Norman Finkelstein August 22, 2025

In July 2025, UN Secretary-General António Guterres released his office’s annual report, Conflict-Related Sexual Violence. The report, which was based on “information verified by the United Nations,” was divided into a descriptive section on sexual violence by various state and non-state actors and a crucial appendix: a “List of Parties Credibly Suspected of Committing or Being Responsible for Patterns of Rape or Other Forms of Sexual Violence in Situations of Armed Conflict.”

The section on “Israel and the State of Palestine” accurately summarized allegations against both Hamas and Israel. But then, something strange happened: Hamas was listed as a perpetrator of sexual violence, but Israel was not.

This omission is perplexing.

The evidence against Israel — both in quantity and quality — appears to far exceed the evidence against Hamas. The report acknowledged that a UN mission, personally mandated by Guterres and led by Pramila Patten, found “reasonable grounds to believe that sexual violence occurred” at the hands of Hamas-led forces. However, it also noted that the evidence was at best “circumstantial” and that the Patten mission found “no digital evidence specifically depicting acts of sexual violence.”

In contrast, the report’s findings against Israel were more definitive. The UN verified 12 incidents of conflict-related sexual violence by Israeli armed forces, including rape, attempted rape, and multiple incidents of genital assault. An Independent International Commission of Inquiry led by Navi Pillay also documented additional cases of rape and beatings. While the Patten mission had no digital evidence against Hamas, the report highlighted “digital evidence” of sexual violence against Gazan victims that was “filmed or photographed by Israeli armed and security forces.”

Given that the report was based on “information verified by the United Nations,” why was Hamas included in the appendix while Israel was excluded?

A a curious appendix, slipped into the final page of the report, attempted to answer this. It stated that because Israel “consistently denied access for United Nations monitors,” it was “challenging to make definitive determinations” about sexual violence. Accordingly, Guterres placed Israel “on notice for potential listing in the next reporting period.”

This explanation is a mess on multiple levels. The standard for a UN commission of inquiry is “reasonable grounds to conclude,” not “definitive determinations” — a standard the Pillay commission met for both sides. If Israel’s obstructionism discounted the commission’s findings against it, then the findings against Hamas should also be discounted, as the commission could not conduct on-the-ground investigations in either location. The Patten mission, which might have served as an alternative source, was “neither intended nor mandated to be investigative in nature.” In short, Guterres’s clarification clarified nothing.

The true reason for Israel’s omission must be sought elsewhere.

On October 24, 2023, Guterres condemned Hamas’s attacks but added that they “did not happen in a vacuum,” referencing the “56 years of suffocating occupation” faced by Palestinians. Israel reacted with fury. Guterres was marked. At the same time, Israel, which was already obstructing the Pillay Commission’s investigation, sought to use the UN to legitimize its claim that Hamas used rape as a “weapon of war.”

Israel chose Pramila Patten to do its bidding. Under immense pressure and fearing for his job, Guterres approved her mission. When Patten dutifully found “reasonable grounds to conclude” that Hamas committed sexual violence, Israel’s next goal was to get Hamas listed in the appendix — a victory that would be neutralized if Israel were listed alongside them.

Guterres capitulated. It’s anyone’s guess whether this was due to cowardice, careerism, or even blackmail. What’s certain is that by omitting Israel from the appendix, Guterres disgraced himself and his office. He rewarded Israel’s obstructionism, signaling that it could get its way even while sabotaging the UN’s accountability system.

The members of the Pillay Commission couldn’t have been pleased. In a self-serving move to save his own hide, Guterres discredited their findings on Israel while appropriating their findings on Hamas. The report was officially released on July 15, 2025. The day before, it was announced that all three members of the Commission of Inquiry had “suddenly” submitted their resignations.

Above all else, Guterres betrayed Gaza in its moment of truth and death agony. He might not be the first to do so and certainly won’t be the last, but for the diminishing few who still believe in truth and justice, he will forever carry the mark of Cain.

Adapted from Norman Finkelstein’s new book, Gaza’s Gravediggers: An Inquiry into Corruption in High Places

- Struggle: Adults often forget that learning their first language took 7–10 years of immersion and effort, leading to unrealistic expectations for quick fluency in a new language. They mistakenly think children learn "effortlessly," when in reality, it’s a long, effort-intensive process for everyone.

- Solution: Acknowledge that language learning requires sustained effort and patience. Set realistic goals and embrace the grind, understanding that progress comes with consistent practice over time.

