Up there in the article above I write:

"Sciences are attempting to rewrite the stories with more accuracy, but sciences are a bit too didactic, too complex and too longitudinally-long — and are still open-ended, as sciences do not have a glorious terminality, like a final judgement for our sins."

In fact, sciences can tell us that the end of the world will certainly be, if we don't destroy each other before hand, in 5 billion years, when the sun burns out into a red dwarf. Contrarily, despite claiming that Armageddon will happen tomorrow, religions have no way of knowing when, as we all know that "tomorrow never comes"...

In speech after speech, interview after interview, and in social media post after social media post, the Democratic Party congresswoman from Hawaii has served up a merciless indictment of US militarism, making the elementary point that Washington’s obscenely inflated defense budget and its addiction to regime change wars, military interventions and the subversion of sovereign governments in pursuit of the full spectrum dominance that lies at the heart of the malignant creeds of neoconservatism and liberal interventionism, is harming rather than protecting the interests of the American people.

The harm is measured in an ‘official’ poverty rate of 12.3 percent, in other words 39.7 million people. It is measured in a homelessness crisis of indictable proportion, affecting over 500,000 people. And it is measured in the fact that as one of the richest countries in the world, tens of millions of its citizens are without healthcare.

The money and resources that could be used to alleviate the aforementioned and other crises engulfing America is instead being thrown into the black hole of a military-industrial complex that sustains over 800 officially recognized US military bases in over 70 countries around the world with the objective of making the world safe not for democracy but for US and Western corporations to exploit the world’s natural and human resources in the interests of the country’s economic elite.

In his classic work, ‘A People’s History of the United States’, Howard Zinn quotes US historian Marilyn Young, who after the First Gulf War in 1991 pointed out that “The US can destroy Iraq’s highways, but not build its own; create the conditions for epidemic in Iraq, but not offer healthcare to millions of Americans. It can excoriate Iraqi treatment of its Kurdish minority, but not deal with domestic race relations; create homelessness abroad but not solve it here.”

In a field of candidates for the nomination that includes former vice president Joe Biden, veteran congresswoman Elizabeth Warren, and democratic socialist Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard stands out as the only one who’s been willing to subject the sacred cow of US hegemony to close scrutiny and even harsher criticism, earning in consequence the mounting opprobrium of a Washington political and media class that is hard wired to the myth of US hard power and force as the last best hope for mankind.

In a recent Facebook post promoting her bid for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, she put her case succinctly: ‘Say NO to neocon/neolibs beating their war drums. As Commander-in-Chief, I’ll put American people first, END wasteful regime change wars, work to END new cold war/arms race, SERVE the people: healthcare, education, infrastructure & more. Will you join me?’

Even prior to announcing her bid for the White House, Tulsi Gabbard had stood as a lone voice of reason when it came to the conflict in Syria. Unlike her detractors, she actually took the trouble and time to visit the country and meet its leader, President Assad. She said of the Syrian president: "Assad is not the enemy of the United States because Syria does not pose a direct threat to the United States."

Bringing things up to date on the attempted coup in Venezuela, inspired by Washington’s unhinged neocon-in-chief John Bolton, Gabbard tweeted in January: “The United States needs to stay out of Venezuela. Let the Venezuelan people determine their future. We don't want other countries to choose our leaders--so we have to stop trying to choose theirs.”

On relations with Russia, she is a strong advocate of replacing the current policy of sanctions and confrontation with serious diplomacy and normalization, and is committed to ending what she describes as the “New Cold War”.

Tulsi Gabbard, in sum, has been inspirationally fearless in her willingness to confront the neocon and liberal interventionist establishment in the US with a political vision that is rooted in anti-hegemony, anti-war and pro-peace, a vision she articulates with great passion and eloquence. Oh, and by the way, she’s also served in the military, ticking thereby an increasingly necessary box for putative leaders in a country in which the cult of the armed forces is the most pervasive cult of all.           

Though very much in the minority in opposing US hegemony as being coterminous with human progress and civilization, Tulsi Gabbard’s emergence fills a glaring lacuna in a political culture in Washington chronically afflicted with the moral and rabid sickness of an empire that has entered its mad dog days.

In this quest, she calls to mind another great American champion of peace rather than war, of the substitution of human connectedness for American exceptionalism, and of the principles set out in the UN Charter of respect for international law, national sovereignty, and self-determination.

His name was Henry Wallace, a true progressive who had served as Roosevelt’s vice president between 1940 and 1944, before being replaced by Harry Truman. Wallace campaigned for a vision of the rest of the 20th century at the end of the war as the ‘Century of the Common Man’. It set him miles apart not from the mass of the American people who’d seen loved ones perish and permanently maimed, physically and psychologically, in the war, but from the arms dealers and war hawks in Washington for whom permanent war was the only road to the Roman peace they believed in.

