrupulous people joining publications with a political bias.

It got REALLY, REALLY egregious in the 90s. Radical Feminism was ubiquitously TERF-central, but you couldn't even argue against it as a white man, even if many of the points people like me made in the early 90s were true. Because, "you're a white MAN, you don't get to act like you know anything about feminism and what it means to be a GIRL." And they'd reject any opinion, give you no benefit of the doubt, reject any legitimacy anything you said had, because of its source.

And the thing about this is, the more they argued, the more cracks formed in the obfuscation. The less emotional impact having your younger female family turn on you as disingenuous, morally motivated weapons had on you. The more they would try to back up their arguments by citing the sources of the supposed intellectual professors and professionals they were quoting. The more their works could be scrutinized and made to bleed as men, not omnipotent narrators of science and truth.

The supposed anti-racists, supposeldy motivated by a world where no one is disrespected or made lesser by laws or policies that favored or disfavored people on the basis of race, cheering loudly for legislation that didn't discontinue racist policies, but ushered in "minority community protection" entrenchments, allowing "minorities" (almost uniformly just black people) access to free shit not because they were poor, but because they were black. In the same breath as telling white people they should not be permitted anything on the basis of their whiteness, and should, "get over" race. And in doing so, reveal themselves to not care about racism. And reveal their true values to be about treating race as class, and whites designated as oppressors. These are very different dynamics than trying to free a society from race based favoritism/disfavoritism policies.

So the "anti-racist" populists and their fringe viziers openly bragging about how they believed everybody but white people mattered, how national borders should not exist.. for America.. how they were glad millions of illegal immigrants were pouring in and would eventually be voting for their candidates in their own community's self-interests, and they'd happily vote to make sure the people paying taxes here would finance aid and benefits packages that non-Hispanic whites would not be allowed to enjoy the benefits of. Openly bragging about how "the whites have had enough." and that the poor only mattered if they weren't white.

The "Anti-sexists," which in discussions and arguments from angry radfems at the kitchen table had barked weird Gyno-Futurisms where men would be made obsolete and women would inherit society. How men were the cause and source of all wars, and under a feminist future, "society would equally share everything" and be kind and nurturing and some other shit that phased in and out depending on whether Daughter or Niece Dear felt more like being a spiritualist "witch" or an objective empirical scientist secular intellectual, that day. Where they'd demand all male spaces be made gender neutral and open to all, but open more spaces designated specifically and purely for women, with benefits for women just on the basis of being a woman, and tax the whole of society to make those happen. That women should have automatic positions arbitrarily opened up to remove any possibility women WOULDN'T be elected to share power, and loudly declaring all western art and literature featuring women was garbage, because you couldn't have good western literature and art in a society whose sexual values were garbage (this is hilariously circular and amounts to, "it's capitalist and not socialist, therefore, it's inescapably wrong.")

These were all things we learned as we sat by the supposed saccharine-swet "liberal" that hated all things sexist and racist, and beside them were their best buddies whom they shared literature with. They played Good Cop Bad Cop. They were literally being the Motte and Bailey argument of leftism. The general liberal progressive would set up the general platitudes that if you disagreed with, you were branded a reactionary or retro racist and traditionalist example of the white patriarchy, and then the radical would loudly shout you down while testing the waters of your peers for if they'd resist their own brand of spin on the subject and situations and facts they were beating you with.

So people got a taste of exactly what the very much not-liberal Progressive Leftist believed, and had in store, and through the impurity of the liberal tolerating their very not-liberal leftist friend, was going to allow to taint what should have been simple, acceptable policies.

Policies that were against relegating women to second class citizen status, policies that removed race from the equation in society and did not favor anyone or disfavor anyone based on their background, nor enshrine the importance of anyone's ethnic background.. and then promptly promised that everybody's race and background mattered, but white peoples, specifically. And then had the audacity to call people white supremacists and male chauvinists if they opposed this.

That was my childhood. Stumbling through realizing what bullshit was festering in the left, because according to their own propaganda, none of that was true or existed.

But don't get it twisted; I wasn't blind go the fact racists joined the republican party specifically to deny any benefits to people if it meant minorities would benefit too. Or the favoritism of rich people to rich people. Or the religious fundamentalists that believed in "family values" that used those avenues to push the idea of a monogamous marriage and expectation such would dominate exclusively under a Christian (or Jewish, to a lesser but not insignificant extent) lens. That was true, but not to the degree of evil the hard/far Leftist non-liberal was pushing it.

