Crying, "It's a WAR CRIME!" is the most GENIUS form of population control the Imperialist Genociders have ever invented

It's a war crime? And...what?

Photo by Javier Miranda on Unsplash

I start on a tangent. I usually use stock photos for articles because frat-boy Silicon Valley-invented algorithms work better with pictures. So on ‘Unsplash’ I wrote the word, ‘destruction’ - imagery of such being most relevant. Not a single picture of Gaza was shown. Not a single picture of Palestine. Not a single Palestinian flag.

Instead, there were numerous pictures of bits of rubble strewn with pristine Israeli flag badges with Hebrew written on them. Various translations were given in the description. “Holocaust” one apparently read, “Hamas-led attack” another. This staged photograph - a bunch of badges on a bit of rock - is the Western Word’s idea of ‘destruction’. Not actual destruction. Here’s another image of ‘destruction’. Counterintuitively and pretty poetically, it’s actually utterly and terrifyingly apt.

Photo by Marek Studzinski on Unsplash

And the entire Western media apparatus is in on it. From Google whose searches have been massively skewed of late, to Meta who silences Palestinian voices, intentionally conflating anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism, and image purveyors like Unsplash who filter out the Palestinian genocide and try to promote the depraved and utterly mendacious Israeli narrative. Do not harp on at me about hostages, when Israel has intentionally killed its own civilians, has shot its own hostages, turned down offers in October 2023 to have their civilian hostages back, has sieged, starved and bombed them in Gaza, and assassinated the man working on their release. Netanyahu does not want the hostages back. When they come back, they embarrass him with stories of their good treatment. When they are in Gaza they give him pretext for war.

A few weeks ago Western world lied about Israeli kids being killed - again - in order to justify a war with Lebanon. Syrian kids were killed in illegally occupied territory clearly by Israel in order to manufacture consent more killing of brown people and Arabs and the Western world cooed. Jonathon Cook said it brilliantly:

BBC coverage of the attack on a football pitch in the Golan Heights on Saturday has been intentionally misleading.

The BBC's evening news entirely ignored the fact that those killed by the blast are a dozen Syrians, not Israeli citizens, and that for decades the surviving Syrian population in the Golan, most of them Druze, has been forced to live unwillingly under an Israeli military occupation.

I suppose mention of this context might complicate the story Israel and the BBC wish to tell – and risk reminding viewers that Israel is a belligerent state occupying not just Palestinian territory but Syrian territory too (not to mention nearby Lebanese territory).

It might suggest to audiences that these various permanent Israeli occupations have been contributing not only to large-scale human rights abuses but to regional tensions as well. That Israel's acts of aggression against its neighbours might be the cause of "conflict", rather than, as Israel and the BBC would have us believe, some kind of unusual, pre-emptive form of self-defence.

The BBC, of course, chose to uncritically air comments from a military spokesman for Israel, who blamed Hizbullah for the blast in the Golan.

Daniel Hagari tried to milk the incident for maximum propaganda value, arguing: "This attack shows the true face of Hizbullah, a terrorist organisation that targets and murders children playing soccer."

Except, as the BBC failed to mention in its report, Israel infamously targeted and murdered four young children from the Bakr family playing football on a beach in Gaza in 2014.

Much more recently, video footage showed Israel striking yet more children playing football at a school in Gaza that was serving as a shelter for families whose homes were destroyed by earlier Israeli bombs.

…

The BBC next went to Jerusalem to hear from diplomatic editor Paul Adams. He intoned gravely: "This is precisely what we have been worrying about for the past 10 months – that something of this magnitude would occur on the northern border, that would turn what has been a simmering conflict for all of these months into an all-out war."

So there you have it. Paul Adams and the BBC concede they haven't been worrying for the past 10 months about the genocide unfolding under their very noses in Gaza, or its consequences.

A genocide of Palestinians, apparently, is not something of significant "magnitude".

Only now, when Israel can exploit the deaths of Syrians forced to live under its military rule as a pretext to expand its "war", are we supposed to sit up and take notice. Or so the BBC tells us.

I say it again and I say it again and I say it again - the lives of non-white people are worthless in this world. We are worthless. We are so worthless we have to watch other brown people die, watch how governments and journalists actually debate the right to rape us to paralysis or death. We have to watch how white colonialists riot to free rapists and cheer at the brutal murder and abuse they inflict on the Palestinians because everything they do to us is legitimate. We watch as our children are starved, maimed, raped, beheaded, tortured, mutilated and murdered.

