The World Blog by humble servant.

Israel’s Actions and Double Standards Iargue Israel’s June 13-14, 2025, strikes on Iran’s nuclear and military sites (Natanz, Fordow, IRGC bases), w “first missile,” were a “cowardly” act of aggression justified by “boogy man” accusations of Iran’s nuclear threat, dragging the U.S. into the conflict via missile defense support while escaping accountability for its own nuclear arsenal. The U.S., the only nation to use nuclear bombs, supports Israel while claiming no involvement, enabled by Jewish Democratic-controlled media lies. The double standard lies in Israel’s unscrutinized nuclear weapons and aggressive strikes being framed as defensive, while Iran’s civilian program and retaliation face sanctions and condemnation, mirroring historical patterns of powerful nations justifying attacks with pretexts while evading scrutiny. Israel’s Strikes: Israel’s “Operation Rising Lion” targeted Iran’s nuclear facilities and killed top IRGC commanders and scientists, claiming it prevented Iran fr...

 Israel’s Iran Attack and the U.S. Trap of Blind Loyalty The claim that Israel’s recent assault on Iran was “self-defense” isn’t just laughably flimsy—it’s a deranged fever dream, as unhinged as painting Hamas’s blood-soaked rampages as noble resistance. This twisted logic, spewed by U.S. war hawks and their evangelical cheerleaders, reeks of a blind, almost cultish devotion to a tiny clique—call it ten shadowy string-pullers—who thrive on global chaos. Israel’s strikes, which obliterated Iranian uranium enrichment sites and coldly assassinated senior military commanders and scientists, weren’t some noble “preemption” to halt a nuclear boogeyman Iran swears it’s not pursuing. No, this was a brazen act of war, shredding the UN Charter and international law like cheap confetti. Iran’s response—volleys of ballistic missiles slamming into Tel Aviv and beyond—was the predictable counterpunch to West Jerusalem’s reckless gut shot. Moscow didn’t mince words, branding the attack “completel...

Report: War Profiteering, Civil Unrest, and Constitutional Violations in Contemporary Politics Smedley D. Butler and the Critique of War as a Racket In 1935, Major General Smedley D. Butler, one of the most decorated Marines in U.S. history, published War Is a Racket, a scathing exposé of the economic motives behind warfare. Drawing from his 34-year career across conflicts like the Spanish-American War and the “Banana Wars,” Butler argued that war is a “racket”—a criminal enterprise orchestrated to enrich a select few at the expense of soldiers, civilians, and taxpayers. His critique, rooted in firsthand experience, remains a foundational text for understanding the Military-Industrial Complex. Butler outlined three phases of the war racket: Lobbying for War: Business elites—bankers, arms manufacturers, and industrialists—pressure governments into conflicts to protect or expand their overseas markets and investments. Profiteering During War: These interests reap massive profits by suppl...