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 diplomat 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, another former diplomat, is also on that page.

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.

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/

A Revolution in Consciousness

 Humanity has never been more at a crossroads than it is today.  We are threatened with giga catastrophes including possible extinction largely at our own hands because of ecological disasters of our own making, including global heating, civilizational if not biological extinction from global nuclear war, and a dismal future of mass slavery resulting from rising fascism.

It is often tempting to believe that the only solution is through violent seizure of the powers that be in society.

In the USA and Europe, I believe this is at best premature.  The first revolution that has to occur is a revolution in consciousness, what Marxists often call Class Consciousness.

Class consciousness has been virtually engineered out of existence by the capitalist mass media and other sources of propaganda.

But it was also at least party suppressed by New Deal programs and agencies in the USA and social democracy in Europe.  Now that those have been replaced by harsh Neoliberalism, which has also kept wages low compared to productivity, there is increasing justified anger at the ruling class and economic system.

(The excess productivity has gone to the excessive wealth of the oligarchs along with their outsized spending and influence, and destructive "investments" in endless war and Artificial Idiocy, rather than into useful work with a payback like a virtually complete conversion to a renewable energy system.  And not to worker needs like sensible private housing, free healthcare, and free education.)

Thus the conditions are also ripe for the re-emergence, hopefully bigger this time, of Class Consciousness.

People need to understand these things:

1) Humanity and the planet cannot sustain the drive for endless growth in profits of financial capitalism, which is the essence of modern Imperialism also.  The drive for endless growth in profits is the basic cause of all the largest problems of humanity at this time.  We must wrest control of capitalist finance and its friends in government to begin to solve those problems.

2) The People's Republic of China (RPC) is the one government which stands out in having adopted the best working form of socialism at this time, and this largely consists of controlling finance and other leading Commanding Heights (Lenin's term) of the economy.  It does not abolish ownership or unequal wealth.  More Chinese are homeowners than in the USA.  It could be better, and perhaps if more equal too, but it has been delivering the greatest growth in satisfying human needs in any country recently thanks to the "Communist" or "Socialist" system it has.  All other governments would be best served by moving to a similar system.

It is primary duty not to organize political showdowns like General Strikes now but to first raise the level of Class Consciousness that would sustain them, which just isn't there yet.

Now, to some degree, to a great degree, success has to come from truly mass class consciousness.  When it is predictably blocked by the capitalist ruling class and blocked using violence, we must be able to respond to that.  So I am not saying that violence is not ever called for, but we are no where near that point in Western countries in 2026.

And meanwhile the purpose of organizing activities, like the very limited protests we have today, is to help raise class consciousness, not violently overthrow the state.

The Hebrew Myth Explained

According to the Torah itself, the story of the Hebrews was that they were NOT indigenous.   The Hebrews were outsiders, the word itself means "wanderers." 

Note, there is no actual evidence for most of this, but this is the foundational myth of Judaism which Jews themselves reference and largely believe in as proof of their prior residency in Palestine.  The best evidence is that the Abraham myth was cooked up around 300 BCE, and the Israelites were simply a sect that developed among Canaanites and therefore the Israelite descendants, if thats what the Jews actually are (and most are at best highly mixed with others especially Europeans), have no exclusive ancestral claim to Palestine, only a partial and diluted one.  And it should be added that an ancient ancestral claim isn't worth a cup of coffee from present owners, especially a diluted one shared with millions of others.  So either by myth or by best available historical evidence, the Zionist Entity represents a murderous illegal invasion, theft, and occupation of Palestine, breaking many if not most of the laws of Judaism itself.

I explored the actual historical evidence vs the myths of Judaism in a previous post:

https://verydeepleft.blogspot.com/2026/09/judaism-is-plagiarism.html

But even the myths say that the Jews were not the only descendants of Abraham either.  I hold that virtually everyone in the west has at least some Judean descent because of the many generations that have passed and the fact that the Judeans in diaspora intermarried more with white European elites than any other group.

Copied from Facebook written by Rashid Siddique

The Hebrews … the outsiders

If we trace the story as even the Hebrew Bible itself tells it, it becomes clear:

• Abraham was from Ur (Mesopotamia, today Iraq). His homeland was not Canaan, not “Israel,” but ancient Sumer.

• Isaac and Jacob — they only lived in Canaan temporarily. Altogether, that “stay” was less than a century. That hardly makes them native to the land.

• Jacob’s sons (the so-called “tribes of Israel”) were not born in Canaan at all — most of them were born in Mesopotamia, and later lived in Egypt.

• The whole “Israelite people” only entered Canaan from Egypt — meaning by their own book, they were outsiders, migrants, or if we put it bluntly: invaders.

So if someone shouts today: “We are indigenous to the land of Israel!” — even their own Torah disagrees. The roots are Mesopotamian and Egyptian. Canaan was someone else’s land.

The word “Hebrew” (Ivri / ʿApiru / Habiru) itself didn’t mean “chosen people” or “indigenous tribe” — it literally meant outsiders, wanderers, stateless people.

The Canaanites (and Egyptians too) used the term to describe roaming groups who came from outside the land. In other words, the name itself already admits: “We weren’t from here.”

Throughout history, nearly every group in the region—Ancient Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Crusaders, Ottomans, British, Palestinians, and others—has at some point regarded the Hebrews as invaders or occupiers.

All names of the cities and places in Palestine are older than to be Hebrew words In Palestine all cities and places have Canaanite names and were built by the Canaanites; even long time before an Abraham and his gang fled there from Ur, in today Iraq.

The Hebrew slaves from Egypt never built any cities in the land of Canaan and the Philstines - the Hebrew tribes and thievs stole every thing from the Canaanites, even their language ...

"The Canaanites were first.

And when we speak of "Palestinians" or of the

"Arab" population, we bear in mind their Canaanite origin." -

"The Land of Canaan" by llene Beatty

Major urban centers were not built by Hebrews; they settled the hill country villages. 

Archaeological evidence shows typical Hebrew settlements were small, walled villages, often built on previously unoccupied sites.

There is no evidence that the Hebrews founded major coastal cities or lowland Canaanite cities.

Archaeology shows Hebrews mostly settled in previously lightly populated hill country rather than building large new cities.

Even the Bible itself confirms it.

As it says in Joshua 24:13:

“I gave you a land on which you had NOT labored and cities you had NOT built, and you live in them; you eat from vineyards and olive trees you did NOT plant.”

Deuteronomy 7:1 further spells out that when Israelites came to the "Promised Land" there were 7 other nations already there:  Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzities, Hivites, and Jebusites.  

Before David took it over (if he even existed and ever did) the city of Jerusalem was already a walled city with a fortified water source built by the Canaanites before and during the Bronze Age and named after the Canaanite god Shalim, god of the dusk (and, by implication, peace...the ultimate irony for a city that has been reconquered 44 times).

No matter how you slice it, either by their own book or known history, the idea that Jews are "the indigenous people" of the modern state of Israel is illiterate and ahistorical ignorance, stupidity and madness used to justify a genocidal modern colonization only made possible by UK and US and European imperialism.