Saturday, November 14, 2026

Official Write-Ins are Now Counted

 I have found the official Texas Secretary of State report on the November 2026 Election Results, and it shows the vote counts for all official candidates, including Official Write-Ins.  There were several Official Write-Ins for US Senator from Texas.

https://electionresults.sos.state.tx.us/results.html

The Official Write-Ins for US Senator got between 1925 and 186 votes.  The Libertarian Ted Brown who was actually listed on the ballot got 191,000 votes.  The difference between Democrat Talerico and Republican Patrick was over a million votes.

Anyone can become an Official Write-In for US Senator in Texas by paying a $5000 fee, or collecting 5000 signatures.  Other offices mostly required lesser amounts and/or lesser signatures. 

This is important in my book because any vote that gets counted is not a wasted vote.  Candidates and potential candidates in future elections may make decisions on that if the numbers are large enough.  It's only pointless to vote for a candidate who is either not listed or not an Official Write-In.

https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/candidates/guide/2026/writein2026.shtml

To get on the ballot as a listed candidate, you must be selected by one of 4 parties recognized by Texas: Democratic, Republican, Green, or Libertarian.  Those parties are required to have "conventions" at multiple levels to select candidates.  If you wish to run as the candidate for these parties, you have to apply to the county chair and win selection by the convention(s).  Then there is also the fee and/or signature requirements which are similar or identical to those required for Write-In candidates.

https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/candidates/guide/2026/lib-green-nom2026.shtml

To establish a new state recognized political party requires electing certain officers, and producing a set of party rules that meet Texas requirements  It requires having party conventions at multiple levels.  And it requires convention participation of at least 1% of the vote count in the preceding election for Governor, for 2022 that was 81,030.

https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/candidates/guide/2026/starting-a-party.shtml


Wednesday, November 11, 2026

Did Zionists lobby against rescuing Jews from the Holocaust ?

A standard part of the Zionist narrative is that during the Holocaust, other nations refused Jewish refugees so Palestine (which later became Israel) was their only hope.

The truth is that Zionists themselves lobbied against the rescue of Jews to destinations other than Palestine.  Exactly how far this went* requires a careful examination of history that has largely been buried and forgotten.  And at least once, Zionists refused to rescue some Jews (elderly and sickly) even to Palestine on the grounds that they were not suitable for building the new hoped for state.

(*We might want to know, for example, if Jewish lives that could have been saved somewhere were lost because of the insistence by Zionists that rescued Jews go to Palestine in preference to all other destinations.  And if so, how many, when, and where.)

One of the more complete examinations of this topic is in Tony Greenstein's excellent and essential book, Zionism During the Holocaust, especially in Chapter 12 entitled "Refugeeism and the Obstruction of Rescue."  The first edition hardcover I have is now out of print but Tony will send an electronic copy if you make a donation to a Palestinian charity for children he supports.  A second edition is being created.

Many of the other chapters are also relevant to these questions.  I confess I am a very slow reader of books and have not digested much yet from this one.  I have read many of Tony's blog posts on the topic, but have trouble reconstructing them in arguments with others (or my own blog posts).  I can state that the history damns Zionists as I have stated, but I cannot answer the "exactly how far this went" questions except in broad outlines.

For example, Zionists made a deal with the Nazis for the rescue of a small number of Zionist elites in Germany at the cost of not revealing the Holocaust to other Jews who might have resisted more or escaped from it.

Zionists rhetorically defended such acts, saying that it was more important to build a state for some Jews than to rescue all the Jews to other locations.

When it was most critical during the Holocaust, Zionists thwarted efforts by US Jews to rescue European Jews to the USA on the grounds that they were better sent to Israel.  Specifically they fought Bergson who was lobbying for the creation of a War Refugee Board (WRB) to rescue Jews to USA, overcoming immigration restrictions.  Later the WRB was created and USA became the second most popular destination for Holocaust survivors after Palestine/Israel.  Then Zionists claimed they had been for it all along.

Zionists similarly (or worse) lobbied against the emigration of European Jews to the UK during the Holocaust.

A good summary of some of Greenstein's key findings is here:

https://electronicintifada.net/content/how-zionism-helped-nazis-perpetrate-holocaust/37326

Another very long examination of this issue is here:

https://www.palestineremembered.com/Articles/General-2/Story38175.html



The NYC Trifecta

 It now looks like the most 3 powerful people in the US government next year, Trump, Schumer, and Jeffries, will all be from New York City.