This is why George W. Bush was elected and even given a chance. Because with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Rodney King riots, the initial wide adoption of anti-racism and willingness to change from the propaganda of what they THOUGHT was true and the status quo, what they THOUGHT was the more left position, only to learn much of what they said were wild exaggerations, histrionic delusions and padded stats vilifying history and the status quo just to get people on their side to vote for what they wanted- which was banning guns, opening the borders, making sure people that weren't white had ample tax-payer driven benefits for the purposes of growing those demographics and securing their success at the expense of the majority. And the promise that more of this would come, the more power their fringe had in the left-wing.

This is why younger voters voted for Bush. Because the, "Racism is when white people oppress black people, Asian people and Indigenous people" crowd revealed their real face and said, "this is Leftism, and whether you like it or not, we're a packaged deal with liberals."

And the more general liberal just sat there smiling, not arguing with the radical, not confronting the radical, not disagreeing with the radical. Just playing the role of the enabling mom as the step-dad sexually abuses their child.

The black children from newly integrated suburbs with their first white friends, and their white liberal sisters that were taught from a young age that smart, progressive white girls should make sure their stupid male family members in this "stupid white supremacist patriarchal society" didn't cultivate racism, that they "challenged it' on radical feminist principles. Where at first, Sally seemed like a nice girl that had their back. But then revealed herself to just be a soapbox standing, histrionic mental abuser that would take every opportunity to get one over her male peers and show off how "anti-racist" she was, while toeing a line and trying not to overreach and destroy the delusion.

At the end of the 80s and towards the end of the 90s, those black children had grown up in a place where the white people that were trying to be courteous and respectful and open, just to get treated like shit by girls like Sally, called racist while Sally ran interference for things she didn't need to run interference for.

It's because of girls like the proverbial Sally (Social Justice Sally) that towards the end of the 90s, black people were writing N-word passes hand over fist and so many adopted a mindset (however brief) that we lived in a post-racism world. Because they saw far more accusations of racism than the sorts of racism they recognized or cared about among white people, and were offended on behalf of their white friends and community. It was so irritating and ideologically slanted and intellectually insulting, this is the origin of why the republicans got such a large spike among black people towards the end of the 90s.

Well. That, and how their very far-left peers tended to join with the likes of Farrakhan black supremacists.. And they weren't having that.

It was not because of a lack of information. It was not because we didn't have Twitter and Community Notes, or the algorithm giving us propaganda articles to read to correct misunderstandings or teach us what we didn't already know. Before the digital world and information outlets, we had sources of that information. We had pamphlets, we had reports from the government telling what we had then and what was coming, we had general ideas of where we were, and where we were going.

Put simply, people had the attitude that something was seriously wrong and rotten with the top of the democratic party for enabling and fascillitating the far-leftists, and giving them access to the platform. They were smarter than industrial wealth hogs and racists, and better able to be the +1 in any policy table.

People felt they could more easily police out the religious fundamentalists, white supremacists and financial oligarchs, while still holding policy to reflect gender and racial equality. Bush was not running on a platform of white supremacism, nor beliefs that put women back in the kitchen.

And after we experienced how the federal government handled WACO and Ruby Ridge (look those up), heard the very unflattering rumblings of what they thought of rural white Americans, the willingness to treat them like active militant hate groups and burn down their homes and kill their families over even PERCEIVED violations of federal law, and the promise of more of that to follow, the absurd crusades made to try and make firearms progressively more and more inaccessible to illegal, we figured maybe the illiberal left-wing was a bit too much of a liability to be in power.

George W. Bush was not voted into power because Americans didn't know anything. He was voted into power because Americans had too many bad personal experiences with the hanger-ons of the left, and hoped maybe the right wing could be spruced up a bit going into the new millenium.

And then the Islamic world attacked the west, financed directly and indirectly by limitless oil money and a network of interconnected cultural interests and sacred delusions, among which was the complete destruction of Israel and the Jews, and radical Islamic jyhad. And just by virtue of tackling this problem, with the supposedly anti-conflict bad press of the illiberal left not helping matters (thanks, smearists and propagandists), the right wing had to tackle Islamofascism and take the responsibility of blame for the conflict even existing at all.