2. Misjudging Children’s Media as "Easy”

- Struggle: Learners assume children’s books and cartoons are simple and ideal for beginners, overlooking that these materials rely heavily on parental explanations (for books) or nonverbal cues and context (for cartoons). Passive consumption of such media is less effective than active engagement.

- Solution: Engage in active learning by interacting with native speakers. Conversations provide real-time feedback, context, and practical vocabulary, mimicking how children learn through social interaction rather than passive exposure.

3. Assuming Linear Learning Progress

- Struggle: Learners expect the same pace of progress throughout their journey, not realizing that language acquisition is exponential. Early stages feel slow, but with persistence, progress accelerates as the brain adapts.

- Solution: Stay tenacious, like a lioness chasing prey. Consistency trumps perceived fluency or ease in the early stages. Keep pushing through plateaus, as breakthroughs often come after sustained effort.

4. Transferring Incorrect Rules and Habits

- Struggle: Learners apply the rules, sounds, or structures of their native language to the new one, leading to errors. For example, assuming the Swedish letter "Å" has a unique sound ignores that similar sounds exist in other languages (e.g., English "O" or sounds in Japanese/Korean).

- Solution: Identify and compare the "hidden" sounds and logical structures between languages. Focus on understanding how the new language organizes its phonetics and grammar differently, rather than forcing familiar patterns onto it.

5. Overemphasizing the Alphabet

- Struggle: Many believe learning a language starts with mastering the alphabet, as taught in school. However, children speak fluently long before learning to read or write, showing that spoken fluency doesn’t depend on written systems.

- Solution: Prioritize speaking and listening skills over written forms in the early stages. Focus on conversational practice to build fluency, as writing and reading can follow once a spoken foundation is established.

6. Confusing Distinct Language Skills

- Struggle: Learners conflate reading, writing, speaking, and grammar as a single skill, when they are distinct. Grammar is a meta-language (a system describing language rules), not the language itself, and written symbols (like alphabets or icons) differ from spoken speech.

- Solution: Treat each skill separately. Focus on speaking and listening for communication, and approach grammar as a tool for understanding structure, not as the core of the language. Practice each skill intentionally to avoid confusion.

7. Ignoring the Biology of Phonetics

- Struggle: Learners attribute poor pronunciation to age or lack of talent, when it’s often about unfamiliar muscle movements in the mouth, tongue, and jaw. They don’t realize pronunciation is a physical skill, not just a cognitive one.

- Solution: Practice phonetic movements deliberately, like singers do. Experiment with tongue and jaw placement, observe yourself in a mirror, and mimic native speakers’ physical articulation to master sounds.

8. Overlooking Dialects and Accents

- Struggle: Learners assume a language has one "correct" way of speaking, ignoring the diversity of dialects and accents (e.g., England’s 50+ dialects or socioeconomic variations like capital vs. rural speech). Media often presents an artificial, standardized version of the language.

- Solution: Research the target language’s dialects and accents, and choose one that suits your goals (e.g., a widely understood standard or a regional variant). Listen to diverse native speakers to understand variations and avoid confusion.

9. Trying to Learn Everything at Once

- Struggle: Learners overwhelm themselves by tackling the entire language (e.g., its 100,000+ words) instead of focusing on the 25,000–33,000 words needed for daily communication.

- Solution: Start with high-frequency vocabulary and phrases relevant to your immediate needs. Build a foundation of practical language use to gain confidence and fluency, then expand naturally over time.

10. Mishandling Word Order and Syntax

- Struggle: Learners transfer their native language’s word order to the new language, causing errors. For example, English and Swedish share subject-verb-object (SVO) syntax but differ in clause construction (e.g., "Tomorrow I’ll go to town" vs. Swedish’s structure).

- Solution: Study the new language’s syntax explicitly. Learn how it organizes sentences and clauses, and practice constructing sentences correctly to avoid transferring native-language habits.

11. Ignoring Dialect, Sociolect, and Idiolect

- Struggle: Learners don’t account for individual, social, or regional variations in speech. Even family members in the same environment develop unique speech patterns (idiolects), and languages vary by social group (sociolects) or region (dialects).

- Solution: Recognize that language is dynamic and personal. Explore the sociolects and idiolects relevant to your context (e.g., formal vs. casual speech or regional differences) and adapt your learning to the specific style you want to emulate.

