Ah yes, the Balfour Declaration! But why stop there? Add in the Hussein–McMahon correspondence (1915–16), the Damascus Protocol (1915), and Sykes–Picot (1916). The British made overlapping promises to Arabs, Jews, and the French—then double-crossed everyone. Arabs lost independence, Jews got a vague “national home,” and France got Syria.

The “land theft” slogan sidesteps the actual issue: Palestinian rejectionism. Israel was established by international law, defended its survival in repeated wars launched against it, and has made multiple offers of statehood that were rejected. The constant refusal to accept Israel’s legitimacy—not some cartoon idea of “stolen land”—is what drives this conflict. Until that changes, nothing else matters.

This should smoke out a few more Jew haters. View article →

I find there is way too much antisemitic propaganda being spread on Nostr. Of course, we can’t ban it, but we can counter it with facts and logic. This is my take. Israel’s War of Self-Defense Is Not Genocide On October 7, 2023, the world witnessed atrocities that shocked the human decency: mass killings, kidnappings, rapes, and the deliberate targeting of civilians by Hamas-led forces inside Israel. These were not military operations; they were war crimes and crimes against humanity. Israel’s response, the campaign in Gaza, is lawful self-defense under international law. Yet in much of the global discourse, Israel has not only been denied recognition of that right, it has been accused of committing genocide. This accusation is not only wrong in law and fact; it is a dangerous inversion of reality, a projection of Hamas’s own openly declared genocidal aims. Lawful Self-Defense, Not Genocide International law is clear: a state attacked by an armed group may use force in self-defense. The only limits are the laws of armed conflict—distinction, proportionality, and precautions. Israel’s campaign in Gaza, however contested in its execution, falls within that framework. No international tribunal has ruled that Israel is committing genocide. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), hearing South Africa’s case, has issued provisional measures—essentially, a legal caution to prevent irreparable harm while the case proceeds. That is not a merits judgment, and certainly not a finding of genocide. Civilian casualties, even on a tragic scale, do not by themselves prove genocidal intent. Intent to destroy a group “as such” is the legal threshold, and no such determination has been made. By contrast, Hamas’s own methods are textbook war crimes: taking hostages, using civilians as human shields, fighting in civilian garb, embedding weapons and command centers in hospitals and schools. These practices are not incidental; they are deliberate strategy. The Double Standard The accusations against Israel are amplified by a global double standard. Israel is the only country in the world with a standing agenda item against it in the UN Human Rights Council. No other conflict—whether Syria’s civil war, Russia’s destruction of Chechnya, much less its ruthless invasion of Ukraine, the U.S.-led campaigns in Mosul and Raqqa, or Saudi airstrikes in Yemen—has been so routinely framed as genocide. Civilian suffering in those wars was and is immense, yet it never generates the same language or global fury. When casualty figures emerge from Hamas-controlled institutions in Gaza—literally seconds after an IDF strike, which defies logic and experience—they are frequently taken at face value and reported uncritically. Israeli statements, by contrast, are doubted or dismissed. International scrutiny is healthy and necessary—but it must be consistent. Otherwise it corrodes the credibility of humanitarian law itself. Antisemitism Old and New Behind the double standard lies a deeper poison: resurgent antisemitism. Since October 7, attacks on synagogues, harassment of Jewish students, and chants calling for Israel’s destruction have surged worldwide. The logic is depressingly familiar. For centuries, Jews were accused of murdering children or conspiring against nations. Today, Israel is cast as the child-killer or genocidaire. The structure is the same: the people historically targeted for extermination are accused of perpetrating extermination. This is the old blood libel in modern dress. Projection and Inversion Nowhere is this clearer than in the rhetoric of Hamas and its supporters. Hamas’s 1988 charter openly called for the eradication of Israel, wrapped in antisemitic language. The slogan “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is widely understood as a call to eliminate Israel altogether. If carried out, it would mean the expulsion or destruction of the Jewish population between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. When those who chant such slogans accuse Israel of genocide, it is psychological projection—a rhetorical inversion. They attribute to Israel the very crime they themselves advocate. This is not simply hypocrisy. It is a deliberate strategy to delegitimize Israel’s right to defend itself and to reframe Hamas’s campaign of terror as “resistance.” The Core Reality Israel is not exterminating a people. It is fighting a militant movement that has made Gaza into a fortress of tunnels and human shields. The objective is to dismantle Hamas as a political and military actor, because coexistence with an organization dedicated to Israel’s destruction is impossible. Treating Hamas as a legitimate government would be like recognizing Nazi Germany after 1945. Civilian suffering in Gaza is real, and it matters. Israel has responsibilities to minimize it, and alleged violations should be investigated individually. But the root responsibility lies with Hamas, which embeds itself deliberately within that suffering, hoping that every death will serve as a weapon in the propaganda war. The Way Forward Israel’s duty is to fight lawfully, mitigate harm, and remain accountable. The world’s duty is to apply humanitarian law consistently, to recognize antisemitism when old libels are repackaged, and to support the principle that Israel has the same right to exist in security as any other state. Calling Israel genocidal while ignoring Hamas’s genocidal intent is more than a lie—it is projection, inversion, and a betrayal of historical truth. The Jewish people, who survived the greatest genocide of the 20th century, will not bow to that blood libel in the 21st.