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/458503-tulsi-gabbard-henry-wallace/

Read from top

Do you enjoy watching men beating up women? I don’t. Any exceptions? Not that I can think of.

But the International Olympics Committee have decided otherwise. Watching men beating up women is fine so long as it’s in a huge stadium and televised for all the world to see. Got it?

I am referring of course to the boxing-ring bout in Paris Thursday, where the female Italian athlete Angela Carini was pitted against an opponent named Imane Khelif.

In the past Khelif has been deemed to be “biologically male.” That is as a bloke, a dude, a man, a fella. All those terms that we used to know how to use, but which seem to have become so complicated suddenly.

Last year Khelif was disqualified from the world championships after failing testosterone tests. It seems he was found to have higher levels of testosterone than is quite normal for a woman.

But that doesn’t seem to have been a problem for the IOC. Which perhaps isn’t surprising at an Olympics which started with an opening ceremony focused on a bizarre veneration of bearded ladies and balls-out drag-queens.

For years campaigners and female athletes have warned about the presence of biological men in women’s sports. In recent years this has covered almost every known field.

Some of these cases have made national news — like the case of William (renamed Lia) Thomas who has for the last five years been competing as a woman, despite being born a man.

When female athletes have complained about this they’ve rarely got any sympathy. When one of the women who competed against Thomas — Riley Gaines — spoke out, she was deluged with hate.

When Gaines spoke at UC Davis last year she was confronted by a mob of “trans-rights” activists who broke glass, graffitied buildings and assaulted people. Which is a nice way to show how much you hate women. Though remember these protestors are all part of the “love is love” brigade. Naturally.

Still, it is striking how little sympathy these actual women have got. And how often they have been made into the controversial ones. Instead of people standing up for their rights and for the right to say things that absolutely everybody said until about five years ago.

Young women who have worked all hours to get to their peak performance capability have kept having their dreams dashed. Time and again they took the silver or bronze medal or missed the podium altogether.

Still it’s all “progress” isn’t it?

Unsurprisingly it was the more violent sports that first alerted some people to the fact that there was a real problem here.

It is more than a decade now since my friend Joe Rogan noticed something was up. Because he is into MMA in a big way he was one of the people who noticed what happened when “Fallon Fox” entered the amateur women’s cage-fighting and did very well indeed.

Fox had been born a man, had been in the Navy and then worked as a trucker to save the money to go through surgical procedures to resemble a woman. But once Fox was in the ring with a biological female Fox smacked them around to kingdom come. Some of the MMA people said “fair enough.”

Others, like Rogan, pointed out that even if you’ve cut your c–k off, someone who has developed as a man has all the advantages that come with it.

Like bone structure, hand size, shoulder strength.

It took a while for other sports to catch up with this reality. The only reason that Thomas (an unexceptional swimmer when competing as a man) was able to do so well in the women’s qualifiers was because Thomas has all the benefits of male shoulders and much more.

Still there is a crowd of people — not large in size but damn noisy in volume — who will scream “bigot” at anyone stating this. It gets harder all the time.

With every day even Google, Wikipedia and other online sources try to rewrite the past, erasing the real names of people who have “transitioned” and pretending that they were always a woman.

Or that at the most the person had been “assigned male at birth.” As though this was the act of a bigoted and ignorant doctor who just wanted to screw with the certification procedure.

Well, in Paris yesterday, we saw the illogical and evil endpoint of all this.

Angela Carini, who has trained hard for years, managed just 46 seconds in the ring opposite Imane Khelif.The “fight” consisted of Khelif punching Carini hard in the face — twice. It was unclear at first if the Italian’s nose had been broken.

Clearly in agony Carini shouted “This is unjust.” As the ref tried to make her shake hands with the “victorious” Khelif, Carini rightly refused.

Many people around the world — especially in Carini´s native Italy — have been outraged by yesterday’s events. But the IOC doesn’t seem to mind.

Who knows if or when this madness might end. But for anyone who thinks this is good, just remember: there are prisons all over the land with men in them who’ve beaten up women. You may get away with excusing this in plain sight today. But you won’t forever.

The release of our Wall Street Journal colleague Evan Gershkovich is terrific news for everyone — not least all his friends and family. But the reporter should never have been imprisoned in Moscow.

Putin’s Russia, like other rogue states, sometimes collects hostages on bogus charges in order to swap them out for people who have done serious wrong.

Earlier this year, Iran pulled the same trick. The authorities there abducted two Swedish tourists in Iran, pretended that they were guilty of a crime and only returned them when Sweden promised to hand over an Iranian official in prison in Sweden for his involvement in the Iran prison massacres in the 1980s.

As in the case of Evan, there should be no gratitude to the dictators for releasing the prisoners. Just fury that they would dare to do such a thing — and to an American — in the first place.

https://nypost.com/2024/08/01/opinion/brutal-unfair-olympic-beating-tragic-result-of-letting-biological-men-compete-in-womens-sports/

READ FROM TOP

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.