---

Additional Notes

- Practical Tip:

Immerse yourself in the language through real-world practice, such as language exchange apps, conversation partners, or immersion programs. Tools like Tandem, HelloTalk, or local language meetups might simulate the interactive learning children experience. If you don’t find any that fits you, that’s okay too it’s often a design issue rather than a language learning problem.
- Cultural Context: Understanding cultural nuances (e.g., politeness norms or idiomatic expressions) alongside language enhances communication. For example, Japanese and Korean have honorific systems that English and Swedish lack, which affect sentence structure and vocabulary choice.

- Technology:

Use resources like AI for vocabulary, Forvo for pronunciation, or YouTube channels featuring native speakers from different regions to expose yourself to dialects and accents.

A Global Economy on the Brink — Why You Should Care

The world economy is teetering, and workers are bearing the brunt.

The World Economic Forum (WEF) predicts global trade disruptions could lead to 14 million jobs lost by 2027, with 2 million small-to-medium businesses facing bankruptcy between 2023 and 2027 due to supply chain shocks and reduced demand.

In the US, machinists in South Carolina and truckers in Ohio face export slumps, forced to pivot to roles like solar tech or AI logistics — or risk long-term unemployment.

Growth stalls everywhere: US dockworkers idle in Long Beach, truckers roll empty rigs in Ohio, and small suppliers fold when big clients like Ford scale back.

For American workers and firms, it’s less trade, less cash, and a leaner paycheck. What’s driving this economic pain?

The Future of Work: WEF’s Call for Upskilling

The WEF stresses upskilling as a lifeline: 60% of workers worldwide will need retraining by 2027 to shift into growth sectors like green energy or tech, where jobs are projected to grow by 30%.

But the road ahead is rocky — global markets are reeling. S&P 500 firms shed $2.4 trillion in a day on April 3, 2025, per Reuters, the worst drop since 2020’s pandemic crash.

Oil’s volatile too: Brent crude swung from $80 in 2024 to $66.25 now, per Goldman Sachs, with non-OPEC supply up 1.7 million barrels daily in 2025.

China’s on the edge — debt, deflation, and a real estate crisis make it vulnerable, dragging global growth.

Retaliation brews: China’s slapping 10–15% levies on US goods, and the EU’s eyeing 20%. The 1930s Smoot-Hawley echo looms — trade shrank 66% then. Today’s interconnected supply chains amplify the chaos.

OPEC’s Resilience: A Stark Contrast

Amid this turmoil, OPEC+ stands firm, absorbing shocks that would cripple others. On April 4, 2025, oil prices fell sharply — US crude dropped 7.63% to $66.25 per barrel — after OPEC+’s output hike of 411,000 barrels daily.

OPEC+ (the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries plus allies like Russia) coordinates oil production.

Internal squabbles drove this recent move: members like Kazakhstan overproduced, undercutting quotas meant to stabilize prices, so OPEC boosted output to punish them.

Saudi Arabia, an OPEC heavyweight, can weather this — sitting on a $925 billion Public Investment Fund, they ramp up production without blinking, like a real estate titan leaving a skyscraper vacant for 18 months while collecting rent elsewhere, or Walmart slashing TV prices to $99 on Black Friday as a loss leader to draw crowds.

OPEC’s deep pockets shrug off temporary price drops like pocket change.

The Real Economic Pain: Beyond Cheaper Gas

While oil prices dip, the idea of cheaper gas — maybe $3 a gallon instead of $4 — offers a flimsy silver lining.

This is because the reason will be fewer cars on the road due to commuters losing jobs and businesses cutting travel.

Moreover, it means factories humming less due to economic hits to manufacturing hubs: steel plants in the US, carmakers in Japan — idling workers and crimping tax revenue.

Fewer goods shipped means exporters like China and Germany lose orders, slashing jobs and growth.

When China’s ports slow, demand for US exports — like soybeans from Iowa or Boeing jets from Washington — tanks.

Farmers face unsold harvests, laying off seasonal hands.

Factory lines stall, cutting shifts for machinists.

Companies like Caterpillar feel it too — fewer German or Chinese infrastructure projects mean fewer bulldozer sales, squeezing profits and forcing furloughs in Illinois plants.

For most people, countries, and markets, this trade-off (cheaper gas) is a gut punch, not a win.

Tracing the Roots: Tariffs and Trade Wars

This economic pain isn’t just OPEC+’s doing — new tariffs on global economies, announced in early April 2025, triggered recession fears that curbed oil demand.

Steep tariffs spooked markets, pushing recession odds to 53% on platforms like Kalshi.

Traders foresaw a slowdown — less economic activity, fewer goods shipped, less oil used.