The very groups—Hamas, Hezbollah, the Islamic Republic of Iran, among many others—that openly proclaim their intent to wipe Israel off the map and eradicate the Jews accuse Israel of genocide. That’s not justice—it’s the oldest antisemitic blood libel repackaged for the 21st century. That’s called projection.

Nostr is infested with islamofascist apologists and antisemitic shills.

Engineered parasovereign protocols are designed to mechanically preserve the intentions and integrity of individual participants, ensuring that each act they instantiate is carried out exactly as authored, without reinterpretation or discretionary override.

Something something raw milk.

Something something grass fed beef.

Parasovereign Litmus Test Note: This is not an ethical or utilitarian judgment. A system may be highly useful, innovative, or ethical and still not qualify as parasovereign. This framework is purely classificatory. ⸻ Step 1 — Ownership • Does a company, foundation, board, or identifiable group own or legally steward the system? • Yes → Not Parasovereign • No → Step 2 ⸻ Step 2 — Protocol Authority • Can a single actor or small group decide or dictate changes to the rules or parameters? • Yes → Not Parasovereign • No → Step 3 ⸻ Step 3 — Permission to Participate • Can anyone run a node, validate, transact, or publish without needing approval, licensing, or gatekeeping? • No → Not Parasovereign • Yes → Step 4 ⸻ Step 4 — Suppression Resilience • If suppressed in one place, can the system reappear elsewhere by redeploying code or reviving the idea, without institutional permission? • No → Not Parasovereign • Yes → Step 5 ⸻ Step 5 — Persistence as Idea • If all instances vanished, could the system be reconstructed from the concept alone (like language, proof of work, public–private key pairs)? • No → Not Parasovereign • Yes → ✅ Parasovereign

Engineered parasovereign systems (Bitcoin, Nostr, Tor) are deliberately designed to resist capture and suppression. Their seed is explicit—a protocol, a proof, a key pair—that anyone can rediscover, reinstantiate, and propagate without institutional approval.

Emergent parasovereign systems (family, language, religion, commodity money) arise spontaneously through human interaction. Their seed is woven into culture itself, carried forward unconsciously, and revived again and again, even across collapses of civilization.

Parasovereign systems are ideas—like the wheel, fire, language, proof of work, or cryptographic key pairs. They have no owner and no governing institution. Like dormant seeds, they may lie forgotten or unimplemented for centuries, but they never vanish. Once conditions allow, they reawaken, take root again, and spread without requiring permission or authority.

A parasovereign system is one that nobody owns, nobody can dictate, and nobody can erase: it is an idea that persists independently of institutions or authority.