As far as the public consensus, reinforced by hard-leftist propaganda goes, it's just white America trying to impose an evangelical death cult on some harmless religious and ethnic minorities in the middle east, based purely on Christian supremacism and white supremacism.

Meanwhile Obama, a democrat, willingly continued the policy of using drones to take out middle eastern Muslim mafioso families and royals, as they thinned the herds and worked to arrange peace across the Islamic world by curtailing crime bosses and radical structures of power that were leading to fundamentalist groups like ISIS and ISIL. And as messy as that looks in hindsight, just based purely on the structure of that religion and the social elements, it was inevitable. It was a question of how that was going to play out, not if it would.

Today, many countries that previously were on board with the Islamic populist belief of bulldozing Israel and getting every Jew out of it, want peace with the west and Israel, and are working to undo decades to centuries of fundamentalist conservatism. Which is the long term foreign policy goal, and has been, since even before the Ayatollah assumed Iran.

Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden all have been party to this Middle Eastern policy that has openly or secretly been dealing with the shadow war of Islamic theocratic expansionism and imperialism and terrorism as a means of physically and conquering the opposition. The idea that George Bush and the republicans just embody some warpigs fueled by manifest destiny and white supremacy is a very uncharitable reading of some very flawed individuals, with uncharitable assumptions of motivations, and the people that voted for him assumed to just be know-nothing morons that just didn't have informed consent, or malicious defenders of what is presumed the status quo, that has never been and will never truly be the modus operandi of the USA, even if some with fringe beliefs think it should.

Bush was voted in not because of ignorance or malice, but because he was an option, and at the time, they thought the opposition could be trusted with a change.

I anticipate to see more absurd takes that disagree with my lived experience. Statistically, it's inevitable. But it doesn't make it any less insulting to witness.

7 notes · View notes

azspot · 3 months ago

Quote

President George HW Bush worked with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to unwind the USSR in the hope of creating a democratic Russia. Neither expected Vladimir Putin to turn that nation into a virtual concentration camp where gays are routinely murdered, child pornography is legal (and they’ve kidnapped over 700,000 Ukrainian children), and dissenters are tortured, poisoned, and sent to brutal Siberian gulags. Donald Trump celebrates Putin, calling his invasion of Ukraine “genius” and “savvy,” handing Putin’s ambassador a western spy and top-secret information in his first month in office, and trying to abandon America’s traditional role as a moral leader in the world.

The GOP's Last Stand: Cruelty as Their Final Weapon

#russia #trump #putin

7 notes · View notes

posttexasstressdisorder · 3 months ago

Text

Subscriptions

PLAY GAMES. RAW WORD DAILY

JOIN RAW STORY FOR JUST $1

About usGamesUS NEWSInvestigationsOpinionvideoHELPget the newsletter

RawStory+ Login

PLAY RAW WORD DAILY.

JOIN RAW STORY FOR JUST $1

Home

Shop to Support Independent Journalism

Trump

U.S. News

World

Science

Video

Investigations

Ethics Policy

RawStory+ Login

Cruelty is all the Republicans have left

Thom Hartmann

August 24, 2024 5:55AM ET

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) speaks to members of the press on the steps of the House of Representatives at the U.S. Capitol on May 8, 2024. (Photo by Kent Nishimura/Getty Images)

During the 1950s, Republicans were the party that promoted labor unions, Social Security, and a top 91% income tax bracket and 70% estate tax on the morbidly rich. Dwight Eisenhower successfully campaigned on what we’d call a progressive agenda for re-election in 1956.

During the Reagan years, Republicans embraced Milton Friedman’s neoliberalism with its free trade, opposition to unions, ending free college, and tax cuts for the fat cats. They called themselves “the party of new ideas.” They may have done more harm than good, but for most Republicans it was a good-faith effort.

Today, they’ve pretty much given up on all of that. All they have left is cruelty.

When Governor Tim Walz gave his heartwarming acceptance speech Wednesday night here at the DNC in Chicago, his son Gus was caught on camera proudly proclaiming, through tear-streaked eyes, “That’s my dad!”