Data backs this: oil prices often track economic confidence, like when Brent crude fell 10% in late 2018 amid trade war jitters. Tariffs raise costs, growth stalls, and oil use drops — an indirect but heavy blow. Historical precedent bites hard: the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariffs deepened the Great Depression, tanking global trade by 66%.

Likewise, in 2018, trade war tariffs shaved $1.7 billion off US exporters’ earnings, per the Census Bureau, a pattern that’s repeating now with steeper levies.

The Heavy-Handed Tactician: Donald J Trump’s Sledgehammer Since 2017

At the root of these ripple effects lies Donald Trump, the heavy-handed tactician whose tariff policies have hammered livelihoods globally since 2017.

He kicked off his 2018 trade war with tariffs on steel, aluminum, and Chinese goods, sparking economic ripples that cost US exporters dearly.

Now, his April 2025 tariffs — 10% blanket duties and higher levies on dozens of countries — deepen the strain, amplifying a fragile economy’s woes.

For American workers and firms, it’s a familiar sting: less trade, less cash, and a tougher road ahead.

Let’s be real. Like most of you, I didn’t sign up to LinkedIn by flashing my driver’s license or passport. It was an email, a password, and a profile. Photo optional. The registration was simple.

For a decade and a half, what followed was a seamless, established relationship, forged with the ease of a digital handshake.

Then, during one of the busiest election years globally in recent history, LinkedIn decided to move goalposts mid-game. Does this seem trustworthy to you?

LinkedIn’s Feeble Excuse?

The reason they gave? A vague ‘precaution’ against ‘potential unauthorized access.’ They claimed ‘unfamiliar locations or devices’ triggered their alarm bells.

In reality, the only unusual activity was that I was quickly amassing readers and subscribers.

I was rigorously fact-checking U.S. presidential candidates across the political spectrum, providing verifiable analysis that resonated with a global audience. People were looking for meaningful intelligence, and my meticulously researched articles, with readily accessible links to dozens of sources, were clearly gaining significant traction and credibility among a wide and influential following worldwide.

Why would a platform that values its reputation risk suppressing reputable fact-checking?

Big Brother Knows Best — The Logic of LinkedIn

So, LinkedIn claimed it locked my account for ‘unfamiliar locations or devices,’ right?

Here’s the kicker: LinkedIn, like every major website on the planet, tracks my every move. IP address? Check. Browser type? You bet. Operating system? They know it. Cookies? They’re practically living inside my computer, claiming to use this data to ‘personalize my experience’ and serve me ‘relevant job opportunities’. They track your every like, comment, and connection. So, after fifteen years of this constant, intimate surveillance, they suddenly decide my routine is ‘unfamiliar’?

Please.. They know my routine better than I do.

But it goes deeper. Jen Golbeck, a professor of Information Studies, is well-known for her work on social media, particularly as a science communicator who explores its impacts and applications. As Jen Golbeck has extensively documented in her research on social media platforms, data collection extends far beyond basic tracking. LinkedIn analyzes your social graph, inferring your personality traits, political leanings, and even your potential career trajectory. This isn’t just about targeted ads; it’s about building a comprehensive profile that paints a shockingly accurate picture of your entire professional and personal life. They know who you know, what you read, and even what you might think.

And it’s not just theoretical. You can feel it. That sudden, inexplicable drop in your data bundle, 500 MB or 3 GB vanishing in minutes, even when you’re not streaming videos or loading heavy images. The way your CPU spikes, your laptop fan whirring like a jet engine, even when you’re just checking messages. It’s the invisible data extraction, the constant siphoning of your digital life, happening in the background, without your consent. They’re not just watching; they’re taking.

15 years of massive data collection creates a digital fingerprint. Every click, every connection, every scroll contributes to a unique profile that’s as distinctive as your own biometric signature.

And for the record, I’ve been using the same MacBook, accessing LinkedIn from the same locations and IP address for years. Even with the simple VPN I employ, LinkedIn’s sophisticated tracking knows it’s me.

So, for LinkedIn to claim ‘unfamiliar activity’ after years of meticulously mapping my digital existence? That’s not just illogical; it’s insulting.

This wasn’t about security; it was about control. And intimidation.

Locked-Out by Linked-In: ID-iotic Measures

From tracking your clicks to locking your account.

After all that surveillance, after building a digital replica of my life, and after I provided my password as usual, LinkedIn refused it, took the account hostage, and demanded a government-issued ID as ransom.

