Eye Inside The Classroom

So a student whose mother posted gossip about Erika Kirk last Oct becomes a TPUSA chapter president, hosts an event with mysteriously low attendance which Erika is unable to attend due to leaks, then quits her position, but not before going to Candace with gossip. Not sus at all

That’s how we feel about her harassing Erika. Except loomer has legit receipts not made up bullshit

Candace thinks her own supporters are so stupid they’ll actually believe this. 🤣

Universal HIGH INCOME via checks issued by the Federal government is the best way to deal with unemployment caused by AI. AI/robotics will produce goods & services far in excess of the increase in the money supply, so there will not be inflation.

He is not saying “Israel made us attack Iran.” He is explaining that inaction is a choice that has consequences often worse than direct action. This is common sense statecraft.

I can't take the gaslighting, guys. I really can't. Conservatives are now running around saying "Iran has been waging war on us for 47 years." Okay then why didn't any of you call for an attack on Iran at any point until now? Why didn't you make a case for Trump "ending the war, not starting it" until precisely the moment when Trump did it? You and I both know that you are latching onto a talking point you never used until 45 seconds ago. You and I both know that almost every conservative influencer in the business was opposed to war with Iran until just now. And now you're trying to use justifications that stretch back decades. It doesn't make any sense. If you changed your mind, fine. Say so. Explain why. You're allowed to change your mind. I've changed my mind about things. But don't try to rewrite history. Be honest about it. There's too much at stake to play these games.