The response from Trumpy Republicans was immediate: Ann Coulter wrote, “Talk about weird.” Rightwing hate jock Jay Weber posted, “Meet my son, Gus. He’s a blubbering b---- boy. His mother and I are very proud.” Trumpy podcaster Mike Crispi ridiculed Walz’s “stupid crying son,” adding, “You raised your kid to be a puffy beta male. Congrats.” Another well-known podcaster on the right, Alec Lace, said, “Get that kid a tampon already.”

Compassion for a learning-disabled child is dead on the right: all they have left is cruelty.

Ronald Reagan helped shepherd through Congress the most consequential border bill in American history, and when it needed updating Oklahoma’s Republican Senator James Lankford worked with Democrats to update it in a meaningful way. Trump demanded Republicans kill the legislation, invoking the memory of his tearing over 5,500 babies away from their mothers and trafficking them into fly-by-night “adoption” schemes (around 1000 are still missing) and his demand that the border patrol shoot immigrants in the legs.

Trump’s acolytes in Congress don’t even pretend any more to have a border policy: all they have left is cruelty.

Stephen Miller and 16 Republican state attorneys general are suing for the right to tear apart about a half million American families because at least one member of their family has brown skin and is not yet a US citizen.

Their hatred has almost no limit because all they have left is cruelty.

Trump’s GOP has abandoned our founding principles: all they have left is cruelty.

During the 2020 election, Trump followers tried to run a Biden/Harris campaign bus off the road in Texas, threatening to kill the occupants (which they believed included Kamala Harris). A crazed Trump supporter broke into Nancy Pelosi’s home and attacked her 82-year-old husband with a hammer. Trump tweeted a picture of the bus being attacked, writing below it, “I LOVE TEXAS!” and repeatedly makes jokes about the attack on Pelosi, as if to encourage future attacks on the families of other Democratic politicians. Most recently, Donald Trump posted a picture on social media of Joe Biden tied up in the back of a pickup truck with a bullet hole in his forehead.

Not a single elected Republican (as best as I can find with a pretty thorough web search) has condemned any of these, because all they have left is cruelty.

Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis turned down federal money that would have fed 2.1 million low-income children in his state; he was one of 13 Republican governors to do the same, in a nation where one in seven children — over 11 million every year — go to bed hungry.

We are literally the only developed country in the world with a massive child hunger problem because all Republicans have left is cruelty.

When President Obama succeeded in passing and signing the Affordable Care Act, it offered every state funds to expand Medicaid to give healthcare coverage to all their low-income citizens with the federal government covering 90% of the cost. To this day, ten states under Republican control have refused to accept the money, leading to millions of preventable illnesses and early deaths.

Republican states could have joined all the Blue states and every other developed country in the world by providing universal healthcare, but refuse to because all they have left is cruelty.

When a 10-year-old girl was raped and impregnated, Republicans like Congressman Jim Jordan, Governor Kristi Noem, Fox’s Tucker Carlson and Jesse Waters, and Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost ridiculed the claim. When the rape and pregnancy were proven and the girl fled Ohio to a state where abortion was legal to terminate the pregnancy, Indiana's Republican Attorney General Todd Rokita promised to launch an “investigation.”

Rokita didn’t investigate the rape, however: he instead went after the physician who performed the abortion. Because cruelty is all Republicans have left.

When Donald Trump lost the 2020 election by seven million votes, he sent a violent mob against the US Capitol. As they tried to murder the vice president and speaker of the house, covered the walls of the building with feces and defaced priceless paintings, Trump gleefully watched on live television for over three hours while refusing to call in the national guard or take any other meaningful action.

Five civilians and three police officers died as the result of his sending that murderous mob because all he and his GOP have left is cruelty.

This week Americans saw Democrats display compassion, care, respect, and reverence for our democracy. We saw the best of this country, hope for the future, and actual plans to improve the lives of Americans.

Last month, in sharp contrast, we watched the Republican convention and saw, instead, a cavalcade of anger, bile, grievance, hate, and, of course, cruelty.

Because cruelty is all Republicans have left.

For customer support contact [email protected]. Report typos and corrections to [email protected].

6 notes · View notes

pruszided · 1 year ago

Note

CanLiet(Hws Canada x Hws Lithuania) 3- The 80s

As always your art is so kawaii 😍 💖 💕 💓 💗 ☺️ 😍 💖 💕

You typed the number away, but you wrote out the palette's name, so I hope I made the one you'd liked, hehe. It was fun to do actually, though researches were kinda difficult for Lithuania. Mmm..Let's just say they were in Canada this time (in the USSR the fashion was different, it was a bit more laid-back).