At first glance, this demand might not sound particularly absurd. You might think, ‘Well, they’re just verifying your identity.’ But it’s only when you dissect the logic and truly understand the inconsistency of their demand that you recognize how laughable this demand is.

Remember, I didn’t sign up to LinkedIn with a government ID fifteen years ago. My initial verification was an email address and a password. That is my de facto ID. So, let’s be clear: LinkedIn is asking me to provide a document to match against… nothing. LinkedIn doesn’t have my pre-existing government ID on file. They suggest they are going to compare my current ID with something they never asked me to provide 15 years ago. Doh!

What A Legitimate Platform Would Have Done

Imagine if LinkedIn had acted with foresight and respect for its users.

A serious platform, concerned about evolving security needs, would have announced their new ID verification policy well in advance. They would have clearly explained the reasons behind it, acknowledging the years of established trust.

They would have given users ample time to replace their existing verification method with the new government-issued ID requirement, perhaps a grace period of several months.

They might have even offered alternative verification methods for those who preferred not to submit a government ID.

LinkedIn implemented no such process. Is that reliable conduct to you?

LinkedIn’s Recipe for Identity Theft

It is said that the famous Mullah Nasreddin, a legendary figure in folklore, when once asked to prove his identity upon entering a bank, simply pulled out a mirror, gazed in it and confirmed: “Yes, I am me”.

By demanding government IDs without any pre-existing ID on file, LinkedIn has created a massive security vulnerability.

Anyone with a government ID matching the name on an account could potentially claim ownership.

Consider this: thousands of people share common names. Without a baseline ID for comparison, any submitted ID at this point becomes a mere placeholder, proving nothing.

This opens the door to identity theft on an unprecedented scale. A malicious actor could easily exploit this weakness, hijacking accounts and accessing sensitive professional data.

LinkedIn’s ‘security measure’ is a security nightmare. That is, if protecting security was the real reason and not just a pretext.

The Case of the Vanishing Customer Support

So, what have we learned?

LinkedIn claims this was a security measure, a necessary precaution. But where is the evidence of that? Where is the transparent process? Where is the user-friendly support?

They demand a government ID, with no baseline for comparison, no means of real verification.

LinkedIn cites ‘unfamiliar activity,’ while hoping that I will forget or not be aware of their 15 years of extensive tracking that meticulously has mapped my every online move and created a digital fingerprint.

LinkedIn speaks of ‘verification,’ yet makes it nearly impossible to reach a human being, a customer representative, to address legitimate concerns.

LinkedIn claims to value security, yet creates a system ripe for identity theft.

The truth is, this wasn’t about security. This was about control. This was about asserting power over our digital identities during one of the busiest election years globally in recent history, about reminding us who truly owns the platforms we rely on for discussions. In a year where digital privacy should be paramount, LinkedIn sought to connect the dots between our professional lives, our political leanings, and our very personal identities — information as sensitive as our social security details.

They speak of ‘security,’ yet act with reckless disregard for their users, under the cloak of false benevolence and fabricated “protection”.

And in doing so, LinkedIn has exposed its DOGE-like attempts, where unchecked access to personal data is justified in the name of security.

Imagine being highly educated, sitting with a team of other highly educated individuals, and producing a text that says “Moscow is the capital of America”.

An equally baffling, yet not a hypothetical, statement can be found on the world-famous pediatric research hospital St Jude’s official website, crossing far over the border to misinformation on a global level:

“Sub-Saharan Africa, one of the world’s most resource-limited settings”.

Resource-limited??? In what world? European nations and settler-colonial entities have extracted gold, diamonds, cocoa, oil, cobalt, and numerous other resources from Africa on an industrial scale for 1,000 years —and the drilling rigs, excavators, and transporters are still working around the clock as of November 2024 to keep the resource extraction flowing (somehow magically acquired for a fraction of their worth).

How, and why, would a distinguished organization like St. Jude perpetuate the misinformation that “sub”-Saharan Africa is “resource-limited”?

Did they mean to say “poor”, but were trying to use an euphemism?

That’s an oddly specific mistake.

Especially by an organization that is full of enthusiasts, doctors, healthcare professionals, volunteers, and top scientists at its disposal, who are working hard to make the world a better place.

Does St Jude lack educated people who know the definitions of correlation and causation? Who recognize the vast difference between low personal income and limited natural resources? Doesn’t St Jude have anyone capable of recognizing that there’s a direct link between the resource extraction for fire sale prices, and the low income among citizens who had no say or part in those transactions?