All the members of the Trifecta are heavily backed by AIPAC, and many speculate, mob money as well.  Speaking of which, Schumer and Trump hung out together at Studio 54 to celebrate mob lawyer Roy Cohn's birthday in 1979 (photos available online) and probably other years as well.  Roy Cohn was a lifelong registered Democrat.  Donald Trump played both sides of the aisle for most of his life, donating to Carter while he was still a registered Republican for example, and he switched his registration many times.

With a crew like the Trifecta, we can expect nothing related to wars for Israel will change for the better, and probably little other change for the better can be expected too.

An early illustration is now given by the first attempt to impeach Hegseth, the most vicious and incompetent "Secretary of War" ever.  The resolution was proposed by Thomas Massie, an antiwar Republican, but nearly all Republicans voted against it.  The measure lost by 7 votes, but 11 Democrats couldn't be bothered to vote for it, including heavily AIPAC backed Nancy Pelosi and Haley Stevens.  Behind the scenes, the future Speaker-to-be Jeffries was supposed to be lining up Democratic Party votes, but "failed" with a cast of self-selected 'Rotating Villans.'

AOC, who has famously refused to consider anyone but Jeffries for speaker (and even now given a condescending white board talk for constituents explaining what the speaker does, and why Jeffries is so crucial for that role), is also from NYC.  Many self described progressive Democrats, and even (I'm sad to say) many chapters of DSA (including my own local one) have already endorsed AOC for our next President.   (I suppose we can hardly hope for anyone better, but it still seems premature to me.  Premature endorsements of people like AOC anger people who are trying to be consistent about supporting Palestine.  AOC has not been consistent, waffling over the issue of supposedly "defensive" weapons for Israel.  DSA and the like should hold off their endorsements as leverage to get guarantees, including guarantees that they will not support weapons for Israel and will not endorse anyone who does.).

Jeffries may be effective as anyone for Speaker but the question is what is he being effective about?  An Israel-firsters like Jeffries can be expected to be most effective about supporting military aid and wars for Israel above everything else.  And that's exactly what we don't need.

Self-styled Democratic Party champions have said the Speaker choice needs to be left to Congress, it's none of the business of other US citizens.  We couldn't possibly know enough, etc.

Jeffries has said that "punishing" the Trump administration is not on his agenda, he be believes that what Americans have demanded in the 2028 elections is that he fix the affordability crisis.  I don't even have to consult my magic 8 ball to predict how well that is going to go, especially if all the wars and aid to Israel continue.  Choosing such an unattainable goal as the only goal, especially while not addressing the root causes, means that nothing positive will get done at all, not even symbolically.

The only way to restore affordability, in fact the only way to prevent collapse of the western economies, is to make a deal with Iran that Israel will hate, and a deal with Russia that Zelensky will hate.  The most powerful Democrats (among others) are opposed to these ends.

Perhaps I should stop worrying and learn to love Israel and Zelensky, because no forces better than their insatiability can collapse the western empire more quickly.  And along with it, the Republican and Democratic Party duopoly in the US.


Saturday, November 7, 2026

Geese's critique of PSL

https://geesemag.com/articles/psls-top-propagandist-resigns-publishes-tell-all

Interesting, and it covers a lot of ground including ACP and the Red Star Caucus within DSA.  It gives a good definition of the word “tendency” I’ve seen used a lot.  But I wouldn’t take it too seriously.  The basic criticism is what we already know.  PSL is more like a Leninist cult* than an open membership organization.  As such, it will attempt to, and in fact it must, quash internal “rebellions” that seek to transform it into something else.  And PSL is one among many following that approach, probably the best, way better than RCP or ACP or anything else I can think of that still exists in USA.

ISO** was similar in reach but no longer exists, they were in some ways similar to PSL (anti-Popular Frontist, for one thing) but ISO was Trotskyist, whereas PSL is Leninist--which is much much better.  Trotskyists and Trotskyites serve Imperialists by critiquing all their foes, really (or formerly) existing 'Communist' countries such as USSR, Cuba, Vietnam, and China.  True communists recognize all resistance to Empire as a good thing, even republican theocracies such as Iran and anti-imperialist capitalist countries such as the Russian Federation.  True communists, Marxist Leninists, are one with the concept of Popular Front, and will even work with capitalist parties like the Democratic Party when it is useful to do so.  PSL follows a "Marxism And Leninism" line which eschews Popular Frontism in principle, though not always in practice.