The imperialists, pretending to be civilised (lol), invented a system they called ‘human rights’. This system was designed as a hammer to hit non-white nations over the head with, and anyone else that was interfering with imperialist interests at the time. In short, should they engage in the same actions as the Western world and against the imperialists’ interests - they would be put in front of hallowed, international tribunals for ‘war crimes’. The US - self-appointed leader of the free world however - is not subject to these international human rights instruments, obvs, and has an actual law allowing them to invade the Netherlands and storm the Hague should anyone call them to task about their foul human rights abuses.

Human rights were later enacted for the West’s own populations. In the UK, the Human Rights Act came into force in 2000, though it is dated 1998. This ratified the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into domestic law, meaning that the populations of these imperialist colonialists were given some ‘protections’. However, this turned out to be problematic for their imperialistic leaders: it meant that the weaponry they had invented to subjugate the world was now turned on themselves.

The protections in the Human Rights Act 1998 - the ECHR rights - completely defy the imperialistic power structure and in the UK, they as such have been attacked mercilessly. The UK population—utterly propagandised to total inaction when it comes to the actual issues affecting their actual lives; taxation, education, the NHS, energy prices, the right to work in other states—have voted in people time and time again who have actively told them they will attack their human rights. Of course, they use the politics of hate—which the British so easily gobble up, their daytime TV shows and 'news’ just being litanies of it—to tell us that human rights let big bad brown people do bad things, so we need to scrap the protections for all of us. I mean, there just is no cognition, none, no attempt at cognitive thinking that, “Hold on… If the biggest power structure—the state—is trying to exert its power and the Human Rights Act is not letting it, maybe the power they are attempting to exert is not so good?" “Maybe, by attempting to ban the Human Rights Act they want to be allowed to do bad things that the Human Rights Act stops them from?” “Maybe, by saying it's stopping them from doing something to this brown man, this brown man may not have been doing what they said?”

No, of course, this isn’t something that enters the heads of such people. The only thing that matters is the colour of their skin or the length of their beard, and over 14% of the nation voted in a party that did not even realise its candidate was dead; who openly admitted to getting anyone on the ballot because they were ‘desperate’, whose election agents hadn’t even met the candidates they legally represented and who they were legally responsible for—and who promised them they would demolish their human rights.

This is why I categorically do not believe in the survival instinct or the ‘survival of the fittest’ theory. I am British and have lived here most of my life. Believe me when I tell you, the people here—who voted Brexit, Tory, and Reform—have, over decades, continuously voted for tangibly worse lives for themselves if it meant harassing and destroying the lives of non-whites and non-Brits. This is not a theory; this is the absolute reality. You have seen it over and over and over. And they’ve done it again. Survival of the fittest? No, survival of the most evil. There is no other word for kicking down. It is evil in every way.

Britain is full-on experiencing a pogrom against all non-whites and Muslims and when called out about it, Ed Balls, former Labour MP and husband of a current Labour MP has a giggle about it with his right-wing maties in the corner. Ed Balls did the very non-racist macho thing of accusing a brown woman he was ‘interviewing’ aka hounding of ‘attacking’ him for simply speaking. Because the ‘angry black woman’ troupe is alive and well and even when pointing out the actual destruction of mosques and the setting fire to the homes of brown asylum seekers and their children, we are not allowed to speak up about the danger to our lives. To do so is an ‘attack’ on white male fragility and their world view which they forcibly impose on us all.

The UK is now facing actual race pogroms because the descendants of the biggest Empire on Earth think it’s the immigrants and their children who are the problem, not the government which puts policies in place which take from them and give nothing back. Keir Starmer promised he would not be reversing his already u-turned policy of not removing the two-child benefit cap. Thirty per cent of the UK’s children live in poverty. Removing the cap would do a huge amount to reverse this trend. The government says we cannot afford it - we do not have any money to rid the cap, which would cost taxpayers £1.3 billion of their own money. In his next breath, however, Keir promises at least £3 billion a year to Ukraine for however long they need ‘to defeat Russia’. The situation is a no-brainer, but no one seems to have use of their brain. This man is lying to you. But, bash, bash the browns it is.

Keir Starmer, a man with an ego more fragile than a single-ply bog roll, could of course have no criticism about his actions. Keir - a man whose words frequently do not match his actions, said (in relaying a conversation with Anas Srwar - Scotland’s Labour party leader):

“Of course,” he said, “and Anas and I discussed it because he and I are both committed to eradicating child poverty.”

Pressed on whether that would mean ending the Tory policy, he said: “What I will do is only make promises I know we can afford.

“It is not our policy for a reason. We are not going to be able to afford to scrap it because of the damage the Tories have done.

It’s a blatant lie. How can you be committed to ending child poverty by refusing to remove a seriously poverty-inducing benefit cap and instead giving that money to Paddington Bear, sorry, the leader of Ukraine, to buy more weapons to lose a war the British aren’t even in?