Whatever the real reason, it would seem that St Jude Global applies an extremely narrow and misleading definition of what “resource-limited” means.

It may also be one of the worst alibis to argue that being a “black woman” —and a “grandpa” who likes ice cream— somehow makes actively backing and funding ongoing murders on a massive scale excusable.

The citizen journalist “Roz” reports.

In early October 2024, a group of 99 American healthcare professionals — including physicians, surgeons, nurse practitioners, nurses, and midwives — who had volunteered in Gaza since October 2023, sent an open letter to President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. Collectively, they had spent 254 weeks working in Gaza’s hospitals and clinics. The letter detailed their firsthand observations of the humanitarian crisis resulting from Israel’s military actions in Gaza.

The healthcare workers reported that nearly every individual in Gaza was either sick, injured, or both, highlighting the severe impact on women and children. They noted that the death toll was likely much higher than officially reported, estimating over 118,000 deaths, which would constitute approximately 5.4% of Gaza’s population. The letter emphasized the widespread malnutrition, lack of medical supplies, and the destruction of healthcare infrastructure. The signatories stated that they did not observe any militant activity in Gaza’s hospitals or other healthcare facilities.

The group urged the U.S. government to:

- Withhold military, economic, and diplomatic support from Israel.

- Participate in an international arms embargo on both Israel and Palestinian armed groups until a permanent ceasefire is established.

- Ensure the reopening of the Rafah Crossing between Gaza and Egypt to allow unfettered aid delivery by recognized international humanitarian organizations.

They also requested a meeting with President Biden and Vice President Harris to discuss their experiences and advocate for a change in U.S. policy toward the genocide.

— 10 November 2024 at 11:52

Many analyses are going around, and a million-fold more opinions and scapegoating. Instead of even minimal introspection as well as assuming responsibility for ignoring the — some hundred— reasons why “their” candidate couldn’t win, countless voters in the USA keep trodding down the path of denial.

And blaming everyone else but themselves for their complicity in trying to push an unsuitable candidate and maintain systemic injustices.

In addition, countless ‘misguided’ non-voters across the world who preferred to look the other way instead of taking a serious look beneath the surface-level propaganda and feel-good stereotypes, are mourning the idea of a dream candidate that was denied greatness.

The idea, not a real person.

Not merits.

Based on the currently available information, per Sunday the 10th of November, it appears that the Democrats have lost control of both the Senate and the White House in the 2024 elections, while control of the House of Representatives is still undetermined.

The Dems failed to manage holding the Senate for longer than two years.

Anyone with their head buried deep in the sand can claim all they want that Kamala lost because she “is a woman” or “black” or “person of color” — that still doesn’t make it true.

Democrats in the USA win political campaigns by backing candidates and running campaigns that actually can win — not by fearmongering, scapegoating, bullying, gaslighting media consumers, and playing the victim. Games that Republicans have mastered. It’s not a viable strategy for Democrats.

Accordingly, the Republicans successfully flipped control of the Senate.

Democrats lost seats in West Virginia, and Ohio, while Republicans successfully defended a crucial seat in Texas.

The House is still up for grabs. The Democrats may lose it too.

This year, establishment Democrats dropped their masks and revealed that they’re bought, have sold their souls, have stronger allegiances to another country, and really couldn’t care less about American citizens.
Thus, the 2024 election saw an increased flow of votes to third-party and independent candidates, reflecting dissatisfaction with the major party nominees. While these third-party candidates did not win any states, they received a higher share of the vote than in recent elections.

Election 2024 was never about Donald Trump. And Kamala Harris was never a serious contender. Kamala lost to Biden in 2020.

{Kamala Harris ran against Joe Biden (as well as other candidates like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Pete Buttigieg) in the 2020 Democratic primaries. Harris dropped out of the race while Biden went on to win the nomination. After winning the nomination, Biden (and AIPAC) chose Harris as his running mate on August 11, 2020}.

Biden beat Trump comfortably in 2020 but quickly lost the trust of the motley coalition of voters, when he proved he wasn’t better (beneath the feel-good propaganda) than Trump. Biden is just a more polished version.

So is Kamala. Hence, in 2024, Kamala never even bothered to try to pick up those lost votes of Biden’s, instead taking Benjamin Netanyahu’s lead and going all in on gaslighting. The math is simple from that point. Several groups who got Biden into the White House in 2020 were offered no compelling reasons to support him again, and without them, he wouldn’t stand a chance in 2024. It stood therefore clear to me 1 year ago that Biden would become a one-term president and Kamala never earn the Presidency.

