When I read this it occurred to me once again that there’s nothing really in it for groups like this to want to crush Gaza. I wanted to take a moment to finally reflect on it.

The easy answer is AIPAC or real estate or some other opportunity for personal gain. I think that’s part of an answer for some of them, but I don’t think it’s even the largest part of the answer.

Another possibility is anti-terrorism. Hamas is certainly a terrorist organization and has committed horrific atrocities. But I feel like Republicans have always used terrorism as an excuse, not a primary driver.

Palestinians are brown. Is it simple racism? There are lots of brown people involved in conflicts we don’t get involved with, though.

For some evangelicals, or those with lots of evangelical supporters, supporting Israel to bring about the end times and the second coming of Christ is probably a small piece of the answer. But I don’t even really think most evangelicals think about supporting Israel from that perspective, but more from an emotional perspective. They simply equate Israel with the Holy Land.

Of course it’s mostly leftists who are protesting in support of Palestinians. It’s it as simple as wanting to hurt leftists? Maybe domestically, but would they execute on this plan with such urgency and persistence?

These all seem like pieces.

Then I zoomed out a bit and thought about the ideological conflict. Israel, a far-right government, is willing and evidently able to crush an enemy population (I think it’s fair at this point to say Israel considers all of Gaza their enemy), destroy all infrastructure, and then starve every single person to death. The very definition of genocide. And they can do so completely and with impunity. No one can tell them what to do.

And I realized that while the other factors contribute to their support, Republicans support this primarily because this is Israel doing whatever it wants and crushing its enemies into dust. Republicans love it. They love the strength, they love the control, they love the cruelty, they love hating an Other, and they love simple solutions to complex problems. How many times have I heard a Republican say the US should turn the entire Middle East into glass? Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out.

And they would love to be able to do the same thing within the US.

From Wikipedia:

The name is derived from Cheivy Chace, the name of the land patented to Colonel Joseph Belt from Charles Calvert, 5th Baron Baltimore, on July 10, 1725. It has historic associations with a 1388 chevauchée, a French word describing a border raid, fought by Lord Percy of England and Earl Douglas of Scotland over hunting grounds, or a “chace”, in the Cheviot Hills of Northumberland and Otterburn. The battle was memorialized in “The Ballad of Chevy Chase”.

Chevy Chase [the actor] was named for his adoptive grandfather, Cornelius, while the nickname “Chevy” was bestowed by his grandmother from the medieval English ballad “The Ballad of Chevy Chase”. As a descendant of the Scottish Clan Douglas, she thought the name appropriate.

The Italian opposition party thinks that the ruling far-right party is doing this because they have a deal with the warlord: he can have a free hand so long as he controls emigration from Libya. He has a coast guard that turns back migrants and he keeps people in detention camps. He also tortures people.

Clearly this hasn’t escaped the attention of the Trump administration.

That’s the Declaration of Independence.

It’s thought terminating. Unless you yourself are chambering a bullet and getting in your car in response, it says there’s nothing you can do because fascism has already won. Defeatism demotivates others as well.

The Trump administration seems pretty confident these won’t be used against them personally.

https://youtube.com/shorts/ekYplstlikU

Doomerism isn’t helpful

Every article starts with the Trump administration framing, and only afterward tells you WTF actually happened. I’m so tired of it.

Cuba objects based on the Vienna Convention treaty on treaties from the Carter era, but that explicitly states it doesn’t apply retroactively. Cuba doesn’t like it, it’s likely unethical, and it would be illegal if it went into effect today, but as it stands it’s not illegal under international law.

The same would also apply to Puerto Rico and other islands won from Spain.

That original treaty with Cuba was renegotiated later (to be more in Cuba’s favor) and in any event requires that both sides agree or the US vacate the area in order to annul the treaty. Obama tried to close down the prison (one of the best things he tried to do as president), but Congress stopped him.

Illegal, no. Unethical, most likely yes. And it’s certainly being used in an unethical way.

It seems based on questioning from the female justices that they’re highly skeptical of any scheme to invalidate nationwide injunctions. It’s hard to make a case for it. I wouldn’t be surprised if it were ruled 7-2 against.

Is he only supporting gun control candidates to primary incumbents? I don’t know and am just looking to be informed.

What don’t you agree with Hogg about? Just curious.

In a pre-Roberts court, fine. But you are aware I’m sure that this court routinely ignores precedent, and it’s not good enough to just say, well, your judges ignored precedent and made a number of terrible rulings against the spirit of the Constitution, but we’re gonna follow tradition and decorum and keep with those rulings because we’re going to follow the rules.

A successor court (whatever form that takes) must reverse the worst decisions, and then Congress needs to step in and enact laws in support of the new rulings.

Perhaps you missed the news where Trump explicitly encouraged immigrants of European descent to come to the US and made expedited arrangements for white Afrikaner “refugees” recently.

Or in his first term during the Unite the Right rally, when racists marched in Charlottesville and chanted “You will not replace us,” meaning Jews and non-white minorities, and Trump responded by saying there were “very fine people on both sides.”

I think you’d have a pretty steep uphill argument to say that this administration is not a white supremacist (and misogynist) movement at its core.

Again, I don’t believe this myself, but what they mean by “white culture” or “European Anglo-Saxon values” or whatever is simply a homogenous culture centered around white supremacy.

I mean, obviously. I’m not saying I believe it or that it’s viable.

Boomer telling younger generations they must suffer for the future while refusing to sacrifice anything at all themselves is a very Boomer take.

Edit for drive-by down voters: I’m saying this is what they believe, not that it’s true or I believe it. I mean, all I’m talking about is the “Great Replacement” theory that people like Stephen Miller fully adhere to.

It’s pretty simple: the white population is losing ground relative to non-white populations. Yes, other populations will increase, but there’s a practical ceiling. They likely believe that the white population gains will more than offset any gains by other ethnicities.

For black populations specifically, I’d have to do some simple analysis on this data, but it doesn’t look particularly disproportionate in absolute numbers.

But really, I don’t believe the black population is the principal target. See the graph. Consider the immigration policy.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/all-recent-us-population-growth-comes-from-people-of-color-new-census-estimates-show/

This must be terrifying. I disagree with this new requirement to appear in person every few months for reasons just like this, and I’d like to share cases like yours when I talk to Trump voters. Would you be willing to share the condition that keeps you homebound and prevents you from traveling in person?

Most of what they do is in service to white supremacy, including this.

• Abortion restrictions: more white babies
• Pornography restrictions: more white babies
• Immigration restrictions: fewer brown babies

Make America Great Again literally just means “restoring” the “supremacy” of the white race and culture over all others.