As a result of pretty much being subtlely called out on his lies, Mr fragile ego Starmer thus suspended 7 Labour MPs who voted against him on ending the cap, supporting the SNP’s motion to do so. Sky News, as always, loaded the language and called these 7 ‘rebel MPs’. Apparently, these days it’s rebellious for MPs to do the bidding of their constituents and the British people. I mean, the media say it in clear words and don’t even bother hiding their agenda anymore - “You are rebels if you think your money should be spent on you by your government!” Yet still, the majority will not rise from their propagandised slumber.

It is extremely telling that Keir Starmer is a 'human rights’ lawyer and a KC (King’s Counsel). It literally tells you everything you need to know about the two terms: the real meaning of the Western-invented terminology ‘human rights,’ and the type of people the state awards with aplomb. In him, we have a full personification of the entirety.

Forcing the working class into consistent and pervasive poverty is a political choice. They do it because it makes them too exhausted to think and utterly unable to rebel. They are in such exhaustion and poverty - by working all day and still not being able to provide for their family - that they can think of nothing else but survival. While they tell us about a ‘cost of living crisis’ they allow what belongs to us all; water, natural resources etc to be privatised with these companies making record profits. There is no cost of living crisis. Living is very cheap - a small shelter, foraging - anyone can live cheaply. What we have is a cost of greed crisis fuelled by being forced to accept forms of fuel and water that are privatised and expensive, and a deep understanding of psychological control and manipulation that ensures people are in constant debt every moment of their lives, ensuring a compliance far greater than any governmental threat or any weapon. The British government does not need to fire a shot or have their police wielding arms because the people are so unthinking through the tyranny of neoliberal hell that their compliance is assured.

What else is a no-brainer is that killing innocent people and starving them to death, whilst sodomising them until they are paralysed and getting dogs to join in - is depraved and criminal. But the systems in place make these seem like actions and behaviours that are to be discussed and debated. They pore over man-written words to decide whether something is a ‘war crime’ or not. These stadiums of theatrics - the ‘international court of justice’ the ‘international criminal court’ the ‘united nations’ - place heaviness upon the written words dictated by a handful of men borne of imperialist dogma. Once pored over and the judgment is given, there is a gravitas so tangible that it makes the globe shake as if these few ‘judges’ in their robes have given credence and validation to what the eyes of 8 billion of us have seen.

Do you not see how absolutely horrific our situation is? Only when these institutions declare something to be a ‘war crime’ do we feel emboldened in our anger at genocide. Only when the system designed by imperialists deigns us as victims, do we finally feel validation of our blatant and obvious, objective victimhood. A handful of people alone are allowed to decide on this and we whoop in joy that finally they see the ‘war crimes’ and finally they see the occupation and apartheid and the holocaust.

And then what? What does it mean when their invented words are finally turned against themselves?

Nothing. Nothing at all. We simply do a dance and waste and energy trying to convince a few judges that shelling children and ripping people apart with dogs and starving them is a ‘war crime’. We are literally trying to convince them of their own dictionary, the very one they wrote!

And for what?! What does it do?! What does it matter that they finally declare the horrific actions of Israel as war crimes? It is so disingenuous that they say it is ‘plausible genocide’ and cannot even utter the phrase without the qualifier. What difference does it make? No one has stormed the gates of Gaza to come to their aid. Twenty per cent of the population is dead.

But here we sit, content in our validation by our imperialist masters that, yes, we were right and what they are doing is wrong! It is the most GENIUS form of population control the imperialist genociders have ever invented. They give us crumbs to validate our feelings, while they stamp on the cake with their boots. By uttering these words, they can continue as they are; pretending to be moral by acknowledging their immorality in words, while continuing their immoral actions with impunity. This is literally what we are witnessing and living through, and we have nothing left in our arsenal to address it, because what is left? No one has come to Palestine. People are dying and being murdered. And we are placated with Western words. Actions do not follow; they never will from the OG genociders.

There is no such thing as a war crime. What is happening in Gaza at the hands of Israel is against all morality, humanity, notions of natural justice, every religion, and all sense of shame and dignity. It is criminal in its natural sense. There is no war crime as there is no war, only murder, destruction, and genocide.

We will never free Palestine if we continue to play the theatrics of the oppressors.

We will never free Palestine if we wait with bated breath for their disingenuous words.

We will never free Palestine if we believe that the words of charlatans are enough.

We will never Free Palestine if we play with the words of ‘war crimes’ rather than the real words of utterly depraved, murderous, malevolent, cruel, satanic, unhinged, insane. There is no war. There is only murder and torture, annihilation and death.

To the governments of the imperialistic West, to hell with your war crimes and to hell with you. My eyes - and those of every human on earth - see better than what your mealy words try to hide.