It was also clear to me that turnout rates wouldn’t be as high as in 2020.

It is said that when the Democrat party rallies voters, they win. Republicans know this and lie, steal, and cheat to “win”. And get away with it election after election. The electoral college, too, remains an abomination that gets to pass for “democracy”.

Systemically, generations of Americans have experienced during their whole lives how establishment Republicans block voters while establishment Democrats do nothing about it.

As a result, according to available data, approximately 158 million Americans cast ballots in the 2024 election out of an estimated 242 million eligible voters. This represents a turnout rate of about 65% of the voting eligible population (VEP).

That’s 84 million Americans who didn’t vote.

In comparison, Sweden’s most recent parliamentary election in 2022 saw a turnout of 84.2% of eligible voters. The country has a long history of very high electoral participation, with turnout rarely dipping below 80% in recent decades.

Austria similarly boasts impressive turnout figures, with 80.4% of eligible voters participating in the country’s 2019 parliamentary election.

Both European countries significantly outperform U.S. turnout rates, even in high-participation years like 2020 and 2024.

Like Sweden, Austria benefits from:

• Compulsory voting: While not strictly enforced, voting is technically mandatory for all citizens.
• Sunday voting: Elections are held on weekends to maximize participation.
• Automatic registration: Eligible voters are added to the rolls without needing to register separately.

The Democrat (in reality AIPAC) campaign; pushing a candidate that was perfect for an indicted Prime Minister’s self-interest while cracking down on American citizens — with 2020-primaries loser Kamala Harris acting wholeheartedly as a puppet of another government —and moreover while dismissing root cause, systemic issues, was wrong for Democrats and the 2024 elections on so many levels.

Step 1 in winning popular elections: back a candidate and employ a strategy that has a chance to win.

4 November 2024 at 01:54

Religious or Atheist — most people don’t like child murderers.

A notable quote from the Bible encapsulates this warning:

”But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” (Matthew 18:6, KJV) [2][4].

This deep concern for children is reiterated by Jesus in several passages, including Luke 17:2 and Mark 9:42.

Theologians say that the harshness of this warning illustrates God’s protective stance towards children, indicating that Children hold a special place in God’s heart. The punishment described serves as a stark reminder of the moral responsibility adults have to safeguard the innocence and faith of young ones.

Across the globe and time, whether in Biafra, Bosnia, Argentina, Gaza, and numerous more places, the settler-colonial project Israel is implicated in the misery of countless children.

Kamala Harris may win voters who think it’s enough that she points out that she’s a woman, “black”, and a mother. Joe may visit churches in front of TV cameras. And so on. Scaremongering about the Orange Menace won’t change that for many voters, the Biden-Harris administration’s obstruction of human rights and humanitarian aid, and their funding of war crimes, just doesn’t sit well.

Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris suffered significant damage due to a devastating fire that occurred on April 15, 2019.

The worldwide press and media discussions quickly whipped up a frenzy about the fragility of historical monuments and the (selective) importance of preserving cultural (some) heritage sites. Those passionate about the cathedral argued that they were righteously concerned over a crucial piece of world heritage. The high-profile nature of the donations created a form of philanthropic competition, encouraging wealthy individuals and corporations to make large pledges. The French government passed a law in record time for significant tax deductions on donations, providing an incentive for large donations by the richest. Regular people were bombarded by media sensationalism that made a spectacle out of “explaining” to Average Joe and Jane that they somewhere, somehow — each and every one of them — have a kind of personal connection to Notre Dame and, hence must prioritize it. The cacophony of pundits and reporters, in combination with incessant dramatic images of the burning cathedral, did manage to evoke emotional responses in people around the world, the majority of whom barely knew about the building’s existence before the “news” barrage, let alone had ever visited.

Before, during, and after this debacle, there had been, were, and are ongoing crises around the globe that the oligarch-owned majority of the press never bother to inform the public about. Instead of focusing on critical humanitarian issues, the media landscape is (intentionally) dominated by sensational stories and celebrity news, leaving many pressing crises in the shadows.

For instance, while millions face severe hunger and poverty in places like Malawi — where over 5 million people are currently experiencing crisis levels of food insecurity — few know about it, because they are consistently underinformed and misinformed by the press.

Reports indicated that there were almost 100 times more articles about a single entertainment event than about the outbreak of this humanitarian crisis.