When you become an open membership organization, what you get is something like DSA, which is hardly revolutionary at all, often accused of being a Democratic Party shill for the left.  BTW, I'm a member of DSA because it's easy to be one, and though I don't always agree with their collective judgements, I think they are useful too.  One thing about DSA is they haven't yet established a "thought police," you can believe anything you want and still be a member, they don't even pretend to be Democratic Centralist, in fact their founder fundamentally opposed that idea.

PSL’s thesis, that USA is not ready for revolution, is basically correct.  Geese Review is not doing anything better, in fact they’re not even on the map.  It’s nearly impossible to find out anything about them they’re so tiny.  They’re just flame throwers, disparaging everyone else, even though they have little to offer.  So I wouldn’t worry about their critique, especially as I’m not tithing to PSL as a "member" anyway.  I'm just an ally who attends their protests and other events, sometimes chipping in a few bucks to help.  When and if Geese ever  assembles an organization as large as PSL, and does something more than just flame throwing in the circular firing squad of the left, I'll be their ally too.

Here's Smolarek's resignation letter:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRIyGuCR41exdzbcZSf8BZC73zyY21Wq2Hpjii19ZnVc5AiZZBgJzKkkPrKZlZ7wtINcPdOGwZv-bga/pub

I wish Smolarek the best of luck.  If he creates a new organization where there's a local chapter where I can attend meetings, I will.  I won't swear off going to PSL meetings until I have a better choice, and maybe not even then, if I have time for both, etc.

Organizing is tough shit.  I expect petty tyrants to be at the top.  That doesn't make me not want to participate.  OTOH, people close to the top, I can imagine how they can feel too.  Not just burned out enough to leave but pissed off enough to write angry open resignation letters.  But I'm not going to take any of it too seriously, short of actual criminal actions.

Meanwhile, I also expect that it will usually be denied that there are petty tyrants at the top.  Organizations will describe themselves as "democratic" and "open."  I won't be the least surprised if I find out these things are not true.  I would be more surprised if they were true.

*Any small Leninist organization will seem like a cult.  Lenin in practice (if not rhetoric) required loyalty more than mass membership.  That doesn't mean such organizations are useless.  It is important to have one or more of those.  In addition, Class Consciousness raising, as I've pointed out before, is the thing and just about the only thing at this point.  PSL is correct about this, even seeming to echo my points in a recent post. But I'd recommend not voting for any "party" that isn't large enough or organized enough to get on the ballot.  I don't do write-ins anymore, they just don't get counted.  When you can, vote for a party like The Green Party which has very good positions and often IS on the ballot.  Vote for the best party on the ballot, regardless of whether people believe they can win, just to show your support for that POV.  And don't take any flame throwing from circular firing squads seriously.

**ISO was brought down by internal sex scandals at the top.  What PSL is being accused of is trivial by comparison.  I always felt that if I got involved with ISO enough, I'd get laid too, and I sometimes wish I had.

Saturday, October 31, 2026

"Antisemitism"

"Antisemitism" is a wrongly used and applied word, so I will try to avoid using it.  The word effectively erases other Semites, which include "Arabs": Palestinians, Lebanese, etc.

The correct word is 'Anti-Jewish' which can be followed by 'racism,' 'bigotry,' 'hatred', etc.  That would be against "Jews" which is itself a problematic word, as I shall show below, but can be taken determined by identification (people who identify themselves (individually or by collective authority) as "Jews").

Generally, all forms of general racism, bigotry, and hatred are bad things.  However, it is more important that people be able to think and speak freely than to avoid all such bad things.  Racism, bigotry, and hatred become actionable when they are used in official contexts (such as official statements by a government official), or lead to further crimes imminently, such as racial discrimination or violence.

Often confounded with anti-Jewish racism are anti-Judaism and anti-Zionism.  Neither are "races."

Anti-Judaism is criticism of the set of religious traditions known as Judaism.  Criticizing a religious tradition is fair game, as most religious traditions themselves criticize other religious traditions.  However, once again, civil rights apply to people regardless of religion and so must be avoided in official statements by government officials, discrimination, or violence.

Anti-Zionism is criticism of the geopolitical project known as Zionism, which maintains that (1) the Jews are a people (they are not, see below), (2) that all peoples deserve sovereignty of a particular geographical area (they do not, they deserve to co-exist with other people there), and (3) to achieve those ends, it is acceptable to have an apartheid state, ethnic cleansing, or genocide of others.

"Jews" is not a word used to describe a distinct or unusual ancestry.  Historically it was used to describe 'people who follow Judaism' and that is still, really, the best definition, as nothing else fits.  That is how I will use the word 'Jews.'

