Footnote to chapter 3

In Chapter 3 I said I don't care for the Palestinians. That's a lie. I care, I wanted to come across as intellectually honest and unbiased but I tear up everytime I see defenseless people get gunned down. I don't like Islam, that bits true but it doesn't mean they should die.

There's a disconnect that people don't understand.

If you're one of those people that thinks it's crazy talk to accuse the media of having an agenda then this probably won't resonate with you and you should stop reading.

If you're one of those people that thinks the media are firmly on the Israeli's side then ask yourself. Does it make sense the media would air anything that hurts Israel's bottom line. You can either accept that mainstream media's compromised or you think they're impartial, you can't think they're objective when you agree with them and then turn around and accuse them of being subjective when you disagree with them, that's retarded. Then the question becomes why would the media, who we agree supports Israel, share any incriminating news related to Israel, when this seems like an obvious contradiction. I think there's several reasons for this.

The first and most obvious reason why is the best liars mostly tell the truth. Great liars (which I used to be) are by in large some of the most honest people you'll ever meet. They like to portray an image of openness and transparency to lure you into a false sense of security in order to tell you a critical lie. I know this because I used to have sociopathic tendencies before I started heavily using cannabis and psychedelics in my early 20s. They obviously still need mainstream media and completely ignoring the ongoing conflict would be reputational suicide, as the silence would speak louder than words. So they have to say something. Anything. To avoid looking like complete sellouts.

Which brings me to my next point. Why broadcast negative information about the Israelis? I would postulate that the answer is because the information isn't that damning nor does it actually affect their bottom line. Political influencers on social media have really honed in on the messaging. They now explicitly target special interest lobby groups such as UK Lawyers for Israel or AIPAC. They also make sure to distinguish between "normal jews" and "zionists". To me these are both red herrings. You can't separate the German public living under Nazi rule and the Nazis. There has to be a level of cooperation amongst the public in order for the Nazi party to function. In similar vain the Israeli public has to cooperate with the war efforts in order for the genocide to continue, withouth social cohesion the country wouldn't have the legs to carry on the war. So to me there is no difference. If you aren't actively resisting you are a part of the problem. You cannot waive your responsibility so long as you actively participate in that society. To me there are no "good jews" in Israel, unless you're actively speaking out and fighting for peace (virtue-signalling is also not allowed, you have to actually give a shit) and there's an infinitesimally small amount of jews doing this. Even the Orthodox jews who are anti-zionist are not pro-Palestinians. The only question you need to ask them to unmask them is "what happens to the Palestinians when the Messiah arrives". Their answer? They become dust or slaves. Or they will all die. Or who cares. Just because these jews are against the obvious evils of zionism, doesn't mean they're well meaning people.

Again if you agree that the media (mainstream and social) are a part of the establishment then it makes no sense for people with a platform to be able to speak freely against special interest lobby groups and politicians. Tucker Carlson for example, a former Fox news stooge has now done a stern 180 and he speaks out against the atrocities being committed towards the Gazans. I don't know if you've seen the interview with Ted Cruz. Yes it wasn't a great look for the pro-Israeli movement but this only targets a fraction of the war machine. I'm ultimately saying they're giving up a leg in order to save the body. Like the Bronson quote. I don't know if you've seen the Tom Hardy film. But there's a Tom Hardy interview where he recalls a phone conversation with the real Bronson, where they discuss the recent floods and the girl that died because her foot got stuck in the grating. How the water kept rising but they failed to free her and she ultimately drowned, in counter to this Bronson says "it wouldn't have happened to me, cause I would've said "cut it off", you see Tom what I'm trying to say is, sometimes in life, no matter how painful it is, you've got cut a piece of yourself off in order to grow". To me this is exactly what the current establishment's tactic is. They want to give you the leg to free the body. The body will always be the stream of money thats steadily flowing in regardless of the aid packages. The stream of money that allows a country that's 25th in terms of GDP with no obvious industries to wage war for 80+ years. If special interest lobby groups or the fuck nuggets we call politicians mattered in the grand scheme of things, we wouldn't be hearing about them on any news channel.

Everyone agrees that the lobby groups and politicians are puppets. If you want the puppet show to end, you don't attack the puppets, you attack the puppeteer.