Now, I will lay out the latticework of evidence that, in combination, proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Ruby did not shoot Oswald.  Each point reinforces the other points and makes the whole case irrefutable.Ruby could not possibly have had any intention of shooting Oswald for the following reasons:

1 The timing. 10 AM was the only guidance that the Dallas Police ever gave for the jail transfer.  Ruby would have had to show up before that, not a long time after it.

2. The dog. Ruby bringing his dog Sheba proves not only that he had no intention of shooting Oswald but that he had plans for that day. And he said what they were. He said that after finishing at Western Union, he was going to drop Sheba off at the Carousel Club, which was right across the street, because there was someone there who doted on her. Then, he was going to go to this new apartment building he would soon be moving into. I forget the name of it, but it included the word “tower.”

3. The very juxtaposition of an ordinary, routine, and plebian action of wiring $25 to an employee with killing Oswald in a crowd of Police and thereby destroying his (Ruby’s) own life is inconceivable. You just can’t go from one to the other. They are incompatible to the extreme.

4. It means that all the stories that involve pre-meditation in collusion with the Mafia or the Dallas Police are completely untenable. The “mental break/sudden impulse” story is the only one that survives, but even it collapses when you scrutinize it.

5. Like the “Thorburn Position”, the mental break/sudden impulse theory has no patho-physiological foundation. Ruby’s celebrity lawyer Melvin Belli came up with the term “psychomotor epilepsy” to rationalize it, which referred to motor actions that could result from the chaotic discharges of an epileptic convulsion, but it was nonsense. The pointing of a gun and the pulling of a trigger cannot happen from a convulsion. Then, the sheer brevity of this supposed snap in consciousness (several seconds) makes it impossible. Furthermore, we have the films of the shooting, and when you look at the Shooter, you can see that he was surely conscious and acting with awareness, purpose, etc. You can’t possibly attribute what he was doing to a sudden mental break. This is obviously not a man who was in a trance or acting on sudden impulse.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHripG_tgR0

6. Then, there is the character of Jack Ruby. He was a VERY devout Jew. He attended synagogue and counseled with his rabbi. And he said that he NEVER had the thought to hurt Oswald. He said that the word “anger” wasn’t in his vocabulary. He said that sorrow over the loss of President Kennedy was what he was feeling that weekend- not anger or rage.  And the inherent goodness of Jack Ruby isn’t hard to demonstrate. Do you know how George Senator became his roommate? Senator was another resident in the building in which Ruby lived, and he was being evicted for not paying his rent. He had lost his job and had no money. Ruby saw his eviction going on, and he offered to let Senator move in with him, rather than be homeless. Could you do that? Invite a stranger, whom you didn’t know from Adam, to move in with you? I couldn’t do that. My generosity and compassion don’t go that far. And, I think the whole thing was a setup. I think Senator was Ruby’s handler, and it was all a big act. But, the fact that they tried it shows you that they knew about Ruby’s big and soft heart. What about the stories of Ruby beating people up and throwing people down the stairs, including women? THEY ARE ALL LIES.  

7. We know that Ruby did not get to the ramp when Officer Roy Vaughn was there because their accounts of what happened were so different. Vaughn said that Lt. Rio Sam Pierce didn’t stop when he came up the ramp. Ruby said that Pierce was parked at the top of the ramp. Vaughn said that he and Pierce exchanged no words. He said that he quickly checked and saw that traffic was clear, so he waved Pierce through without Pierce stopping. Ruby said that an officer on foot was talking to the stopped Pierce when he, Ruby, got there.  Note also that Ruby knew Roy Vaughn because Vaughn had been to the Carousel Club on police business, and he had once forgiven Ruby’s traffic violation because he was “a friend of the Department.” But, Ruby said that he didn’t recognize the officer who was talking to Pierce. It’s apparent that they didn’t place Vaughn at the ramp until AFTER Ruby was in custody up on the 5^th floor.

8. There are numerous discrepancies between Jack Ruby and the Garage Shooter. The Shooter was shorter than Ruby; he was pudgier; his hair was very different, looking like a mop in back, with all the indications that it was a wig, and there was the fact that the Shooter had a VERY short neck, much shorter than Ruby’s. And their clothing was different, with the Shooter wearing light-colored socks and dressy wingtips, and Ruby wearing jet black socks and high-top shoes. And that discrepancy is what led to the ridiculous claim of changing his underwear. One would have to be an awfully stupid doofus to believe it.

