If you want to understand how Nazis got ordinary people to mass murder Jews on the streets of Lviv in 1941, read Elias Rodriguez's Terrorist Manifesto

A few nights ago, I found myself in a bitter quarrel with a neighbor—someone I’d once called a friend—over the recent murders of Israeli embassy staffers in Washington, DC. Words flew, tempers flared, and now I wonder if our friendship will survive the wreckage. The spark? Her insistence, echoed across countless forums, that the killings weren’t anti-Semitic but merely “anti-Zionist.” This refrain haunts me. I hear it everywhere: in online threads, in heated exchanges, in the glib deflections of those who claim moral clarity while sidestepping moral responsibility. When I told her I have no plans to return to the U.S.—not while “anti-Zionist” activists murder Jews on American streets—she doubled down. “It’s not about Jews,” she said. “It’s about Zionism.”

Not about Jews? I pressed her, my voice sharper than I intended. Was the Holocaust, then, not about Jews either? Just a righteous purge of “Bolsheviks,” as the Nazis claimed at Nuremberg? Shall we nod along to that grim fiction, too? Shall we excuse the slaughter of millions because the killers dressed their hatred in ideological garb, blaming Jews for the slow starvation of Europe under the specter of Bolshevism? Sound familiar?

If you want to understand how Nazis persuaded ordinary people to mass murder Jews on the streets of Lviv in 1941... watch the documentary above, then read Elias Rodriguez's Terrorist Manifesto that I've posted below (originals, here and here). Do you see the parallels? The same fevered logic and blood libels, the same scapegoating dressed up as justice, the same summons to “escalate” against a vilified civilian population? I do. And I wonder: how many more must die before we stop excusing murder with the flimsy alibi of “anti-Zionism”? How long before we call this what it is?

Escalate For Gaza, Bring The War Home.

Explication

May 20, 2025

Halilintar is a word that means something like thunder or lightning. In the wake of an act people look for a text to fix its meaning, so here's an attempt. The atrocities committed by Israelis against Palestine defy description and defy quantification. Instead of reading descriptions mostly we watch them unfold on video, sometimes live. After a few months of rapidly mounting death tolls Israel had obliterated the capacity to even continue counting the dead, which has served its genocide well. At time of writing the Gaza health ministry records 53,000 killed by traumatic force, at least ten thousand lie under rubble, and who knows how many thousands more dead of preventable disease, hunger, with tens of thousands now at risk of imminent famine due to Israeli blockade, all enabled by Western and Arab government complicity. The Gaza information office includes the ten thousand under the rubble with the dead in their own count. In news reports there have been those "ten thousand" under the rubble for months now, despite the continual making of more rubble and repeated bombing of rubble again and again and the bombing of tents amid the rubble. Like the Yemen death toll which had been frozen at some few thousand for years under Saudi-UK-US bombardment before being belatedly revealed to stand at 500k dead, all of these figures are almost surely a criminal undercount. I have no trouble believing the estimates that put the toll at 100,000 or more. More have been murdered since March of this year than in "Protective Edge" and "Cast Lead" put together. What more at this point can one say about the proportion of mangled and burned and exploded human beings whom were children. We who let this happen will never deserve the Palestinians' forgiveness. They've let us know as much.

An armed action is not necessarily a military action. It usually is not. Usually it is theater and spectacle, a quality it shares with many unarmed actions. Nonviolent protest in the opening weeks of the genocide seemed to signal some sort of turning point. Never before had so many tens of thousands joined the Palestinians in the streets across the West. Never before had so many American politicians been forced to concede that, rhetorically at least, the Palestinians were human beings, too. But thus far the rhetoric has not amounted to much. The Israelis themselves boast about their own shock at the free hand the Americans have given them to exterminate the Palestinians. Public opinion has shifted against the genocidal apartheid state, and the American government has simply shrugged, they'll do without public opinion then, criminalize it where they can, suffocate it with bland reassurances that they're doing all they can to restrain Israel where it cannot criminalize protest outright. Aaron Bushnell and others sacrificed themselves in the hopes of stopping the massacre and the state works to make us feel their sacrifice was made in vain, that there is no hope in escalating for Gaza and no point in bringing the war home. We can't let them succeed. Their sacrifices were not made in vain.

