 The most Wall Street Journal op-ed in the history of Wall Street Journal op-eds. Notes from the edge of the narrative matrix. Democrats supported Trump's most evil actions and opposed his best ones. They cheered when he bombed Syria and supported his Cold War escalations against Russia, and looked the other way when he targeted civilians with sanctions and blockades in Yemen, Venezuela, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Cuba. Meanwhile, they screamed bloody murder whenever he talked about pulling troops out of Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The two parties do not oppose each other. They egg each other on, and push each other to be worse. It's actually worse than a one-party system. It's a system in which two parties not only align on all the most depraved agendas, but push each other to be more depraved than they otherwise would be. The Wall Street Journal put an article out a few days back titled, In Defense of the Defense Industry, subtitled, Populists of the Right and Left Attack U.S. Companies that Make Weapons. Who Do They Think Protects Us? And it's exactly what it sounds like, the author defending war profiteers like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin from critics of the military-industrial complex. It's easily the most Wall Street Journal thing that has ever happened. Definitely read it if you get a chance. There's nothing I can say here that will do it justice. The Western Press believe it's Elon Musk's job to help the U.S. win a proxy war against Russia because the Western Press have unanimously decided that it's their own job to help the U.S. win a proxy war against Russia. They're so involved in the war effort they think everyone is. It will never stop being hilarious when Westerners who live in the most propagandized civilization in history criticize China for not having a free press. Gets me every single time. People are like, no, no, you don't understand, we have a free press in the West. It's just that any mainstream reporter or pundit who doesn't say what their government wants them to say will be fired immediately and permanently destroy their career. Pretending to care deeply about Libyan lives is the most darkly funny thing to happen in a while. Here's a tweet by President Biden saying Jill and I send our deepest condolences to all the families who have lost loved ones in the devastating floods in Libya. While we're on the subject, Libya is the single strongest argument against the claim that NATO is a defensive alliance. There is no longer any conceivable argument that U.S. hegemony makes the world a more peaceful place. It was an argument that could have been made back before it became clear that the U.S. will escalate nuclear brinkmanship against any nation which refuses to bow to its planetary rule, only because the unevidenced claim that the world would have been more warlike in an alternate timeline without U.S. unipolar control is impossible to conclusively disprove. But now that it's become indisputably proven that U.S. planetary domination requires endless and increasingly dangerous games of nuclear chicken to maintain, it's a completely untenable position. The facts are in, and it is now clear that U.S. pursuit of unipolar hegemony is a one-way ticket to nuclear Armageddon. Multiplarity will have its own problems, but an absolute certainty of continued escalatory aggression between nuclear states is not one of them. I always just block people who try to tell me Jews rule the world and are the source of our problems, because I know I'll never hear anything worthwhile from them. They've frozen their worldview in a state of analytical infancy that's incapable of understanding the real issues. If you think the world's problems arise from Judaism and Jewishness, it's because you don't understand the world's problems, and you never will as long as you cling to that immature perspective. Most of the world's worst empire managers are not Jewish, and the overwhelming majority of Jews have nothing to do with the world's problems, or at least not any more than anyone else. People blame the Jews because they are ideologically prohibited from examining the actual sources of our problems, like capitalism and imperialism. Basically all I'm ever doing here is moving back and forth between big-picture commentary and small-picture commentary. Zooming way out to talk about the general problems I see in our civilization and our species as a whole, then zooming back in to show how those big-picture dynamics manifest in our small-picture day-to-day news stories, then zooming back out to show how those small-picture dynamics tie into the big picture.