This is real, and backed by research, Holocaust research on how Hitler began it. Pro-Palestinian protesters participate in a Nakba Day rally and march on May 15, 2025 in the Brooklyn borough of New York City Pro-Palestinian protesters participate in a Nakba Day rally and march on May 15, 2025 in the Brooklyn borough of New York City © Spencer Platt/Getty Images Months before President Donald Trump returned to office, the creators of Project 2025 unveiled a blueprint to shut down pro-Palestinian activism in the United States. The conservative Heritage Foundation's Project Esther sought to equate actions such as participating in pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses with providing material support for terrorism so that the demonstrators could be deported, face prison time, civil penalties or other serious consequences, The New York Times reported. Donate to Help Jews - IFCJ.ca Ad Donate to Help Jews - IFCJ.ca support.ifcj.ca Learn more call to action icon Newsweek has contacted the Heritage Foundation and the White House for comment via email. Why It Matters The Trump administration appears to have adopted some of the suggestions in Project Esther, including casting pro-Palestinian demonstrators as supporters of Hamas. The administration has withheld federal money from universities, arguing that they allowed antisemitism to go unchecked at campus protests last year, and revoked the visas of international students accused of participating in pro-Palestinian demonstrations. Pro-Palestinian protests have flared again on college campuses this year, pushing for the same goal that drove demonstrations last year: an end to university ties with Israel or companies that provides weapons or support to Israel amid its ongoing war in Gaza. What To Know About 1,200 people were killed in the Hamas-led attack on October 7, 2023, and about 250 people were taken captive. In the 19 months since, Israel has killed more than 53,000 people in Gaza, the Associated Press reported, citing Palestinian health officials. As anger over Israel's actions in Gaza mounted, the Heritage Foundation unveiled a policy paper called Project Esther on the one-year anniversary of the attack. IFCJ.ca - The Fellowship Ad IFCJ.ca - The Fellowship support.ifcj.ca Learn more call to action icon The document said the "virulently anti-Israel, anti-Zionist and anti-American groups comprising the pro-Palestinian movement" are pro-Hamas and "effectively a terrorist support network." The document said the project's aim was to "dismantle the pro-Hamas support network's infrastructure across America, including but not limited to propaganda, organizations, funds, access, communications, platforms, and people." It includes calls to revoke the visas of international students and faculty who have supported pro-Palestinian causes, deport pro-Palestinian activists, defund organizations that help them and discredit the broader pro-Palestinian movement by casting any critics of Israel as supporters of Hamas. However, many pro-Palestinian groups and activists, some of them Jewish, say they support Palestinian rights, not Hamas or terrorism. What Is The Heritage Foundation? The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C., What Is Project 2025? Project 2025 is a nearly 1,000-page blueprint for Trump's second term from the Heritage Foundation. It outlined a proposed massive overhaul of the federal government that was drafted by longtime allies of Trump and former Trump administration officials. On the campaign trail, Trump denied it was a blueprint for his second term, but his policies since returning to office reflect many of the positions put forth in Project 2025. 7 Secrets of Wealthy Investors Ad 7 Secrets of Wealthy Investors Fisher Investments Learn More call to action icon What People Are Saying Victoria Coates, a former deputy national security adviser to Trump and the Heritage vice president who oversees Project Esther, told The New York Times that there are clear parallels between Project Esther and recent actions taken by the Trump administration against pro-Palestinian demonstrators. "The phase we're in now is starting to execute some of the lines of effort in terms of legislative, legal and financial penalties for what we consider to be material support for terrorism." Stefanie Fox, the executive director of Jewish Voice for Peace, said on Democracy Now! that Project Esther has "absolutely nothing to do with Jewish safety, and it is intended solely to destroy the Palestinian liberation movement using tools that can then be used against all communities and movements and democracy itself. "We can see clearly that Project Esther sets out a path for the Trump administration to sharpen those legal regimes that will best advance MAGA goals. So, for example, the targeting of international students like Mahmoud Khalil for abduction and deportation because of their political views is a terrifying attempt to expand already-unjust counterterrorism and immigration laws against [the] Palestinian rights movement, immigrant communities and civil liberties writ large." Harrison Fields, the White House's principal deputy press secretary, told Axios in March: "It's always been a core principle of President Trump, his administration and the Republican Party to combat antisemitism, stand with Israel and revoke visas of foreign nationals who support terrorism and jihadism." What Happens Next According to The New York Times, Heritage Action, the think tank's grassroots advocacy arm, is working to help states pass legislation that penalizes those who support boycotts against Israel.