Since its inception (for which the best evidence appears to be around 300 BCE, as that is when the earliest known copies of the Torah are found) Judaism has been and still is a proselytizing religion.  Anyone can convert to Judaism so long as they are accepted as such into a Jewish congregation (who have may have differing rules regarding such acceptance, though it typically requires circumcision for males, and renunciation of other "gods" including especially Jesus Christ).  Equally important, anyone can covert out of Judaism, as in fact many Jewish descendants have done all along the history of Judaism.

In ancient history, Jews and their predecesssor proto-Jews (such as Hebrews) spread around the world for both voluntary (foreign opportunities) and involuntary (being taken as hostages or slaves) reasons.  Voluntary relocations vastly exceeded the involuntary, starting from when Jews took over the international Phoenician trade networks after the defeat and collapse of the Phoenician empire.  In other parts of the world, especially in Africa and Eastern Europe, they converted many others into Judaism, especially through marriage, since others needed to convert to Judaism to marry a Jew who wished to remain Jewish.  By the beginning of the first millennium of the Common Era, more Jews lived outside of greater Judea than within.  (And Greater Judea itself, then known as the Roman Province of Judea, was a vast expansion of the original Judea--a small region surrounding Jerusalem-- through conquests by the Hasmonean Kingdom which were followed by mass conversions to Judaism, making them all Jews by that means, though it may not have stuck for long, as many within both proper Judea and Greater Judea later converted to other religions, especially Christianity and Islam.)

Nowadays Zionist Jews like to feign or impute Greater Judean indigeneity in the claim that they have a unique ancestral connection to that region.  But they do not.  There were others who were always there, and there were many Jews there who descendants converted to other religions.  Meanwhile, Jews have been so widely dispersed into other parts of the western world, and intermarried with non-Jews, sometimes but not always continuing to be Jewish, that virtually everyone in the West now has at least some Judean ancestry too.  But the ones who have the greatest Greater Judean ancestry are the people who remained in Greater Judea and simply converted to other religions, including Islam and Christianity.

Meanwhile, the endless attempts of Zionists to label anti-Zionists as "Antisemitic" deserves a word of its own.  That could be Anti-anti-Zionism (AAZ).  AAZ attempts to erase the civil rights of people to criticize any government, or to denounce the terrible actions of Zionists especially in the middle east.  AAZ belongs to the same set of tendencies as fascism.  There is also Anti-Anti-Judaism (AAJ), which attempts to erase the civil rights of people to criticize any religion. 


Wednesday, October 21, 2026

Democrats and James Talerico on the War in Ukraine


Every solid Democrat I know is going ballistic over Trump's lean towards cooperation with Russia and ending War in Ukraine.  Few have gotten so worked up over any issue I've seen before.

My brother-in-law is a strict atheist materialist, believes in no afterlife, and has long been very critical of suicide.  However, the idea of ending support for the War in Ukraine and making peace with Russia has made him suicidal for the first time I know of or can even imagine.

James Talerico, Democratic candidate for US Senate from Texas, says "I believe it is our duty as the world's oldest democracy to defend Ukraine from Russian aggression."

One thing I might agree about is that this is an important issue, and possibly the single most important issue of our time.  We are at the point where Ukraine can only win with a massive attack on Russia, which Russia would surely reciprocate as it has been doing, then with European powers adding their weight, it would lead to World War 3 and nuclear annihilation for all.

Ted Brown, the Libertarian candidate for US Senator from Texas, rarely seems to address Ukraine directly.  But he says we should withdraw from NATO, withdraw from all 800+ foreign bases, end [military] aid to all middle eastern countries, cancel all sanctions and tariffs, and that only Congress has the authority to declare war.  Long ago, before the war started, he once said US should not defend Ukraine.  I've been unable to find any more recent comment.

There is no Green Party or Socialist candidate in the race for US Senator from Texas.

Ivan Katchanovski, a serious Ukrainian born scholar I've followed for years, has written a book on the origins of the War in Ukraine, which can be downloaded for free from Springer:

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-98724-3?source=shoppingads&locale=en-it&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=19143447078&gbraid=0AAAAADu685P_qBsNH3GsYdO8t1Kss944x&gclid=CjwKCAiAnoXNBhAZEiwAnItcG-0ExlX7-OufQhkzCXbeVX02BBznZ0Dm7UweTvPpKoHca6xMo90A7hoCHUgQAvD_BwE

One of my favorite reporters, Aron Mate, has written a book on the War in Ukraine.  While critical of Putin's invasion of Ukraine, he insists this war was provoked by US and is a proxy war between US and Russia which many in US are pressing Ukraine to fight "to the last Ukrainian."

https://www.amazon.com/Their-Blood-Our-Bullets-US-Russia/dp/1682194590

Iulia Mendel, former press secretary to Zelensky, says this war is going very badly for Ukraine and must be settled now.