Honestly, I think Canada was wild in the 80s, or at least, he was more brave in fashion, that's why he looks so ridiculous here :D

And I hate myself for this, but why, why do I have problems with drawing Liet? It's so unfair for him :c

Oh, and the sketch:

#aph canada #aph lithuania #hetalia canliet #hetalia #matthew williams #tolys laurinaitis

15 notes · View notes

eruverse · 1 year ago

Note

I don’t understand how hws Russia fans can love am*rus

I think Am*rus is a valid ship but not liking Am*rus is certainly valid also. Coincidentally some of my Ivan/Anya-blorbofying friends I talk to the most don’t like it, and they happen to be Russian, so I’ve been getting their certain unique perspectives also I guess LOL.

(Ofc I’m not saying that most Russians don’t like this ship bc it’s blatantly untrue (I personally dk the percentage tho), but being close friends personally with ones that indeed don’t means that the reasons of not liking this ship will seep into convos a lot and I’ll be getting infos of their personal insights so to say. I’m not tokenizing them bc for me letting native citizens directly influence what you ship or what you don’t ship in this fandom is rather sad, but if you are good friends you’ll influence each other in a good way things like that?)

If I have to hazard a guess anon, for many people it’s the CW/USSR era that’s especially shippable. Ru/same/rus is especially attractive here bc they have interesting dynamic, is full of tension, and happen to be equal. Really gives of the vibe of ‘only us together in the whole world’ you know. Hard to not be into that one. Personally for me it’s the eras outside CW that make me scratch my head bc it gets increasingly harder and harder to ship them properly, especially closer and closer to modern era. The 90s is esp blackpilling on this ship for me personally (hard to ship a ship when you consider the possibility that they don’t love each other that much and that one party likely sincerely hates the other) and the current era basically screams ‘we are so not getting back together’. Unless you’re dealing with AUs, things like this is hard to manage for me.

I personally see that Am*rus was once a thing, either as an established ship or an active crush, but it’s all past tense. Now they’re still quite obsessed with each other, but with a firm realization that they’re too different to be together.

#character talk #shipping talk #anonymous #ask

5 notes · View notes

longwindedbore · 6 months ago

Text

Today in fantasies which inspire Donnie when he tends to the little orange mushroom late at night:

The phrase "Unified Reich" appears as a part of hypothetical news articles in the video that announce Trump's hypothetical victory in the 2024 election, with the narrator asking, "What happens after Donald Trump wins?"

Under a big headline that says, "WHAT'S NEXT FOR AMERICA?" there is a smaller headline that appears to read: "INDUSTRIAL STRENGTH SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED DRIVEN BY THE CREATION OF A UNIFIED REICH."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Two thoughts for context

1. Cheap and lazy. Have to go back 90 years to come up with ‘new’ideas like Unified Reich

Unfortunately the slogan-driven minds of the extreme right or left are without any curiosity about ‘how did that work? How was it implemented,”

I’n the case of the German Reich the USA and British industrialists underwrote the cost of Naziism’s rebuilding (by loans to buy US/Anglo machinery and railway systems) as a bulwark against the obvious appeal of the USSR’s Communism.

Of course required high corporate taxes within Germany to fund their portion as well as high US/Brit taxes spurrin a needthe business tax writeoffs of opportunities in foreign Investments.

Just as the USA post WW2 Marshall Plan did the same funding by high corporate taxes to rebuild postwar Europe including ex-belligerents also as a bulwark against the obvious appeal of the USSR’s communism.

The USSR by the same token were similarly underwritten with equipment and expertise by industrialists, such as the Armand Hammer oil company, to bring them into the 20th Century energy imarkets.

Did Trump argue for higher taxes on the Rich? Hahahahahaha!

2. Brain Dead or Memory Loss or just Dogwhistling while Gaslighting? - Why didn’t DoubleDoofuss Trumplestiltsin institute a comprehensive industrial policy when he was Dolt 45?

As the Commander-in-Cheap with his Party of Grifting Obnoxious Perverts in control of both Parties 2017 to 2020 the Mango Mussolini’ FAILED to act. Despite a powerful majority TrumptyDumpty

Proposed no new industrial policy thus ignoring his campaign promises. His council of Economic (Donors) Advisors - who would have been instrumental in developing a policy - all resigned in disgust within a couple months in early 2019.