This is not just a one-time observation but part of a broader trend in how humanitarian crises are reported.

In the best of worlds, no one should have to point out the hypocrisy concerning world heritage sites.

Settler-colonial Israel’s destruction of cultural heritage sites in occupied Palestine is of unprecented magnitude. Gaza is home to numerous culturally and historically significant sites, including mosques, churches, and ancient structures. The ongoing genocide has led to extensive damage to these sites.

UNESCO has called for the protection of cultural heritage sites during conflicts and has documented instances of destruction. It emphasizes that such acts are criminal under international law, particularly under Article 53 of Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, which protects cultural property during armed conflicts.

The Great Omari Mosque and the Church of Saint Porphyrius, both located in the Old City of Gaza, have suffered severe damage due to airstrikes. These are among the oldest religious buildings in world.

The settler-colonial Likud/Netanyahu regime which Joe Biden and Kamala Harris fervently and arrogantly support, has damaged or destroyed over 200 historic buildings and 12 museums in the region.

There is a historical pattern of failed reporting in the Western press on humanitarian crises, which continues to affect public awareness and global response to this day.

Critics argue that the Biden-Harris administration are complicit and active participants in historical patterns of media misdirection and governmental obstruction of responses to humanitarian crises.

In the past, the Biden-Harris administration would have escaped serious scrutiny — particularly before the rise of social media platforms like TikTok.

Earlier this year, voters indicated they would hold Joe Biden accountable at the polls. AIPAC-Netanyahu ultimately tried a castling; switching Biden with another puppet.

If you think people were upset about the accidental fire in one cathedral in France, let’s observe how voters feel about the intentional attacks on the birthplace of Christianity and the weakness exhibited by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

—1 November 2024 —

Fascism is like a bad storm. It sweeps in, tearing apart everything in its path. The risk of one fascist regime coming to power leads a significant part of the population to thoughts of saving “us” from said fascist. Understandably, this causes fear. Especially if the fear is eagerly stoked by competing fascist regimes.

“Desperate times, desperate measures” is the argument that both fascist factions put forward. And that millions buy.

The rest of world is going: “Really???”

Can we really expect other fascists to be our heroes?

For Blue Maga Democrats, the answer is a resounding “YES!”

They see trading one group of oppressors for another as the solution “we” need.

The Cycle of Oppression

On one side, you have a tyrant who promises to hold down the population with fear and control. On the other side, there is already a sitting President and Vice President actively doing the same thing.

Example:

“When the City of Atlanta proposed an 85-acre spot within the Weelaunee South River Forest in Dekalb County, Georgia as the site of a new “public safety” training facility, the backlash was swift. There were questions about what the training facility would be used for, including militarized training, concerns over unnecessary deforestation, and what it meant to build a police training facility in a predominantly Black community. As protests escalated, in January 2023, forest protector Manuel Esteban Paez Terán (also known as Tortuguita or “Little Turtle”), was executed by police adding fuel to an already very hot fire”.

A Dual Threat: Cop City's Danger to Both Climate and Reproductive Justice - NCRP

“The Department of Homeland Security monitored web posts critical of a proposed police training center in Atlanta known as Cop City and shared its findings with state and local law enforcement ahead of a crackdown that left one protester dead and more than 40 others charged with domestic terrorism.”

Federal agencies pushed extreme view of Cop City protesters, records show

What changes when whoever the menace to society that the radicalized supporters of extremist factions promote keeps wielding power for evil?

The people still suffer.

A different name or face doesn’t solve the problem. It will just keep deepening the wounds.

History shows us time and again that replacing one dictator with another leads to a cycle of oppression. The pain remains, and the hope for a better world keeps fading.

Short-Term Relief Is Just That

When faced with oppression, it’s tempting to look for quick fixes. Failed leaders on both sides promising to make things better might sound appealing, but raises questions about insanity among the voters.

Short-term relief of this kind doesn’t lead to lasting change.

Think of it like putting a band-aid on a broken leg. Sure, it might cover the injury, but it doesn’t fix the problem.

Real solutions require more than just repeating the same mistakes while hoping for a different outcome.

Abandoning commitments to human rights, democracy, and justice in the hopes of picking it up at a later, more stable stage is — very mildly put — a misguided strategy that will lead to further entrenchment of authoritarianism and systemic injustice.

Conclusion: The Path to Real Freedom

In the end, the solution isn’t to replace one fascist with another. It’s about building a society where compassion and understanding win over fear and hate. True freedom comes from opposing fascism in all its forms.