The impunity that representatives of our government feel at abetting this slaughter should be revealed as an illusion, then. The impunity we see is the worst for those of us in immediate proximity to the genocidaires. A surgeon who treated victims of the Mayan genocide by the Guatemalan state recounts an instance in which he was operating on a patient who'd been critically injured during a massacre when, suddenly, armed gunmen entered the room and shot the patient to death on his operating table, laughing as they killed him. The physician said the worst part was seeing the killers, well known to him, openly swagger down local streets in the years after.

Elsewhere a man of conscience once attempted to throw Robert McNamara off a Martha's Vineyard-bound ferry into the sea, incensed at the same impunity and arrogance he saw in that butcher of Vietnam as he sat in the ferry's lounge laughing with friends. The man took issue with McNamara's "very posture, telling you, 'My history is fine, and I can be slumped over a bar like this with my good friend Ralph here and you'll have to lump it.'" The man did not succeed in heaving McNamara off a catwalk into the water, the former secretary of state managed to cling to the railing and clamber back to his feet, but the assailant explicated the value of the attempt by saying "Well, I got him outside, just the two of us, and suddenly his history wasn't so fine, was it?"

A word about the morality of armed demonstration. Those of us against the genocide take satisfaction in arguing that the perpetrators and abettors have forfeited their humanity. I sympathize with this viewpoint and understand its value in soothing the psyche which cannot bear to accept the atrocities it witnesses, even mediated through the screen. But inhumanity has long since shown itself to be shockingly common, mundane, prosaically human. A perpetrator may then be a loving parent, a filial child, a generous and charitable friend, an amiable stranger, capable of moral strength at times when it suits him and sometimes even when it does not, and yet be a monster all the same. Humanity doesn't exempt one from accountability. The action would have been morally justified taken 11 years ago during Protective Edge, around the time I personally became acutely aware of our brutal conduct in Palestine. But I think to most Americans such an action would have been illegible, would seem insane. I am glad that today at least there are many Americans for which the action will be highly legible and, in some funny way, the only sane thing to do.

I love you Mom, Dad, baby sis, the rest of my familia, including you, O*****

Free Palestine

-Elias Rodriguez

 

 

Join the conversation on 𝕏:

Finally got around to updating my blog... because I'm angry and need to vent... about what happened on the streets of DC, and the public's response to it.https://t.co/aPEVQ3HAU1

— Na'omi (@GetRealPolitik) May 28, 2025

Tulsi Gabbard's Dissent: The Vital Role of Skepticism in National Intelligence

The scrutiny of Tulsi Gabbard's judgment, particularly over her doubts concerning the prevailing narratives of the chemical attacks in Ghouta (2013) and Khan Sheikhoun (2017), invites a deeper contemplation of truth, accountability, and the complex interplay of information and power in wartime. Gabbard's skepticism, rather than a sign of flawed judgment, might be seen as a necessary inquiry into narratives that have significant implications for international policy and the very fabric of truth in public discourse. 

The 2017 Khan Sheikhoun chemical attack was attributed to Assad largely because its chemical signature matched that from the 2013 Ghouta incident. However, the narrative around Ghouta itself is fraught with reasonable doubt; both the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) conducted inquiries, but as The New York Times reported, these efforts "never led to any accountability and never identified perpetrators by name." Moreover, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper admitted that there was no "slam-dunk" evidence against the Assad regime. Despite this lack of definitive evidence, Obama declared, "Assad gotta go!"--and the press ran with it.

 

 

 Video evidence of Salafi-Jihadi firing volcano rockets at Ghouta, found on the cell phone of a

 Liwa al-Islam militant killed by Kurdish Peshmerga on the Syrian border in September, 2013.

The Mockingbird Press often engages in a subtle yet significant tactic when attributing blame, particularly to actors they view unfavorably. They operate under the premise that, despite a lack of concrete evidence, it is reasonable to assume guilt because no other explanation seems plausible. This pattern was notably evident in the coverage of the Syrian chemical attacks, where, in the absence of proof, the narrative was quickly constructed around Assad's culpability, sidelining alternative possibilities or the need for further investigation. This approach overlooks the complexity of the Syrian conflict, where multiple actors, including various opposition groups, have access to chemical weapons. Several separate chemical attacks in Syria have in fact been attributed to these groups, and there is even evidence suggesting that Liwa al-Islam "rebels" might have staged the 2013 Ghouta attack to provoke Western intervention.

The possibility that a terror group might have staged the chemical attack to prompt U.S. military intervention adds another layer of complexity to the narrative, underscoring the need for rigorous scrutiny of such events. During her confirmation hearing for Director of National Intelligence, Gabbard was questioned about her doubts regarding these specific attacks, and she explained that her skepticism was warranted given the implications for U.S. military response.

Her stance reflects a historical caution, born from her experiences on the battlefield in wars predicated on WMD lies. Her doubt, therefore, is not a sign of poor judgment but of insistence on the integrity of information that shapes policy with far-reaching consequences. In this post-truth era, questioning official narratives is often misconstrued as disloyalty or naivety, yet it should be recognized as essential, especially for gathering and analyzing intelligence pertinent to the safety and security of We, the People... who are increasingly fed up with lies.

Join the conversation on 𝕏.

 

I don't know why people are so mad at @TulsiGabbard for being skeptical of the USIC. It's not like they've never lied to us before.

My thoughts on Tulsi Gabbard's Dissent... and why We, the People, need it...https://t.co/BcuuRLCrpC

— Na'omi (@GetRealPolitik) February 4, 2025

The Absurdity of Labeling Military Strategy as Terrorism: A Critique of Professor Rob Howse's Argument

The term "terrorism" has often been the subject of intense debate, particularly in academic circles where precision in language is paramount. Recently, Professor Rob Howse made an argument that can only be described as absurd in its attempt to apply the label of "terrorism" to an Israeli military operation targeting Hezbollah operatives through the use of explosive pagers. 

Was the Pager Operation in which Israel blew up thousands of Hezbollah terrorists a form of terrorism?

NYU Law Professor @howserob argues the Pager Operation was terrorism.

I argue it was not.

Please watch & share our debate at Northeastern University.https://t.co/rwEzlUAIJe

— Max Abrahms (@MaxAbrahms) January 30, 2025

The CIA defines terrorism as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." Professor Howse, however, misinterprets this definition, arguing that any act of violence witnessed by civilians qualifies as terrorism, because it makes those civilians an audience to it.

Here, several key elements are crucial: 

• Noncombatant Targets: The primary targets in this case were Hezbollah operatives, combatants by any reasonable definition. Equating this with attacks on civilians is fundamentally flawed. 
• Intent: The intent was evidently to disrupt Hezbollah's operations. The act was strategic, aimed at specific combatants, not at the broader civilian population. 
• Audience vs. Witness: Professor Howse's leap from civilians witnessing the event to them being an "audience" in the terrorist sense is where the argument becomes patently absurd. An "audience" in terrorism is meant to be terrorized and influenced by the act, not merely to observe it. 

Professor Howse's argument not only misapplies the definition but also ignores the context of conflict where military strategies are employed against combatant forces. By suggesting that any military action visible to civilians can be considered terrorism, Howse's logic would absurdly label most military engagements in urban environments as acts of terrorism. 

Furthermore, this interpretation could lead to a dangerous precedent where the term "terrorism" loses its specificity, becoming a catch-all for any act of violence with political undertones, thus diluting its meaning and utility in both legal and moral discourse. 

In conclusion, Professor Rob Howse's argument is not just flawed; it's absurd. It misconstrues the very nature of terrorism, conflating it with military strategy based on a tangential observation rather than on the intent, method, and target of the operation. This kind of reasoning not only muddies academic discourse but also risks trivializing the real horrors and intentions behind acts of terrorism (using terror to coerce a civilian population into political submission). It serves as a stark reminder of the need for precision and context in our discussions of such grave matters.

 

---

Join the conversation on 𝕏:

I agree with @MaxAbrahms... @howserob's attempt to label Israel's pager Op as an act of terrorism is absurd. Read my thoughts on their debate:https://t.co/vehJU5i3xr

— Na'omi (@GetRealPolitik) February 2, 2025

Tulsi Gabbard and America's Crisis of Conscience

In the shadow of power and secrecy, the United States Intelligence Community (USIC) stands at the heart of a crisis that transcends mere policy failures; it is a crisis of conscience. The contradictions within our intelligence operations have not only bewildered our allies but have sown seeds of distrust among our own citizens, challenging the very soul of our democracy. Here, at this pivotal moment, Tulsi Gabbard's nomination for Director of National Intelligence (DNI) emerges not just as a political opportunity but as a beacon of potential moral redemption.

The USIC, envisioned as a sentinel against threats like Islamic terrorism, is fraught with moral contradictions. It is an institution that professes to protect while engaging in actions that undermine the security it is meant to uphold. This is evidenced in a foreign policy that seems to stagger under the weight of its own conflicts of interest, where we witness the U.S. both combating and, in many instances, inadvertently supporting the very forces it claims to oppose. This duality has not only compromised our strategic position but has also led to a profound existential question: what does it mean to be American when our actions betray our ideals?

For the American people, this crisis has been a source of deep moral confusion. The erosion of civil liberties, under the pretext of national security, is not just about protecting secrets from our enemies but about shielding the USIC's own contradictions from public scrutiny. This has resulted in an array of infringements on privacy and free speech. The surveillance state, the manipulation of the press, and the chilling effect on dissent are not accidental; they are the byproducts of a system protecting itself from the very people it serves. This has left the public in a state of national identity crisis, grappling with a policy schizophrenia where the government's actions seem at odds with its proclamations.

The strategic folly of supporting factions with terrorist affiliations has not only muddled intelligence operations but has potentially escalated threats against us, creating a security paradox where we are both the hunter and the hunted. This approach has blinded us to long-term peril for short-term geopolitical gains, demoralizing those within the intelligence community who seek to serve with integrity.

Tulsi Gabbard stands as a figure of potential moral realignment. Her legislative advocacy, particularly through initiatives like the Stop Arming Terrorists Act, showcases her commitment to ending the policies that inadvertently support terrorism, aligning the USIC with its true mission. Her background, bridging her counter-terrorist military service with congressional oversight, offers her a unique perspective to balance security with liberty. Her push for transparency is not just about operational accountability but about restoring the moral integrity of our nation by ensuring that our intelligence community respects and defends the freedoms it was meant to protect.

This crisis is not merely about policy; it's about the soul of a nation that prides itself on liberty. Gabbard's nomination is a chance to resolve the internal conflict, to choose integrity over expediency, and to affirm that our actions can once again reflect our values. Under her leadership, the intelligence community could return not only to its mission of protecting national security but to being a true guardian of American freedoms.

One might argue that confirming Tulsi Gabbard as DNI is more than a political decision; it's a battle of the soul. It acknowledges our need to reconcile our actions with our principles, to heal the schism within our national security apparatus, and to restore the trust of the American people. Her nomination could mark the beginning of a new era for American intelligence, one where we move from contradiction to coherence, ensuring that our nation's conscience is not just heard but heeded.

Truths Lost in Translation: The Tragedy Hidden in Max Blumenthal's Comedy.

 

During his recent speech at the University of Massachusetts, Max Blumenthal said that he does not deny that Palestinian Islamic jihadists carried out atrocities on #Oct7... while using comedy to literally treat those atrocities, including the cold blooded murder of Jewish children, like a joke to laugh about (and his audience did).

 

 

"40 Beheaded Babies"

 

A Western journalist reported that the IDF informed her that Palestinian Islamic jihadists beheaded 40 babies, but she quickly retracted her statement, admitting that she had misinterpreted the spokesperson's comment.

Despite this, the Western press ran with the story, which was soon disproved, and Israel has since then been accused of exaggerating the #Oct7 pogrom in order to "manufacture consent" for an alleged genocide against the Palestinian people.

What did the Israeli spokesperson say that was misinterpreted? He said that Palestinian Islamic jihadists had murdered unarmed civilian men, women, and kids... 40 babies... and there were beheadings.

In Hebrew and Israeli culture, the same word is used for infants and children... kids of all ages are considered babies. This truly was something lost in translation. So, what's the truth?

On 7 October 2022, Palestinian Islamic jihadists intentionally killed more than a thousand Israelis. At least 800 of them were unarmed civilians. 38 were children, some of whom were infants... and it's not a stretch to think, after looking at the crime scene photos of their bedrooms, that jihadists went as far as to slit the throats of children while they slept.

There is no need for the Israeli government to exaggerate these atrocities. Even without "40 beheaded babies", what Palestinian Islamic jihadists did on October 7th should be considered an act of genocide... but because of Anti-Zionist propagandists like Max Blumenthal, people are treating this... the most heinous mass murder of Jewish people since the Holocaust... like a joke.

 

By the way... in Hebrew, the same word is used for beheading, neck breaking, or cutting a throat.

No. This isn't funny at all. 

 

Israel's past, present, and future.

Analysis of the battlefield and our discussion about Israel's relationship with their Arab neighbors and Africa turns into a heated debate on Defense Politics Asia.

DPA, on the Humanitarian Crisis in Gaza.

Heated debate on Defense Politics Asia about whether Israel is carrying out a genocide in Gaza.