Vonshittzhizpants could have funded re-induatrialization with the Trillion$$ a year savings that Medicare-for-all would have generated if he’d followed through on his campaign promise to repeal and replace - with better - the ACA. Never made move one or even revealed a smidgeon of his ‘plan’ By contrast Obama jump started the explosion in Renewable energy industry with just $330B. Clinton created Trillion$ in new medical industries with $50B for the genome project. Dump truck is more like G HW Bush’s admin which MURDERED USA scientific development’s fantastic headstart lead by cutting funding to the true industrial innovators - the 20 US research Universities led by MIT, Cal-Tech, Stanford, John Hopkins, etc. forcing Taiwan, China, India to invest in homegrown industries become the exporters rather than importers of the USA

Trumpanzee neither negotiated with Mexico nor asked Congress for Funding or diversion of duties on imports from Mexico to build ‘the impregnable border wall’. instead used the border security maintenance budget Obama had extracted from a ‘penny-pinchin no wins for Obama ever’ GOP Congress to issue his (Dolt 45) haphazard no-bid (illegal) contracts to campaign donors to build a cheap, easily circumvented, and structurally unsound couple hundred miles of Wall here and there on the 2K border. For the example check out the ‘no wall built’ at the (false) destination of the ‘Patriot TakeBack the Border Truck convoy 2023’. The Rube Goldberg-type cargo containers at the alleged high crossing point that Texas cobbled together provides dramatic visual illustration that the Orange Ourangtang did NOTHING to secure the border except create misery by separating children from parents.

By constrast one can look at the lists of what other president’s set fort to do in their first two years of progressive efforts and accomplishments which benefitted all Citizens (except for the taxes of the nepo-Rich)

Accomplishments by FDR, Truman, Eisenhower (GOP prez with Dem majorities in both Houses), Kennedy, LBJ (pre-Vietnam debacle) Nixon rolling out Affirmative Action OSHA and the EPA and almost UBI (did have Demmajorities), Ford, Carter, Clinton, Obama, and Biden. All experience failures; but were willing to get bloodied in the fight for the General Good.

All without ever being laughed at in the General Assembly of the UN.

All the while maintaining a foreign policy of supporting Allies, providing humanirltarian foreign aid to nonaligned nations, and being open to pursuing reasonable compromise negotiations with potential global advirsaries to prevent needless wars.

Donald is a Cult Leader fully enveloped in his Isolation Bubble Reality.

He and his cult dress up alike just as did ‘the return to the mother comet’ ‘Heavens Gate’ cult of the 1990s who had one selection of Nike shoes they all wore with their one color jumpsuits.

All his cult wears red - red MAGA hats and pre-ordered but not delivered Trump tennis shoes. Or red ties on white shirts with dark blue suits which bunch at the elbows which need to be let out around the waists…again.

No need for them to take poison like the Heaven’s Gate, Jim Jones, or local Nazi Party flacks in 1945. The individual personalities of Cult 45 diedwhen they deliberately chose their uniforms.

As indistinguishable as penguins. The birds are better dressed.

Real uniforms enhance the wearers identification and accomplishments: group insignia, rank, specialized skills, badges, name tags.

Parenthetically, the US Flag code opposes the blue suit Culver’s disgusting use of the flag pins they all wear for political purposes. But that Code exists doesn’t stop the ‘Hatriots’ from wearing the pins nor their ignorance as to how the pins are to be worn on a suit.

These red-tie TrumpliKKKlmen mostly haven’t served nor attempted to volunteer for any State or Nationa military service.

Nor evidently participated in Scouting which would have trained and rehearsed them in flag etiquette and reverence.

For your edification.

The opinions of real Veterans

I worked with a man who’d been an Army captain leading troops in combat in Vietnam. Who handwrote the letters to the families of those who had fallen under his command.

He wore his flag pin on Veterans Day and Flag Day in remembrance of those who fell.

It is inadequate to describe him as merely livid when he saw those who never even served wearing the pins.

He didn’t live to see Trump and Johnson and Jordan etc desecrate the symbol. Exposure to the Agent Orange that gave his son birth defects also killed Pete.