-
-
-
-
Nobody is telling you how FUCKED every military on Earth just became. Everyone is watching the war. The missiles flying. The explosions. Nobody is talking about the fact that Israel just made missiles OBSOLETE. The Iron Beam. A 100-kilowatt laser. Deployed in LIVE COMBAT for the first time in human history. Not a test. Not a prototype. Real war. Real Iranian missiles. Destroyed in mid-air. By a beam of light. → Cost per Iron Dome interceptor: $50,000 → Cost per Iron Beam shot: $2 → That is not a typo. Two. Dollars. Iran spent $20,000 building a drone. Israel deleted it with $2 of electricity. Iran fires 100 drones in a swarm attack. Cost to Iran: $2,000,000. Cost to Israel: $200. 💀 Here's what nobody is explaining to you: This doesn't just change THIS war. This changes ALL war. Forever. → Every missile Iran has ever built is now worthless scrap metal → Russia's entire missile stockpile? Obsolete overnight. → China's "carrier killer" ballistic missiles? The ones they spent $50,000,000,000 developing? Junk. → North Korea's only leverage — its missile program? Gone. → The Iron Beam never runs out of ammo. It runs on ELECTRICITY. → It fires at the speed of light. Nothing can dodge it. → It's silent. No explosion. The missile just vanishes. → Every country that invested in missiles just watched decades of military spending become worthless in real time. The US spent $200,000,000,000 on missile defense over 40 years. Israel just replaced it with a laser that costs less than a coffee per shot. This is not an upgrade. This is the end of an era. The age of missiles just died on live television and nobody is talking about it. Bookmark this. You're watching the biggest shift in military history since the atomic bomb.
-
When people lose a political battle do they historicaly turn into angry yelling people as to deal with the loss Searching the web 48 results Yes, historically and psychologically, people (and groups) who lose a major political battle often respond with heightened anger, vocal outrage, yelling/protesting, resentment, and sometimes radicalization. This isn't universal—some accept defeat gracefully and move on—but it's a very common pattern across time, cultures, and ideologies. It's not just "sore losing"; it's a mix of emotional coping, group dynamics, and strategic behavior.Why this happensPsychological mechanisms: Political loss threatens identity, status, and worldview. Anger serves as a defense— it masks grief, fear, or helplessness, provides a sense of agency ("I'm fighting back!"), and bonds the "losers" together against the "winners." Resentment can feel empowering; it turns passive defeat into active narrative of injustice or betrayal. Scapegoating opponents (or "elites," "traitors," etc.) is classic. Contempt and rage can even be enjoyable in the short term as they elevate the self above the "enemy." Group polarization: In defeat, factions often radicalize. Moderates get sidelined, while louder, angrier voices dominate the conversation. This creates echo chambers where outrage is rewarded with attention, loyalty, and status within the group. "Radical loser" dynamic: Some thinkers describe how those who feel like societal or political "losers" adopt aggression as identity—lashing out to reclaim dignity or visibility. This shows up in both left- and right-wing movements after defeats. Historical examplesAncient & early modern: After military or political defeats (e.g., Athens condemning leaders like Phocion post-losses), losers often turned to bitter recriminations, purges, or mob anger. Grievance-fueled rebellions like Bacon's Rebellion (1676 Virginia) started with angry colonists feeling unprotected and ignored by authorities—leading to violence and burning the capital. U.S. history: The 1790s were full of rage—Whiskey Rebellion mobs tarred-and-feathered tax collectors; partisan newspapers accused opponents of betraying the Revolution. Post-Civil War, defeated Southern ex-Confederates channeled anger into Democratic Party resurgence, voter suppression, and Jim Crow. William Jennings Bryan's 1896 loss (and the Populist movement's collapse) saw agrarian "losers" fuel fiery rhetoric against "eastern elites," influencing later movements. 20th-century labor strikes or civil rights setbacks often involved angry protests turning confrontational. Recent patterns: Losers of elections frequently enter a "wilderness" phase of internal anger and finger-pointing. Examples include post-2016 progressive/Democratic infighting (some turning to strident resistance or identity-focused outrage), or post-2020 Trump supporters embracing "stolen election" narratives that fueled protests and threats. On the other side, losses have led to accusations of fascism or betrayal, with vocal media and street anger. Both sides show extremists using more negative, angry language than moderates. This pattern appears across the spectrum—left after economic/globalization "losses," right after cultural or foreign policy shifts, populists feeling like "globalization losers," etc. Anger often drives participation (protests, voting, organizing) but can also lead to violence, conspiracy thinking, or long-term bitterness if unresolved.Not always "yelling" foreverMany groups eventually adapt: they regroup, moderate, learn lessons, or win future battles. The U.S. survived the angry 1790s and became a stable nation. Populist energy from 1890s "losers" reshaped parties without destroying democracy. But unchecked, it can deepen polarization, erode trust, or spawn extremism.In short, yes—turning to loud, angry expressions is a frequent historical response to political loss. It helps process the pain and rally the faithful, but it risks becoming performative or destructive if it replaces constructive strategy. Humans are tribal; defeat stings, and yelling is one way we cope and signal we're not done fighting. The healthier paths (reflection, adaptation, bridge-building) exist but are harder in polarized times.
-
-
-
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment