It is clear that using antisemitism as a shield for violence and theft has worked. Every time someone pushes back against Israeli atrocities, the accusation of antisemitism is used as proof that antisemitism is powerful and pervasive. It is a self-reinforcing loop, a propaganda feedback cycle that allows state violence to continue unchecked.

We have to see that pattern clearly. Acts of antisemitism have indeed risen since October 7, 2023, but that rise did not come from thin air. It came in reaction to Israel’s own actions: the mass killing of civilians, the destruction of Gaza, the open celebration of ethnic cleansing. Just as Jewish communities were displaced and targeted in 1948 because of Israel’s behavior on the world stage, we are watching that cycle repeat.

It is not the existence of Jewish people that fuels this hatred. It is the antisocial, colonial behavior of a state that claims to act in their name. Israel has made itself the most dangerous place in the world to be Jewish, not because Jews exist there, but because the state’s actions invite global outrage and then conflate that outrage with antisemitism.

Anti-Zionism is not antisemitism. You cannot have it both ways. If you insist that Israel represents all Jews, then every atrocity Israel commits will be seen as done by Jews, and that is the greatest act of antisemitism there is.

The dehumanization of Muslims is part of a larger project to destabilize the region. It has been the deliberate choice of the major colonizers, who use division, fear, and propaganda to maintain their hegemony. That same propaganda not only dehumanizes Muslims, it also manufactures fear and urgency among Jewish people, including those who are not Zionist. It tells them that without Israel, annihilation is inevitable. But when that veil is lifted, the alternative: coexistence, equality, and justice, becomes far less frightening.

The real existential threat has never been Muslims or Arabs. It has been the Western powers themselves: the British empire that was collapsing and the American empire that was rising, both using the region as a chessboard to preserve dominance.

As incomprehensibly destructive as this strategy is, the simple act of seeing it for what it is becomes incredibly threatening to them. When people truly see it, their power and credibility vanish instantly.

They (western powers) justify their cruelty by convincing themselves that if they did anything less, they would lose everything. And they should lose everything.

In my view, Israel’s actions betray the moral and humanistic traditions that many Jews themselves see as central to Judaism.

The conclusion is simple: Israel does not represent all Jews, nor does it speak for any individual who practices Judaism. Its actions reflect political and colonial interests, not the spirit or letter of Judaism.

By weaponizing Jewish identity to justify violence, the state of Israel commits an act of antisemitism against Jewish people themselves. It makes Jewish safety contingent on oppression and equates Judaism with conquest and cruelty, the opposite of its moral core.

The Israel experiment must end, not through vengeance or destruction, but by dismantling the systems of apartheid, occupation, and impunity that endanger both Palestinians and Jews. If it continues on this path, Israel will not only destroy Palestine, it will destroy the richness and moral integrity of Jewish culture itself.

Oh, now they like him! Yeah, now that Zorhan’s about to win, the Democratic establishment suddenly loves the guy.

They’re all clapping like seals.

And what are they saying? “He’s so composed.” “He communicates well.” “He did great in the debate.”

Yeah? That’s what you noticed? Not the actual stuff he’s saying? C’mon.

That’s not what made Mamdani the frontrunner. It’s the policies!

Universal child care. Free buses. City-owned grocery stores. A rent freeze on apartments.

You know, actual things that make regular people’s lives better.

All of that does one thing: it gives people power back.

And apparently that’s terrifying to rich people.

Remember when working people could actually raise a couple of kids, pay rent, take a week off in the summer, and not have to sell a kidney? Yeah, back when life wasn’t a constant game of “which bill do I ignore this month?”

Inequality existed, sure, but it wasn’t this bad. You could go on vacation and not come home broke. When regular folks were doing well, the economy was doing well. That’s how it’s supposed to work!

Then the Reagan years hit.

And everything went to hell.

Wealth inequality blew up, the middle class started disappearing, and the rich rewrote the rules so they could keep stacking the deck. Tax cuts, loopholes, subsidies, they basically turned the country into a “for rich people, by rich people” theme park. And who pays for it? We do. Always us.

And the best part? The people who were supposed to fight for the working class stopped fighting. They joined the other team!

Wrong became normal. You didn’t even get choices anymore, you got “bad” and “worse.” And the people in charge were like, “Don’t worry, we’ve tested both! You’re screwed either way!”

So now, when these pundits are like, “Zorhan’s got such a calm demeanor,” I’m like, yeah, but what about his ideas, genius?

They’ll talk about his posture, his hand gestures, anything but the stuff that might actually change something. They won’t go near his platform with a ten-foot pole.

Don’t believe me? Fine. Just keep watching.

Watch how the same people patting him on the back right now will suddenly start tripping him up the second he tries to do anything that helps normal people.

The wealthy only want one thing: everything. And if you take back one crumb, they will come after you with everything they've got.

How do I know? Because they’ve been doing it for forty years!

It stops when you see it.

It stops when you call it out.

People are talking about Zorhan's policies. That's what people want. They'll work.

And that's the part that's terrifying to the establishment.

When ruling elites talk about sacrifice, you'd better check your pockets because they don’t mean theirs.

In his latest pre-budget address, Mark Carney served up a steaming bowl of rhetorical garnish, dressed in enough obfuscation to make the average citizen feel like they’d just been thanked for being mugged.

Let’s unpack the ingredients of this fine word salad.

“A unique moment in our history”

Of course it is. Every moment is unique. This is a truism passed off as insight. But it serves a purpose to justify decisions being made by those in power to preserve that power.

When leaders say it’s a "unique" time, they’re telling you your expectations must be lowered.

“Take some sacrifices.”

Yes, some sacrifices must be made by you. Not by corporate executives. Not by bankers. Not by the political class.

This isn’t shared sacrifice. It’s class war, waged politely from a podium, with a smile and a talking point.

“We are going to give it back to you.”

Back? What did you take?

It just sounds like we are going to get fucked.

“Climate competitiveness”

This is not a thing. Look at those two words together and think. It's not a thing!

This is a promise to move the goalposts one millimetre further than countries who aren’t moving them at all. It's the decoy balloon in a magic act where your future disappears.

Corporations pollute to make profit, You and I pay to clean it up - or we just suffer bad health because of their profit.

We need to be in the streets over this. It’s not a strategy, it’s an insult.

“Focus on results over objectives.”

What the actual fuck is this supposed to mean?

If you don’t meet your objective, that’s called a failure, not a feature.

Apparently, they’re rebranding falling short as the plan all along. It’s giving yourself a medal for jogging in the wrong direction.

“Difficult choices.”

Ah yes. The old paternal standby.

This is the language of abusers and bureaucrats alike. “This is going to hurt me more than it hurts you,” said the man holding the paddle.

Carney isn’t the one who’ll feel those “difficult choices.” He’ll be reading the budget from a warm office, not from a clinic with a reduced staff, not from a classroom with no support, not from a city block losing transit and services. The burden, as always, is transferred downward.

This is not an economic necessity. It’s an ideological project, one that maintains capitalist discipline by making suffering seem like responsibility.

The Real Translation:

The market failed. Wages stagnated. The climate burned. And instead of confronting those facts with redistribution and justice, we are told to sacrifice in order to save a system that will continue to enrich the few at the expense of the many.

This isn’t “generational investment.” It’s generational theft dressed up in euphemism and backed by bipartisan consensus.

So let’s not be fooled.

Behind the “historic moment” lies the same old story: the people will pay, and the powerful will profit.

Don’t swallow the salad. Spit it back. And demand a proper meal.

Elected people have learned one very important lesson: you don’t need to silence dissent if you can stage-manage it. You don’t have to crush the people outright, not when you can talk like a reformer while governing like a reactionary.

That’s the trick. Say what the people want to hear. Do what the powerful want you to do.

Enter Mark Carney.

Example 1 - Palestine: Condemn the Bombs, Ship the Bombs

Carney says Canada would arrest Netanyahu if he set foot here, in line with the ICC’s warrant for war crimes. He claims to recognize Palestine as a state. He even calls out the Israeli government for trying to “end any possibility” of Palestinian self-determination.

Fuck yeah!! Sounds brave, right?

But while Gaza is reduced to rubble, Canada continues to trade arms with Israel. No sanctions. No embargo. No serious consequence. The bloodshed is funded, the shipments go out and the applause rolls in.

This is what imperial complicity looks like when it's dressed in international law. The form of justice, with none of the substance.

Example 2 - Inequality: Market Morality as a Substitute for Redistribution

In his book Value(s), Carney tells us the market has lost its moral compass. He says we need fairness. Sustainability. Solidarity.

This is the sanitized language of elite reformism. “Solidarity” but never class struggle. “Fairness” but never expropriation. “Moral markets” as if exploitation can be cleaned up and made polite.

Meanwhile, the richest Canadians continue to get richer. There is no wealth tax. No serious crackdown on capital flight. No structural redistribution. Instead, we get infrastructure plans, trade acceleration, and more deregulation: the familiar toolkit of neoliberal governance, dressed up in moral vocabulary.

It's capitalism with better manners. Nothing more.

Spolier alert: Here’s the real magic trick:

Say what’s popular.

Do what’s profitable.

Call it progress.

Carney does not govern against public opinion, he governs despite it, and thrives because he cloaks elite-serving policies in people-pleasing language.

And why does it work?

Because too many of us still reward intentions instead of outcomes. We confuse eloquence for justice. We mistake theatre for change.

Let’s be clear: words are not resistance. Press conferences don’t feed people. Book tours don’t redistribute wealth. International law doesn’t stop bombs unless someone enforces it.