0 notes

mental-mona · 2 years ago

Text

The State of Israel is a modern miracle —a successful world leader in science and technology and a force for good in the world that rose from the ashes of World War 2.

This month marks seventy-five years since the United Nations voted to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. Israel was declared independent the following year and was immediately invaded by neighboring Arab countries determined to prevent Israel’s creation. Fortunately, they failed—and against all odds, the newborn state of Israel prevailed. The fact that to this day, there is no Palestinian state is certainly not the fault of Israel.

The Arabs (they did not even call themselves Palestinians back then) could have had their own state in 1948 or at any time since then. The fact that they did not choose to set up a state alongside Israel tells us all we need to know about their real intentions. Although the UN gave international legal legitimacy to the establishment of Israel, the yearning of the Jewish people for 2,000 years of exile to return to their homeland represents the true backbone and background to Israel’s rebirth.

What is truly sad is that the United Nations, which, in the aftermath of the Holocaust, assisted in Israel’s creation, became, over the years, a purveyor of anti-Semitism and anti-Israel propaganda. The UN violates its own charter by working against peace in the Middle East in its obsession with trashing Israel. “The Commission of Inquiry” set up earlier this year with an open-ended mandate to investigate and criticize only Israel, among 193 countries represented at the UN, is a case in point. The UN’s obsession with Israel has long reached the level of absurdity. One of the annual resolutions dealing with Israel condemns it for “occupying” the Golan Heights.

Israel won that territory, of course, in the 1967 war, which was without question a war of self-defense and survival. Before the war, Syria set up gun emplacements on the heights and routinely fired at Israeli farmers and other civilians in the lowlands of the Sea of Galilee. Is Israel supposed to turn over the Golan Heights to the Assad regime or to the Islamic State, both mortal enemies of Israel?

Unfortunately, this is only one example of the pathological fixation on Israel that has afflicted the UN for decades.

Perhaps the most notorious of the many obscene actions taken at the UN was the passage in November 1975 of the resolution, which falsely stated that Zionism—the morally justified yearning of the Jewish people for its ancient homeland—was equivalent to racism. Seventy-eight UN members—under pressure from the USSR, Cuba, and the Arab League —shamefully voted to pass that resolution. In 1991, the George HW Bush Administration led a drive to repeal the obscene “Zionism is Racism” resolution.

As a Congressional delegate to the UN General Assembly that year, and part of the US delegation, I was proud to participate in that successful effort. President Bush made it a diplomatic priority to undo the obscenity that was “Zionism is Racism.” It was accomplished by a full-court diplomatic press in New York, Washington, and world capitals.

It was made clear that repealing that unfair and outrageous resolution was of significant importance to the United States. It is time to apply that same intensity and that same commitment to ending, once and for all, the annual UN inquisition against Israel. This applies especially to the permanent UN offices created to undermine and denigrate Israel, such as the Palestinian Division and the Palestinian Committee.

Richard Schifter, the late, legendary US diplomat who founded the American Jewish International Relations Institute (AJIRI-BBI) after he retired in order to counteract this double standard at the UN, correctly called these UN entities the “UN anti-Israel apparatus.” Mr. Schifter, who was Jeane Kirkpatrick’s deputy at the UN during the Reagan Administration, felt strongly that the UN campaign against Israel represented a dangerous source of anti-Semitism that spread its malicious influence around the world. He also believed that a concerted effort to change votes could be successful and that this would be in the interest of the United States.

As he put it, “The challenge is to try to make the case to government leaders in friendly countries. Tell them that the UN matters and they ought to give directions to the UN ambassadors to change their voting pattern.”

The continuing ritual of Israel bashing at the UN harms US interests in two ways: first, it contributes to the duplicitous campaign of BDS (boycott, divestment, sanctions) and undermining of Israel, America’s ally. Secondly, and just as significant, it gives a false and dangerous message to the Palestinians. By supporting and endorsing the extreme Palestinian narrative—that Israel is an illegitimate apartheid, colonial state—it not only perpetuates an ugly lie, but it enforces the Palestinian refusal to negotiate in good faith with Israel and finally bring an end to the conflict. Putting an end to this farce, once and for all, would be a great contribution to world peace.

• Dan Burton is a former Member of Congress (R-IN) and former Chairman of the House Middle East Subcommittee

#united nations #israel #antisemitism at the un #anti israel bias #anti israel

0 notes