I recently did an interview when I was in Jerusalem and dropped a concept I've been working on for a bit (with a podcast of my own forthcoming). That concept is this: The Israel Question My case is that before WWII and the Holocaust and the re-establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, almost everywhere in the world, and certainly Europe, was consumed with something called "The Jewish Question." After WWII, the Holocaust, and the re-establishment of the state of Israel, the Jewish Question rightly became unaskable* because its intrinsic evil was deeply recognized (*except in Islamist states). Because of these two things: 1) The Jewish Question becoming unaskable in civilized society; and 2) The state of Israel being re-established, I insist that the Jewish Question got relocated to something I call "the Israel Question." All the "just asking questions" crap we hear today is just asking the Israel Question. So what is it? We start with the Jewish Question. What is "the Jewish Question"? The Jewish Question is "what do we do with the Jews, on the presumption that we don't want them?" It is intrinsically antisemitic and shouldn't have taken the Holocaust to show how bad it is. Why is that presumption part of the question, which has historically been framed merely as "what do we do with the Jews?"? The reason is simple: if your answer to "what do we do with the Jews?" is roughly "let them be part of our society with freedom to be themselves," you wouldn't ask the question about what to do with them at all. The question wouldn't just be unasked because there's a ready answer; it would be moot and irrelevant. There's no need to ask the question at all unless you see Jews as a problem to begin with. Thus, the question rests on that presumption ("we don't want them (here)") and is intrinsically antisemitic. So that's the Jewish Question: What do we do with the Jews, on the presumption that we don't want them (here)? Different people proposed different answers throughout history. The Romans didn't want them in "Palestine" anymore and chased them into Diaspora in AD 70-74, for example. Martin Luther suggested horrible things in the 1530s after he kinda went nuts in his latest years. Karl Marx suggested you make them not Jewish anymore, and preferably Communist, and the problem solves itself because they're not Jewish anymore but Communist comrades. Hitler suggested first to relocate them all to Madagascar and, upon recognizing that's ridiculous and impossible, the "Final Solution," which was to find and murder ALL of them, in order to rid Europe of them entirely. Again, my case is that we don't ask the Jewish Question anymore in civilized parts of the world because we recognize it as being not just antisemitic but a gateway to hell. The Jewish Question is anathema in modern civilized societies. Roughly at the same time as humanity finally started that realization baldly in the face, the state of Israel re-established itself in its historical homeland. Not only is this good on its own, but it also provides a failsafe should the morality slip and the Jewish Question arise in earnest again. With Israel, and its IDF and thus the ability to defend themselves at need, Jews can make aliyah and escape any society that decides to ask the JQ and thus reopen the gates to hell within its own borders. And good luck dealing with the IDF, as history has shown. Thus arose a replacement question, a proxy for the Jewish Question that could be asked even though the JQ was off the table: the Israel Question. What is the Israel Question? Simple: "What do we do with Israel, on the presumption that we don't want it (not just there, but anywhere)?" The Israel Question seems distinct from the Jewish Question, and on technicality (but not in substance) it is. This allows the Israel Question to pose itself as a high-minded, fully socially acceptable geopolitical topic of debate instead of the rank antisemitism that it's actually serving. The Israel Question is "just asking questions" about the state of Israel and its role in the world (on the presumption that we don't want it, thus the relentless impossible standards Israel is held to under its gaze). It's very high-minded. It's just global politics, you know. The Israel Question takes forms like -whether Israel destabilizes the Middle East by its mere presence, -if Israel is really legally entitled to be there at all, -if Israel defending itself against its hostile neighbors is a form of implicit aggression that causes secondary problems like mass migration, -whether Israel should be forced to share its land with people who want to kill Jews because they are Jews and do impossible things to make it work even when it cannot work by definition, -whether Israel is really defending itself or just starting random wars, -if Israel's military (IDF) or intelligence service (the Mossad) secretly controls other countries including its putative allies, -whether Israel is really a good ally or an ally at all to the countries with which it is in alliance, -if Israel has secret ambitions to illegally conquer foreign lands for its own and force, coerce, blackmail, or trick other nations to do its dirty work in the process, -if Israel deserves any kind of aid packages, moneys, or alliances and if it actually deserves to exist if any such things help its security, -and on, and on, and on. See, these questions aren't about JEWS. They're just high-minded geopolitical questions about Israel and its role in the world. But these "just asking questions" questions are the Israel Question in disguise: ultimately, what do we do with Israel, on the presumption that we don't want it? The Israel Question, and its "just asking questions" disguises, again, simply don't exist without the presumption of not wanting Israel. If your answer to "what do we do with Israel?" is "treat it like any other sovereign nation," there's no impetus to ask the Israel Question at all, and many of its disguises are moot too. All of them are moot once the impossible standard lurking beneath them is exposed, and that impossible standard is the hidden Israel Question. The thing is, the Israel Question is just the Jewish Question by proxy, though. The question is ultimately "what do we do with the one place Jews can unequivocally defend themselves, presuming we don't want such a place?" (Again, if that presumption isn't there, there's no reason for the question and thus no question to begin with.) In other words, the Israel Question is still "what do we do with Jews, presuming we don't want them?" with only the slightest caveat in possibility but only very rarely in intention. Of course, the presumption of the Jewish Question is called "antisemitism," as we already discussed, which makes the Jewish Question itself antisemitic. Similarly, the presumption of the Israel Question is called "anti-Zionism," as should be obvious, which makes the Israel Question itself anti-Zionist. But the Israel Question is the Jewish Question by proxy, so the underlying anti-Zionism is antisemitism by proxy too. We spend a lot of time these days seeing not just the reinvigoration of the anathema Jewish Question itself but far more the Israel Question, which would rob the JQ of its failsafe, which the Jews call making aliyah. And we're supposed to tolerate it and pretend it's just high-minded policy discussion about big geopolitical matters that are detached enough not to be immoral, or, in some cases, people fool themselves into believing that first. We flatter ourselves with high-minded platitudes like, "of course anyone should be able to question the activities any state at any time" or "of course people should be allowed to criticize and question a government," as though those are actually what the Israel Question is about. Yes, "of course," those things are on the table, and every Israeli debates them daily, but not on the presumption that Israel's existence is not actually wanted. This is why the formal definition of antisemitism is correct to name holding Israel to an impossible standard or one beyond that any other nation would be held to when discussing matters of its sovereignty, existence, security, or role in the world. It is right to name what amounts to the Israel Question as antisemitism because it is antisemitism, only thinly veiled. We should learn to recognize the Israel Question for what it is, both for the evil, potentially genocidal antisemitism it actually expresses and for its presentation as a hidden presumption tucked underneath seemingly high-minded, fair-game "just asking questions" questions. The rise of the Israel Question is the rise of the Jewish Question by proxy, and the response to the Jewish Question we have all understood as moral bedrock for civilized societies is "never again." Thus, the response to the Israel Question is also "never again." In light of its undeniable and rampant rise, it is therefore wholly appropriate and necessary to take the bold, righteous, and courageous stand of our time. Join me in saying, then, NEVER AGAIN IS NOW!

As always I only support military action anywhere, in any context, if it directly serves the interests of American citizens. It’s troubling that the arguments we’re hearing for this war in Iran, including from Trump himself, seem to revolve primarily around “bringing freedom to the Iranian people.” As Americans, the freedom of Iranians is not our responsibility. If a single American life is lost in the service of that goal, it will be a travesty. What nobody has even come close to sufficiently explaining is how this war will first and foremost directly benefit American citizens. That is a case that needed to have been made clearly and convincingly before this move, and it wasn’t. We’re also told how this will benefit Israel, and I’m sure it will. But Israel is not America. What does it do for America? How does it help us? That needs to be explained to us. And it isn’t “panicking” or demonstrating “disloyalty” to demand those very basic answers about how American tax money, and potentially American lives, are being spent. We hear about the danger of a nuclear Iran, but that’s odd because we were told that Iran’s nuclear capabilities had already been set back decades. We hear that this war will be over quickly and easily because Iran is powerless, which I hope and pray is the case, and maybe it will be. But that’s odd, too, because if Iran is such a paper tiger then how were they a danger to us in the first place? It seems hard to argue both that Iran is an existential threat to the United States and that we can topple them in 20 minutes with no casualties or negative downstream effects. Also the political calculation really matters here. A huge majority of American oppose this. That’s just a fact. If it costs Republicans in 26 and 28, then, no matter how things work out in Iran, it will not have been worth it. A free Iran at the cost of Democrat rule here at home is a bad deal. A free Iran for an unfree America would be just about the worst trade of the century. I’m praying for our great country today.

As always I only support military action anywhere, in any context, if it directly serves the interests of American citizens. It’s troubling that the arguments we’re hearing for this war in Iran, including from Trump himself, seem to revolve primarily around “bringing freedom to the Iranian people.” As Americans, the freedom of Iranians is not our responsibility. If a single American life is lost in the service of that goal, it will be a travesty. What nobody has even come close to sufficiently explaining is how this war will first and foremost directly benefit American citizens. That is a case that needed to have been made clearly and convincingly before this move, and it wasn’t. We’re also told how this will benefit Israel, and I’m sure it will. But Israel is not America. What does it do for America? How does it help us? That needs to be explained to us. And it isn’t “panicking” or demonstrating “disloyalty” to demand those very basic answers about how American tax money, and potentially American lives, are being spent. We hear about the danger of a nuclear Iran, but that’s odd because we were told that Iran’s nuclear capabilities had already been set back decades. We hear that this war will be over quickly and easily because Iran is powerless, which I hope and pray is the case, and maybe it will be. But that’s odd, too, because if Iran is such a paper tiger then how were they a danger to us in the first place? It seems hard to argue both that Iran is an existential threat to the United States and that we can topple them in 20 minutes with no casualties or negative downstream effects. Also the political calculation really matters here. A huge majority of American oppose this. That’s just a fact. If it costs Republicans in 26 and 28, then, no matter how things work out in Iran, it will not have been worth it. A free Iran at the cost of Democrat rule here at home is a bad deal. A free Iran for an unfree America would be just about the worst trade of the century. I’m praying for our great country today.