And Carney isn’t enforcing anything.

So here’s what we must do:

Don’t cheer when they say they’ll tax the rich.

Don’t praise symbolic recognition of Palestine while weapons still flow.

Don’t get suckered by a “values-based economy” that still serves the investor class.

We must withhold our applause, not out of cynicism, but out of discipline. Until we see the legislation passed, the wealth taxed, the bombs stopped, we say:

“Not good enough.”

This is how we hold power to account.

We don’t reward style.

We don’t reward promises.

We reward action. Only action.

Anything less is betrayal with a smile and we’ve had enough of that.

I just read that some historic jewels were stolen from the Louvre and that seems to be a ‘national disaster’ for France.

I was curious as to where the jewels came from so I looked it up.

I want to throw up.

The diamonds, emeralds, sapphires, and gold in the Louvre’s jewels almost certainly originated in colonial or exploitative contexts.

They were:

Extracted under forced or semi-forced labor,

Traded through imperial monopolies, and

Used to symbolize European royal power built on that global inequity.

In short: the beauty of those jewels rests on colonial extraction, not fair exchange.

Hey France! Sit down!

I support any action that gets people into the streets. The No Kings rally raises valid concerns about authoritarianism, corruption, and concentrated power. And any space where pro-Palestinian voices are present is important.

Especially right now.

With a precarious ceasefire agreement in place, we should be focusing more, not less, on Palestine. Israel has already broken the ceasefire, and history tells us it will again.

We cannot afford to treat this as background noise.

That said, we should be honest about the limits of this event:

- It is pre-approved and non-disruptive.

It poses no real threat to power and, by design, avoids confrontation.

- Asking participants to register doesn’t seem kosher.

It adds a layer of control, undermines the safety of anonymity, and raises questions about who’s collecting that data and why (profit!). That kind of gatekeeping doesn’t belong in grassroots movements.

This erodes the awareness around data privacy.

We should not normalize the tradeoff of privacy for convenience.

- Most of all, the rally singles out Trump, as if he alone represents authoritarianism. That’s misleading.

We need to get money out of politics. Mass surveillance, militarized policing, corporate control, and state-sponsored violence all predate Trump and have expanded under all elected parties in the US and Canada.

The crisis is not one man, it’s a class system that protects wealth and punishes dissent. The real struggle isn’t left versus right. It’s top versus bottom.

No Kings comes so close! But until that’s named directly, we’re just managing symptoms, not fighting the disease.

María Corina Machado’s image as a “pro-democracy reformer” is celebrated in Western media but her political orientation and alliances make her a deeply polarizing figure inside Venezuela and across the Global South.

The Nobel Committee’s decision to award her the Nobel peace prize for 2025 fits a pattern: awards given to figures like Liu Xiaobo (China) and Aung San Suu Kyi (Myanmar) served as symbolic rebukes of non-aligned or adversarial governments, while Barack Obama’s prize functioned as an act of political endorsement, projecting faith in Western leadership rather than recognizing tangible peace.

In each case, the prize reflected geopolitics as much as principle, rewarding alignment with Western narratives more than genuine conflict resolution.

For example, under Obama the US expanded drone warfare, proxy interventions, and covert destabilization campaigns that deepened global instability under the banner of humanitarianism.

The West condemns Venezuela not for being authoritarian, but for being disobedient.

It excuses authoritarianism when it serves its interests, and weaponizes democracy when it doesn’t.

While Nicolás Maduro is vilified for holding flawed elections and concentrating power, regimes like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the UAE, where political opposition is illegal and dissenters are imprisoned or executed, receive weapons, trade deals, and diplomatic praise.

The difference is not about democracy, it’s about obedience.

Venezuela’s government nationalized oil, expelled foreign corporations, and aligned with independent blocs like ALBA, China, and Russia, actions that threaten Western economic control.

That defiance, not repression, is what triggers outrage.

At the same time, authoritarianism is quietly rising within the United States itself:

mass surveillance, suppression of dissent, militarized policing, media concentration and bias toward corporate narratives, and the control of politics by the wealthy all erode the democratic values Washington claims to export.

The rise of anti-BDS laws, which openly punish political expression in defense of Palestinian rights, marks a blatant violation of the First Amendment, proof that freedom of speech in America is conditional on alignment with state and corporate interests.

Venezuela’s sin is not tyranny, but resistance to empire.

Its suffering is not born of socialism, but of economic warfare, embargoes and sanctions imposed precisely because it chose left-leaning, redistributive policies.

Those same policies, including public housing, free healthcare, universal education, and the socialization of oil wealth, are what once gave Venezuelans one of the highest quality-of-life standards in Latin America.

Until external pressure and blockade strangled their economy.

Thus, “human rights” rhetoric functions as a tool of foreign policy, applied to punish disobedience, not to uphold universal values.

