if you are into Juneteenth and July 4, fuck off . . .
Look at those fucking eyes. Look at his fucking eyes. Listen to his fucked up voice, Christian Cunt, and alas, he is the General of the Holy War for Christians.
You fucking people think the fucking military, from the generals on down, will NOT shoot your mom and grandkids? China is fucked because China doesn’t know the mind and heart of the White Psychotic Race.
You ain’t going to get a spine from my writer “friends”
When writer and disability justice activist Alice Wong received a MacArthur Fellowship earlier this month, she shared a statement about accepting it “amidst the genocide happening in Gaza.” The backlash was swift, with a deluge of posts on X attacking Wong’s character and accusing her of antisemitism.
This conflation of opposition to Israel’s military action with hatred of Jewish people is only one part of a broader wave of political and social repression that is attempting to silence writers speaking out against the war. In the past month alone, authors who have criticized Israel’s ongoing bombardment of Gaza — which is funded largely by the U.S. — have been labeled extremists, been suspended and fired from faculty jobs, and targets of defamation and harassment. — Literary Institutions Are Pressuring Authors to Remain Silent About Gaza/ Requiring authors remain silent about war at the risk of losing their livelihoods is not only ironic but also sinister.
Then, this shit:
J Street? Jew World, may they all burn, those who support Israel.
In addition, AIPAC has taken particular pains to denigrate the moderate pro-Israel group J Street, both in private conversations with members of Congress and in public, picking a fight aimed at blocking any Democrats from using J Street as cover to deviate from AIPAC’s maximalist position. “They’re worried their members in Congress may start to shift toward J Street and they’re trying to head that off,” said an aide to one Democrat.
“I did see that AIPAC took issue with my statement,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington state. “They were taking on J Street for endorsing me, which was ridiculous.” To get a sense of how extreme AIPAC’s demands are, note that J Street’s own statement merely calls for diplomacy while still supporting Israel.
“We urge the Trump Administration to meaningfully pursue a diplomatic resolution to this conflict as quickly as possible while making clear the US will do what is necessary to defend Israel and US troops from retaliation,” the J Street statement read.
ndiana Republican Sen. Jim Banks—their absolute “trust” in Trump.
“I trust President Trump. He’s the commander in chief. He’ll decide what role we play,” Banks declared. He framed Trump as a singular force for peace, asserting, “President Trump is the greatest peacemaker in my lifetime. If there’s anybody that can avoid war in the Middle East and bring peace, it’s him. He’s done it before.”
Banks, a veteran of Afghanistan, tied his stance to a broader rejection of “prolonged ‘forever wars,’” vowing to dedicate his time in Congress to preventing another Afghanistan-like quagmire. “That was a mistake, a prolonged forever war. We should never do that again. But President Trump’s not going to allow that to happen.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), a co-sponsor of the No War With Iran Act, lambasted Senate Republicans for their apparent inability to challenge Trump, quipping,
“They’ve all had their spines removed. None of them seem capable of standing up to Donald Trump, which means they cannot fulfill their oaths to the Constitution.”
You fucking fools, thinking those 1.3 million or more US military will NOT shoot your granny in the streets given the fucking orders from their generals, colonels, captains, and top NCOs.
This is the Jew Fear, the Jew World Fear: You know, Samson DOctrine, 600 nukes pointed at Europe.
From Drop Site News:
While not everyone received this bombardment of communications from AIPAC officials—particularly progressives who have made their views known about Israel’s actions—judging by a substantial portion of House Democrats, the effort appears to be having an effect.
According to a review of member statements at their congressional websites and on social media, 28 House Democrats have issued messages saying explicitly that they “stand with Israel,” or some close variation thereof. Another 35 express unequivocal support for Israel without using the magic words “stand with Israel” precisely, but they leave no doubt as to the member’s support. And 16 others express “soft” support for Israel, without quite the same inflammatory language.
Three statements have been held up by AIPAC in particular, according to sources familiar with the situation, as models for others to follow. Those are from Reps. Greg Landsman (D-OH), Mike Levin (D-CA), and George Whitesides (D-CA). All are “frontline” members who had relatively close elections in 2024.
- “Israel is justifiably defending itself and its people,” Landsman said in his statement.
- “Iran’s nuclear program isn’t just an existential threat to Israel and the Middle East, it’s a threat to the world … I stand with Israel and the rest of the West as we confront this threat together.”
- Levin similarly states that “the Iranian regime … must never obtain a nuclear weapon … No nation can be expected to stand by while another openly threatens its existence.”
- Whitesides, a freshman from northern Los Angeles County, followed suit: “The government of Iran, which has sown death and destruction across the Middle East for decades, cannot be allowed to develop an operational nuclear weapon, and we must stand with our ally Israel.”
Not sure I will watch much of this, but, it’s a duh, and I disagree with this fucking We Are the 99 Percent. Fucking fools.
The ultra-wealthy hover above the realities of the world around them like extraterrestrial aliens. Their material reality physically separates them from the rest of society with gated communities and private jets but paradoxically, their very wealth also severs them psychologically, unable to understand the reality of the 99%.
Joining host Chris Hedges on this episode of The Chris Hedges Report is professor and author of Mastering the Universe: The Obscene Wealth of the Ruling Class, What They Do with Their Money, and Why You Should Hate Them Even More, Rob Larson.
Eichmanns, man:
Is it 20 percent of US citizens controlling 70 percent of wealth, 80?
Get that image in your mind. The ultra rich, yeah, but they need their fucking hatchet men and sicario women and banking and finance soldiers to pump up the wealth, and I guarantee you that 20 percent, those in the bottom 20 percent, they are not so open to socialism, redistribution of genuine progress to make a society whole, even as the meek and the poor toil, to allow for some sense of respite from the repo man and repossession system of mortgages and rents and fines and forfeitures and asset theft and heavy taxation on the 80 percent of the population. Have those conversations with your neighbors who have portfolios of death in their Wall Street accounts.
Think: Professional Managerial CLass:
…. the culture of educated professionals is highly visible in our elite institutions. These people are the Beltway thinkers, the punditry, the liberal intelligentsia, the libertarian think-tankers, the Brooklyn podcasters, the business school frat bro executives, the NGO lobbyists, the heads of corporate HR, the New York Times columnists, and the San Francisco start-up financiers. They are an amorphous mix of everything ordinary people are supposed to despise about how our system works. What they have in common, besides participating in elite institutions, is simple: they are college-educated and engaged in intellectual labor.
But while their cultural impact is salient and distinct, the question whether they actually constitute their own economic class is often overlooked. This leaves the analysis fundamentally incomplete. If the New Class is in fact a distinct economic entity, then any current set of ideas surrounding it is, to some extent, merely a reflection of its current interests. In order to not be fooled by changing circumstances, we would have to understand the enduring basis of its power. On the other hand, what if it has no basis in economic reality at all? In that case, we would be dealing with a cultural phenomenon which needs explaining. If the New Class only exists in the realm of ideas, then it is something of a spook. It might reflect a real identity or a cultural dynamic, but the real power structure beneath all this is something else entirely.
What are the fundamental attributes of class? To fit educated professionals into the larger social theories of economic classes, they need two major characteristics: a unique stream of income and a distinct class ideology. The first is necessary to establish them as an economic class, the second to understand them as a political actor.
In terms of income, there are the typical forms: wages, salaries, and investment income through stock options or 401Ks. The higher one traverses the ladder of corporate professionals, the more monetary incentives there are to align one’s interest with shareholders. At the very top, they are indistinguishable from the capitalist class. But this class, as popularly conceived, includes all fields of white collar knowledge work, such as fee-earning lawyers and doctors, tax-funded bureaucrats, and tenured professors. (The New Managerial Class Is Not a Class at All — I disagree with this in part!)
The Ehrenreichs characterized the PMC as distinct from both the old middle class (self-employed professionals, small tradespeople, independent farmers) and the working class. Emerging with monopoly capitalism in the late nineteenth century, the class came into its own by the mid-twentieth century and formed a core of the New Left. In their essay, “class” is both “a common relation to the economic foundations of society” and “actual relations between groups of people, not formal relations between people and objects.” In other words, the authors felt that their erstwhile New Left comrades related to the working class in a distinct way, not simply as fellow workers.
When the social worker confronts her client, or the manager his worker, they do so in an “objectively antagonistic” relationship. The PMC are “salaried mental workers who do not own the means of production and whose major function in the social division of labor may be described broadly as the reproduction of capitalist culture and capitalist class relations.”
These contradictory interests are a product not only of social location but of social function. A mediating class, the PMC only exists “by virtue of the expropriation of the skills and culture once indigenous to the working class”—cultural production, social reproduction, and so on. They relate to the working class with a mixture of “contempt and paternalism,” while workers interact with them with “hostility and deference.” As such, even as the working conditions and pay of members of the PMC deteriorate, it’s not a certainty that they will line up on the side of the working class, much less that such a coalition would be without tension. (source)
Clyde W. Ford: “Oh, We Knowed What Was Goin’ On”: The Myths (and Lies) of Juneteenth
Perhaps as a nation we will one day enter a truth and reconciliation process around American slavery. But even there, truth comes before reconciliation. So, the truth about Juneteenth must be told.
92 years old and blind, in June 1937 a formerly enslaved Texan named Felix Haywood talked to a WPA writer about the Civil War and its aftermath. “ Oh, we knowed what was goin’ on in it all the time,” said Haywood, “We had papers in them days just like now.” Heywood exposed a central canard of Juneteenth as a day when uninformed Blacks in Texas first learned they were free. In fact, General Gordon Granger and his 1,800 Union troops were not in Texas to deliver news to uninformed Blacksz as much as they were there to enforce the law for recalcitrant whites. Juneteenth is built on falsehoods and wrapped in mistruths. The pillars of the day do not hold up to historical scrutiny.
Texas was a pariah state, where southern whites dreamed of a white supremacist homeland. “During the Civil War,” writes historian Gregory P. Downs, “white planters forcibly moved tens of thousands of slaves to Texas, hoping to keep them in bondage and away from the U.S. Army.” Even after Lee’s surrender at Appomattox, Texas governor Pendleton Murrah refused to surrender the state, fleeing to Mexico and leaving control of state government, and surrender, to Confederate Lieutenant General Edmund Kirby.
After Appomattox, white slaveholders in Texas kept Black men and women enslaved, and killed them when they tried to assert their freedom. So, when Granger read General Order No. 3 to the public on Galveston Island, he was delivering a message not so much to enslaved men and women, but to their enslavers, and he was backing up that message with force.
“The people of Texas are informed that, in accordance with a proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all slaves are free,” newspaper accounts reported Granger saying, emphasizing the word “all.” Yet, even that statement was false.
Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, which went into effect two and a half years before June 19, 1865, did not free “all slaves.” The proclamation only freed slaves in the Confederate states which never recognized Lincoln’s authority to begin with. Slavery in Mississippi was illegal but slavery in Massachusetts was permitted. New Jersey did not ratify the 13th amendment to the Constitution, abolishing slavery, until January 23, 1866. Mississippi did not ratify it until 2013.
Nineteenth century British newspapers pointed out the hypocrisy. “The principle asserted is not that a human being cannot justly own another,” wrote the London Spectator, “but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States.”
Lincoln said as much. “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”
Lincoln chose the latter, more concerned with winning the Civil War, and preserving the Union, than with freeing “all slaves.” Thus, Granger was in Galveston to enforce a proclamation that was, in reality, a war maneuver, a “psy-ops” measure, meant to harass the Confederacy.
Prior to Lincoln’s assassination on April 15, 1865, he’d agreed to General William T. Sherman’s plan, formally called Special Field Orders No. 15, and popularly known as “forty acres and a mule.” This reparation plan sought to distribute nearly 1 million acres of rich coastal southern farmland, taken from slaveholders, and give that land to the formerly enslaved. The Freedman’s Bureau had already redistributed a portion of that acreage to nearly 40,000 Black families. But around the time of the first Juneteenth, after ascending to the presidency, Andrew Johnson rescinded Special Field Orders No. 15, returning all land to former slaveholders.
Then, in a letter to the president, Sherman revealed that he never intended for the formerly enslaved to have the land anyway. He simply wanted to keep Black men and women from swamping Union army camps in search of freedom. “Forty acres and a mule,” like the Emancipation Proclamation, was a battlefield tactic, a “psy-ops” operation, only this time perpetrated on Blacks.
What’s to celebrate on Juneteenth? White supremacy? Lincoln’s tepid proclamation? Taking back the first, and only, plan for reparations? Frederick Douglas, and many others, continued to celebrate August 1 as Emancipation Day, through the end of the nineteenth century. August 1, 1834, was when Britain abolished slavery throughout the entirety of its empire.
Juneteenth harbors a terrible legacy of deception and promotes a modern day abdication of historical truth. Still, the day deserves recognition. Perhaps as a nation we will one day enter a truth and reconciliation process around American slavery. But even there, truth comes before reconciliation. So, the truth about Juneteenth must be told.
Clyde W. Ford is the winner of the 2021 Washington State Book Award and the author of “Of Blood and Sweat: Black Lives, and the Making of White Power and Wealth.” (HarperCollins, 2022).
In some ways Juneteenth can be read as a response to Frederick Douglass’s searing 1852 speech in Rochester, New York, now known as “What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?” Douglass, a formerly enslaved Black man from Maryland who became arguably the most important activist of the nineteenth century, assailed celebrations of freedom in a land scarred by slavery.
“This Fourth of July is yours, not mine,” he said to the audience. “You may rejoice, I must mourn.”
And here we are 173 years of mourning.
Paul Haeder, Author 