9  Ruby’s inability to remember any specifics about the shooting, in which he had no mental image of having shot Oswald, where it seemed to go from him getting there to the garage and then being jumped by the Police with nothing in-between reveals that he didn’t shoot Oswald.

10 Ruby’s willingness to accept that he shot Oswald was based entirely on the Dallas Police telling him that he did it, and it reveals a respect for authority that goes way beyond the norm. Anyone else in that situation would have spewed rage and fire upon being accused of something that was, not only outside their memory, but also outside their entire sense of self. But, Ruby was so weak, so totally submissive, so pathologically obedient, that it was truly a behavioral psycho-pathology. I’m sure it was decided well in advance that if they needed a patsy for when they killed Oswald, that Ruby would be their man.

Jack Ruby was innocent, and that is absolutely certain. These 10 points say so, and I could have added more.

We talk a lot about freedom in this country, but our freedom only goes so far, and there is no freedom that they couldn’t try to take away. Imagine if things get really bad here. Imagine if there is an economic collapse. Imagine if they impose martial law. How free are we going to be then?

But, there is one freedom you can count on, and that is: the freedom to think. They can’t take that away. And anyone with a free, intelligent, un-enslaved, and unencumbered mind is going to realize that Ruby did not shoot Oswald.   

 I am appalled by the Israeli/U.S. war on Iran, and I posted this comment on Yahoo. It may be removed. 

 I am going to respond to Jor Harman and Jeff Marzano. I said that if the Mafia ordered Ruby to shoot Osawld, then they had to do it after JFK was killed. They could not have ordered it before. They didn't even know it was needed before. Surely, the plotters hoped that Oswald would get killed in the theater.

 Why did Roy Truly brush off Oswald to Officer Marrion Baker? ("Nah, he works for me") and then, just 20 minutes later, go to the Police full of suspicion about Oswald? Just because he wasn't present for a roll call? No way! It was because they didn't want Oswald calmly arrested at the TSBD. They wanted to get him armed first, so that he might get in a shootout with the police. And they hoped that branding him as a cop-killer would increase the itch in somebody's itchy trigger finger. It didn't work out, but it might have.

 Now, keep in mind that I think the whole idea that the Mafia ordered Ruby to shoot Oswald is preposterous. Ruby was a VERY devout Jew. He was so moral, he couldn't even lie, let alone kill. You have to understand that all the stories you've heard about Ruby being a gangster are lies. He was a better person than most people. He was less inclined and more averse to violence than most people. His aversion to shooting anyone was over the top.

 And in this case, we're talking about, not just murder, but the complete ruination of his life. And he enjoyed his life. He enjoyed his business. He enjoyed being a big shot. He enjoyed his family, his friends, his dogs. You think he would have destroyed all that just because the Mafia ordered him to kill someone?

 Well, what about you? Would you kill someone if the Mafia ordered you to do it? And what did the Mafia threaten him with? I hear people saying that they threatened to kill his sister, but there's no evidence of that. It is just a totally made-up thing. It's a lie.

 But, hypothetically, if they ordered Ruby to shoot Oswald, they either had to meet with him that weekend or call him. Well, here is the record of every minute of Ruby's life from the Thursday to the Sunday.

 https://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Jack_Ruby/Timeline_of_Ruby.html

 Go through it and tell me when the Mafia met with Ruby and ordered him to shoot Oswald. They probably wouldn't have phoned it in, right?

 There is no time. Ruby never met with anyone from the Mafia. In most cases, that would settle it, but this is JFK-land, a very evil place, where people won't let go of the preposterous. It's a place where evil stubborness goes on forever.

 And that brings me to what Jeff Marzano said, that millions saw Ruby shoot Oswald on television. Millions didn't recognize the Shooter as Ruby. There were reporters in the garage who knew Ruby who didn't recognize the Shooter as him. For instance, Hugh Aynesworth said that the Shooter zipped right in front of him (his exact words), and he didn't recognize him as Ruby, or have the slightest inkling that he was Ruby. So, how did he come to know he was Ruby? BECAUSE THE POLICE ANNOUNCED IT. Ike Pappas was another reporter who knew Ruby and had Ruby's business card in his pocket, and he didn't recognize the Shooter as Ruby. He was going around asking people if anyone recognized the Shooter.