What is condemned in Caracas is tolerated, even rewarded, in Washington and Riyadh.

The empire does not fear dictatorship, it fears independence.

Instability Is the Policy

Let’s get something straight: the United States doesn’t stumble into chaos overseas, it administers it.

For decades, Washington has treated instability in the Middle East not as a failure of policy but as a carefully maintained asset. A stable, independent region would trade on its own terms, control its own oil, and stop buying American weapons.

That would be disastrous for Wall Street, for the Pentagon, and for the whole corporate-imperial apparatus that feeds off permanent crisis.

From the Carter Doctrine onward, U.S. law and doctrine have made domination of the Persian Gulf a “vital interest.” That means any government that tries to chart an independent path - nationalize resources, ally with non-Western powers, or simply stay out of Washington’s orbit - can expect sanctions, subversion, or invasion.

Iran 1953, Afghanistan in the 1980s, Iraq 2003, Libya 2011, Syria 2012 to today: these weren’t mistakes. They were operations. Each one destroyed a functioning state and replaced it with rubble, warlords, and foreign dependency. And that’s the point.

The arms merchants get rich, the dollar stays glued to global energy markets, and the American public is told it’s all to keep them “safe.” The real safety being protected is the safety of U.S. capital.

Enter ISIS and Al-Qaeda, the perfect villains. They perform the same function the Soviet Union once did: a permanent excuse for military budgets, foreign bases, and endless war.

These groups almost never attack Israel, but their mere existence keeps the region on a boil and the money flowing.

They are the necessary demons in a morality play that sells occupation as security and empire as benevolence.

If Washington didn’t need them, the media would treat them for what they are, relatively minor insurgent movements bred by occupation and economic ruin, not civilization’s sworn enemy. But that story would force us to admit who created those conditions in the first place. So instead, the networks roll the same footage, the politicians mouth the same slogans, and the fear machine hums along.

When people finally ask, “Why are we still over there?” the answer is simple and ugly: money and racism.

The phrase “radical Islam” is one of the cleverest propaganda tricks of the last half-century. It turns political resistance into religious pathology. It says nothing about imperial occupation, CIA coups, or IMF austerity, it just whispers, “They hate us for our freedom.

When politicians tell us “they hate our way of life,” they’re not talking about the nine-to-five job, the Starbucks run, or the two kids and a dog. What’s really meant is the way of life that sends troops across oceans, drains other people’s oil fields, and topples governments that refuse to obey.

It’s not our freedom they resent, it’s our imperial footprint.

And let’s be honest: this “way of life” is hard-fought, but we don’t do the fighting. The burden is carried by the people of the nations we exploit: the workers digging our minerals, the farmers displaced by our trade policies, the civilians buried under our “precision” bombs.

Their suffering is the down payment on our comfort.

So when leaders say “they hate our way of life,” they’re right about one thing: people do hate a system that steals their future, poisons their soil, and calls it freedom. What they hate isn’t democracy, it’s the violence behind it.

Look closer and you’ll see that groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda follow the same pattern as every other desperate, violent reaction to foreign domination.

They are anti-colonial extremists, not theological aberrations. Religion is the banner; empire is the battlefield. Labeling them “radical Islam” erases that reality. It lets Western power claim moral innocence while treating Muslim identity itself as suspect.

No one calls Latin American guerrillas “radical Christianity.” No one describes European fascists as “radical Catholics.” The term exists only to racialize and de-politicize Muslim resistance, to keep the public frightened and obedient.

Fear = profit, so to dehumanize people is good for business.

If we stripped away the propaganda and looked at the record, we’d see continuity, not exception. Every empire has faced uprisings. Every uprising is called barbarism by those who rule. And every time, the language of civilization is used to mask the machinery of profit.

To confront extremism honestly, we have to confront the system that breeds it. That means abandoning the slur “radical Islam” and naming the real radicalism of our time, the radicalism of empire, the belief that no nation, no people, and no faith has the right to stand outside the reach of the West's power.

And while politicians in Washington and Ottawa posture about “condemning violence,” they sign the arms deals, fund the bombings, and applaud the sanctions that starve children.

They condemn violence only when it isn’t theirs.

Today, let's remember that In 1919, international powers began deciding the fate of Palestine without its people’s participation, laying the groundwork for later conflict.

Palestinians were never asked to consent to giving up their land. Under the British Mandate (1920–1948), Britain and later the United Nations made decisions about partition without consulting the local Arab majority.

The 1937 Peel Commission first proposed dividing Palestine, which Arab leaders rejected, and the 1947 UN Partition Plan (Resolution 181) allocated 55% of the land to a proposed Jewish state even though Jews made up about one-third of the population.

Palestinian and Arab representatives rejected the plan as unjust and imposed without their consent, leading to the 1948 war and the creation of Israel without Palestinian approval.