I'm pretty sure I have the same views on this war as former Swiss intelligence officer Jacques Baud, who has made this interview I haven't had time to watch:

https://rumble.com/v5fjhrh-jacques-baud-nato-threatened-russia-decades-before-2022.html

Craig Murray, a former diplomat, is also on that page, as is political science professor Glenn Diesen.  Actually there's a very long list of people qualified by education and/or experience who argue that the West provoked the War in Ukraine as a proxy war to cripple, disadvantage, or break up Russia, and that it is now going very badly and must be ended soon for the benefit of all.  This is not just "Russian Propaganda," in fact it is the reverse view which represents "Western Propaganda" amplified by western politicians and media.

Democrats seem to be stuck on the "to the last Ukrainian" page.  Of course, thanks to US propaganda, most magnified on their favorite network MSNOW,  they believe Russia is losing badly and don't think this is a problem.

If I were to follow the principles I laid out in an earlier post entitled "#1 and #1", it would seem I must vote for Ted Brown, despite my lack of agreement with him on other issues.

https://verydeepleft.blogspot.com/2026/08/voting-for-system-change.html

Every time I hear a Democrat ranting about this issue, it makes me feel like that is even more necessary.

Jeffrey Sachs presents a sensible peace proposal.

https://consortiumnews.com/2026/10/21/jeffrey-sachs-a-framework-for-peace-in-ukraine/

But Democrats are beyond sense at this point, having talked themselves in a furious Russophobia since 2016 when they blamed their lost election on Russia rather than themselves (a completely false narrative because Russian influence was minimal).  Since then, endless falsely reported events and false flag ops have become part of the Democratic Party canon so they can't see Russia as anything but pure evil.  In reality, Russia has only been reacting, conservatively at best, to endless western provocations that barely get reported and even then falsely debunked as "Russian Propaganda."  I'd say the Democratic Party is just as beyond hope as the Republican Party at this time.  And with regards to what could be the most important issue of all, the War in Ukraine, possibly more so.

Sunday, October 18, 2026

The meaning of the Jewish law against Idolatry

 Before I even read it in a tweet by Voice of Rabbis (anti-Zionist), I thought it to myself.  Zionism is an idolatry.  It's worship of state of above God.  It's disobedience to fundamental las against murder, theft, and false witness in the favor of a state of genocide applied to non-jews who have just as much claim, if not more to all of historic Palestine defined as From the River to the Sea.  As well as the rules of Hospitality and Tikkun Olam.

It's breaking the Three Oaths of the Talmud, against creating a state and mass resettling in the Holy Land.  Even when the Messiah comes, it means the Messiah rules the world from Jerusalem, which was hoped to be a world mostly full of Jews, not that all Jews go to Jerusalem.  Not waiting for God to do what God has insisted you wait for him to do is the highest form of disrespect.

I see Neturei Karta is correct in this fundamentalist reading, and consistent with most rabbis of 100 years ago and virtually all of 130 years ago.

But among these, the worst accusation in the Jewish laws is Idolotry, so that is the most serious offense in the context of Judaism.

But in what I'm going to say now, this accusation that something is idolatrous is fundamentally anti social.

It stems from monotheism, though possibly you could have a universalistic monotheism that doesn't recognize such a crime as idolatry as such.  To be consistent, it would also have to not recognize heresy.  It would be fully accepting of syncreetism, not explicity anti other.  So what if other people are worshipping Ba'al?  What matters, is are they obeying all the other laws.  None of the Abrahamic religions is like this, but others, like Taoism, are.  Polytheistic religions tend naturally to accept others and simply add their new gods to their own.

So the rot of fascism and all forms of socio political domination like current neoliberal imperialism goes back to one thing:  monotheism.

In order to accept others, we must accept that they see God(s) differently, unless we are indending to create a subgroup which separates us from all others.

The only solution for a global religion is to adopt such a view.

Then, I suppose, I couldn't insist that Zionists quit being idolatrous.  But I could still demand that Zionists quit breaking all the other laws.

https://www.reddit.com/r/taoism/comments/nh7ka1/has_anyone_attempted_to_reconcile_monotheism_with/

https://arthurmag.com/2007/12/06/the-advantages-of-polytheism/