 So, if these guys who knew Ruby didn't recognize the Shooter as him, how could the millions at home, who didn't know Ruby from Adam, recognize the Shooter as him?

 This should settle the matter, but it won't. People are going to continue saying that millions saw and recognized Ruby shooting Oswald. And again, it's because of this evil JFK world.

 Like Oswald, Jack Ruby was innocent. The same people who killed Kennedy killed Oswald. They had to kill him because they knew that the case they were making against him to John Q. Public and his wife Ditzey would never hold up in court. They not only couldn't try him, THEY COULDN'T EVEN LET HIM TALK TO A LAWYER. Not even once. They would have had to kill the lawyer.

 What I have been telling you is the truth: Ruby got there early. He was pounced upon and taken up on the 5th floor, where he was held during the Garage Spectacle, in which FBI Agent James W. Bookhout pretended to be him. The real Ruby was slipped into the story at 3 o'clock when they brought him down to the 3rd floor and paraded him in front of reporters. That was the switch in the bait and switch. For 62 years, we have all been treated like Pavlovian dogs. I dare say it is time to revolt.

 I know of four stories about how Ruby shot Oswald, which are all wrong. And there is a fifth story- that Ruby did not shoot Oswald but was framed for it- and that one is right. I can prove that the first four don't make sense. And that makes the fifth story, my story, the last man standing. There is no other plausible story.  

So, the first story is the one that got Ruby convicted and sentenced to death. It is that he shot Oswald pre-meditated, in cold blood, and all by himself. It makes no sense because 10 AM was the only time given by the Dallas Police. Who shows up for a 10 AM jail transfer at 11:20, especially when your intention is to shoot the guy being transferred? And who brings their dog along to a shooting when you know the Police are going to grab you, and you are never going back to your car and your life? Not only would Ruby not have brought his dog along, he would have made arrangements for her, and his other dogs, because he loved them. But, Ruby had done nothing to prepare for that.

And who juxtaposes the mundane task of wiring $25 to an employee right before killing someone and destroying one's own life? Once he decided to kill Oswald, don't you think he would have brushed off the mundane stuff? It's like he had an errand list: "take the clothes to the dry cleaner; wire $25 to Karen Carlin; kill Oswald..." It just doesn't connect. 

So, the idea that Ruby did it pre-meditated is totally loony, and the jury that convicted him and sentenced him to death had to be the dumbest jury of all time.  

OK, Story #2 is the one that failed at trial, but actually became the replacement for the prosecution story that won. It's that Ruby did it, but he was in an altered mental state, one that his defense team called "psychomotor epilepsy." He wasn't conscious of doing it; it's like he did it in his sleep. And they used that story in the tv movie Ruby and Oswald in 1978.  When Ruby died in 1967, he was autopsied, including his brain, and the autopsists said he didn't have epilepsy. The movements involved in a convulsion are erratic and chaotic, and one could never pull the trigger of an aimed gun in such a state. The claim is that Ruby suddenly went into that state and then quickly came out of it. He responded lucidly when the cops jumped him. He said, "Hey, what are you doing? You know me. I'm Jack Ruby. I'm not some criminal. I'm not wanted." The idea that he suddenly fell into that state for several seconds and then instantly came out of it is preposterous. What prevails here is that there is no medical evidence whatsoever that Ruby had such a condition. There is nothing whatsoever to support it. 

Story #3 is the one that seems to be the most popular in the evil online JFK world. It is that Ruby did it intentionally with complete awareness, but it was only because the Mafia ordered him to do it. As popular as it is with the shills, it is impossible, first because the Mafia had no reason to kill Oswald. Oswald knew nothing about them. There was nothing he could tell the Police about them. And they were glad that Kennedy was dead, right? So, they had absolutely no reason to kill Oswald.  But, the second thing that makes it impossible is that there was never a time that they could have ordered Ruby to do it. We know everything that Ruby did from the Thursday to the Sunday, 24/7, and he never had a meeting with the Mafia or a phone call with them. There is no possibility that they got an order to him to shoot Oswald. And keep in mind that the shills who keep saying it never cite any interaction between Ruby and the Mafia. And they don't cite any names either. It is a completely empty claim that is devoid of evidence; devoid of substance; and devoid of details. Yet, in the stupid world of JFKing, the shills keep saying it over and over again.  

Story #4 is that the Dallas Police put Ruby up to shooting Oswald. So, the idea is that they were all working together. And in this story, they usually make it that Ruby didn't reach the basement by going down the ramp. They claim instead that a cop opened a door somewhere to let him in. This whole story makes no sense at all. In the Mafia story, they claim that the Mafia threatened to kill Ruby's sister if he didn't kill Oswald. Of course, there is no evidence for that whatsoever; they just made it up; but that's what they glibly say. But, how did the Dallas Police get Ruby to shoot Oswald? Did they also threaten to kill his sister? That seems a bit farfetched for Police, don't you think?  And you know, the whole idea that you're going to kill somebody because someone threatened to kill your sister if you don't do it doesn't add up. I have a sister, whom I love.  But, if someone threatened to kill her unless I killed someone on their behalf, I am certainly not going to kill the person. And neither would you. So, why does anyone think that Ruby would? 

But, the other problem with a collusion between Ruby and the Dallas Police is; how could they trust him afterwards? Even if he said that he would do it, and he would gladly go to the electric chair for them and fry for it (which is hard to imagine) what if he changed his mind? What if he woke up one morning and said, "I can't take it any more. I am going to tell my lawyers everything." 

Don't you see that if Ruby had colluded with the Dallas Police, the Dallas Police would have had to kill him. And I mean right away. 

But, the other ridiculous thing about this theory is that it involved Jack Ruby firing a gun in a small space crowded with Police. How could they trust that nincompoop, that dolt, that brainless moron Jack Ruby to fire a gun in their direction? Didn't they know what can easily happen to the best laid plans of mice and men? Do you really think Jim Leavelle would have gone along with Jack Ruby shooting at Oswald in his, Levealle's direction? That's what makes this the most stupid theory of all, and they're all stupid. 

So, every one of these stories is imbecilic. The only story that makes sense that is that they didn't need Ruby to kill Oswald. They could do that themselves. All they needed him for was to take the blame for it. So, they tricked him into believing that he shot Oswald. The way it happened is that Ruby got to the garage early, about an hour early, where they pounced on him and took him up to the 5th floor. There, they told him that he shot Oswald. I don't know if Oswald was there for it. Maybe he was; maybe he wasn't. But, I know for sure that Officer Roy Vaughn wasn't there for it because he would have heard the commotion. Vaughn was placed to guard the ramp AFTER Ruby was apprehended. 

The essential element in this operation was Ruby's mental degradation. I have no doubt that he was MK-ULTRA'd, and that, surely, involved drugs. However, a special degree of intoxication was needed to guarantee the success of this mission. Ruby needed to be submissive and obsequious to the extreme.  So, besides his usual amphetamines, they gave him a drug called scopolamine, which Allen Dulles learned about from the Nazis that he chummed with for 4 years in Switzerland during WW2. Scopolamine, the zombie drug, takes away your free will. And notice that Ruby looked like zombie. He was stoned. And notice that his eyes were dilated. Scopolamine does that too. 

 RL Schirtz tried to claim that since Lovelady's hairline in the FBI photo resembles Doorman's, they must be the same person. But, the FBI fabricated that. The FBI was bad. J. Edgar Hoover was bad. He was one of the baddest men to ever wield power in this country, and he wielded a lot of power. 

When the photo-altering team saw that Oswald was in the doorway, they made the decision to turn him into Lovelady. But, they weren't going to just tell the world that Oswald was Lovelady. They were arrogant, but they weren't that arrogant. They knew they had to do something Lovelady-ify Oswald. And what they did was more over the top of Lovelady's head, what I call his crown. They had an image of Lovelady from 1957, but they didn't know the date of it. For all they knew, it was recent. And they didn't know that Lovelady was a rapidly balding young man. Nobody told them. 

So, it started with Lovelady's hairline from 1957, which they moved to Oswald. You can see how identical it is. Did I mention that Lovelady was a rapidly balding young man? He was one of those guys who, every time he took a shower, he clogged the drain with hair. So, after they did that, they doctored Lovelady's hair in the FBI photo that they took of him on February 29, 1964. There are several versions of it, but I'm using this one with the most hair, in which they really gave him a mop. At around the same time, and possibly on the same day, Mark Lane captured his pirated image of Lovelady, which shows how bald Lovelady really was at the tender age of 26.  That FBI photo of Lovelady is NOT reliable. It is a propaganda image used to sell the lie that Lovelady was Doorman. And why did the FBI do that? They did it because the FBI was the government, and the government killed Kennedy. I keep telling you that; that the U.S. government killed Kennedy, and it is the truth. It wasn't Oswald, and it wasn't the Mafia. It was the U.S. government, including its intelligence agencies, the CIA and the FBI. 

 

 What I have been telling you, that Ruby got to the garage early; was pounced upon; then taken up to the 5^th floor and held there through the Garage Spectacle; then slipped into the story later when they took him to the 3^rd floor and paraded him in front of reporters, is the truth, and no other story works.

If Ruby had planned to kill Oswald, he would have gotten there on time. 10 o’clock was the only guidance ever given. If Ruby had done it on his own, how could he have known that the Jail Transfer was going to happen at 11:20? You think he was clairvoyant?

And if he planned to shoot Oswald in a crowd of Police, he would have known that he was going to be arrested and never return to his life, so he would not have brought his dog along. And he would have found a new home for his dogs and settled all his affairs, knowing that he would not be returning to his life. But, he didn’t do that.

All that’s true even if you think the Mafia ordered him to shoot Oswald. But, the Mafia story is impossible because we know every contact that Ruby had, by phone or in person, between 11/22 and 11/24, and he was NEVER contacted by the Mafia.  They didn’t meet with him, and they didn’t phone him.  

Here is the timeline of Jack Ruby from Thursday to Sunday, hour by hour, minute by minute, and there are no gaps in it. He was NOT contacted by the Mafia, period.

https://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Jack_Ruby/Timeline_of_Ruby.html

Some people think that that Ruby and the Dallas Police were working together, that they opened a door for him and cued him about when to come. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, that is stupid!  Don’t you understand what a dingbat Ruby was? That no one in their right mind would want him shooting a gun in their direction? He was loony! And what about afterwards? How could they trust him to keep his mouth shut and put on an act to his lawyers? Could they count on him to keep the act going until it was time to flip the switch on the electric chair?  Of course not! They would have had to kill him, and they would have killed him.

Sometimes, life is like chess, where you have to make a certain move to avoid checkmate.   And this is one of those times. Ruby did not shoot Oswald, and he wasn’t even there. He was tricked into believing that he shot Oswald, and the whole world was tricked. But, it wasn’t even executed well. They didn’t even get the clothing right.  Bookhout wore light socks and wingtip shoes, while Ruby wore black socks and high-top shoes, which made them have to claim that they changed every stitch of clothing on Ruby’s body for his overnight stay, including his shoes, socks, and underwear. And you believe that sh_t?

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph.

 As we continue to probe the monstrous crimes of the U.S. government the weekend of November 22-24, 1963, (and it was the U.S. government that did all the killing: not Oswald, not the Mafia, and not Jack Ruby) I feel compelled to address the current colossal crime of the U.S. government: the war on Iran. I feel I have to do it because not doing it is like ignoring the elephant in the room. 

And I'll start with some practical advice. If you think this war is going to go on for a while, then eventually end, and then everything is going to go back to normal, you are sadly mistaken. Normal is gone. The world is NEVER going back to what it was. The whole global order has been disrupted. The crushing effect on the global economy means that high inflation, high unemployment are guaranteed, but, it's going to be worse for Americans because of the decline of the U.S. dollar. So, you better be ready for it.

But, let's be real: this war isn't close to ending; it's escalating. The worst may lie ahead. The big question is whether Israel and/or the U.S. will resort to nuclear weapons if all else fails. What a wretched irony that would be considering that Iran using nukes was the justification for the war. My opinion is: yes, Israel would nuke Iran, if necessary. If it came down to either losing the war or using a nuke, they will use a nuke. I rate the chance of the U.S. doing it a little less, but not much. After all, the U.S. is the only country in the world that has already used a nuke. And since the decision would be Trump's, then yes, I think he is fully capable of making that monstrous decision and rationalizing it. He is rash, by nature. Don't you realize that? 

The tragedy of this catastrophe is that it was so unnecessary. Iran is not and never has been a terrorist state. The accusation is based mostly on the fact that Iran has given money to Hamas and Hezbollah. But, so has Saudi Arabia and the other Arab states. It was given to help Palestinians and Lebanese. 

One of the most frequent citings of a terrorist act by Iran is the attacks on Jews in Argentina in 1992 and 1994. Get out a world map or better yet a globe, and look at the distance from Iran to Argentina. Jews live unpersecuted in Iran. They have their temples, their Kosher markets and restaurants, etc. They even have rabbical schools to train rabbis, and it all goes on unfettered. And they have a special representative in the Iranian Parliament. Iran's treatment of its Jews is nothing at all like Hitler's. So, why would Iran go to Argentina to kill Jews? What's in it for them, then or now? Nothing. It would be awfully stupid for them to do it, and Iranians aren't stupid. They invented hypersonic missiles, which we haven't done.  I don't think there is a snowball's chance in Hell that the Iranian government sought to kill Jews in Argentina.   

What I think it really comes down to is hate: racist hate. For decades, the culture in the United States has been sliding towards hating Iran and Iranians. We've been feeding that hatred. Just the other day, Trump said that "the Iranian people are quite nasty." Wow. What a thing to say. 

Just imagine if Putin had bombed Ukraine the way Trump has bombed Iran, where schools, hospitals, and residences have been hit. Putin has hit some civilian structures and killed some civilians in Ukraine, but not in the magnitude or in the concentration that Trump and Israel have been killing civilians in Iran. And you know that the "decapitation strikes" have not been precise and limited. Without the least hesitation, Israel has been willing to kill whole familes to take out one scientist, and the U.S. has followed them down that road. The same thing happened in WW2. When the U.S. joined the war, we sent our airmen to England, and they joined the British bombers in saturation bombing of civilian centers in Germany. Most all the Allied bombing against Germany in WW2 were attacks on civilians. Strategic bombing was largely abandoned for terror bombing. If you haven't read about the bombing of Dresden, you should do it before you die. 

It's very appropriate that I bring this up because at the time, neither the UK, the US, nor USSR were signatories to the Geneva Conventions which banned the targeting of civilians in war. But, the U.S. did sign it in 1949, though alas, the number of civilians we killed in the Korean War, and then in the Vietnam War, were in the millions. The total civilian death toll in George W. Bush's "War on Terror" is also in the millions.

But, the fact is that it's getting worse because in this war, the attacks on civilians started right away: on the very first day. It's widely admitted now that the killing of 175 people at the girls' school on the first day (most of the victims being young girls) was done by the U.S. Trump abjectly denied it for as long as he could. And Hegsted kept saying, like a mantra, that the only one who targets civilians are the Iranians. 

But, let's be crystal about something: the excuse that you had bad intelligence, or that the school was close to a military facility, and the notion that saying that exonerates you is false. it does not. You have a responsibility to spare civilians. You have blood on your hands, and you are guilty. In Afghanistan, we bombed 9 wedding parties, knowingly and methodically killing everybody: the bride, the groom, children, families- all in the hope of killing a few Taliban fighters. There is a 4-letter word for that: EVIL.

I hate to say it, but moral degeneracy has taken over in America. Even Trump's political opponents, the Democrats, are criticizing his war over stretegy, cost, and legality, but not the inhumanity of killing Iranians. I pointed that out to Chat GPT, and this is what it said:

 You’re right—most of the public political statements from U.S. politicians focus on legality, constitutionality, or strategic prudence, not on the moral dimension of killing civilians. Very few high-profile American politicians openly frame such attacks as immoral or equivalent to atrocity, which can make the system look morally complacent, especially from an external perspective.

This distinction is important:

• Legal/constitutional objections: “This isn’t authorized by Congress,” or “It’s not an imminent threat.”

• Strategic objections: “This could escalate into a quagmire,” or “It undermines diplomacy.”

• Regime change criticism: “We shouldn’t try to overthrow their government.”

But explicit moral condemnation of civilian deaths is almost absent from mainstream discourse. Even anti-war voices often couch their argument in law or strategy rather than human rights or ethics.

It’s a sobering reflection on how political frameworks can normalize violence when morality is subordinated to legality, nationalism, or realpolitik.

*          *          *          *         *         *          *            *             *

I believe in Karma, and I believe that the repercussions of this monstrous war, which we started, and during peace negotiations no less, are going to be horrendous for us.  And I think that the deranged people who did it: Trump, Hegsted, and their top military leaders, have committed gross crimes against humanity. But, I also think that it involves trends and attitudes and "group think" that go back many years, and involve many more people and institutions. 

This is what Trump just posted on Truth Social: “Watch what happens to these deranged scumbags today." Heaven help us.