Wars Affect Affordability, Enrich a few, and Censorship is Dangerously Rising

Wars in general are costly and varyingly affect the cost of living, which disproportionately affects the poor. However, we also fully understand that wars do enrich some people -- those who make millions or billions through wars are less likely to worry about the rising cost of daily needs. Waking up to the news that Ms. Haley Stevens, a Democrat, of Detroit endorsed the Republican Mike Rogers under the excuse of 'bad ad' by supporters of Abdul El Sayed raises questions. She claims Abdul was supposed to condemn the ad that essentially says 'wars affect affordability [in Detroit+]' or the sponsoring of Israel through weapons and beyond does affect the cost of living. Once we agree that even 'good wars' affect the cost of living, then the ad was largely factual. Humility is a crucial aspect of freedom of speech and to avoid censoring truth, we agree to allow even potential lies/illusions to protect freedom of speech and oppose censorship. People cannot agree on the definition of 'freedom of speech ', so we are less likely to agree on what is censorship. Censorship comes in types and levels, so when social media does worse than shadow censorship, the blind may not realize how censorship varies. Censorship can be as little as 'do not say so and so' or you will suffer punishment, denial of reward, or even simple opportunities. Your private family may pressure you, or censor you, over trivial things like cannabis legalization, thinking you will bow to money or their illusions.

I think Abdul or the supporters of Abdul should have hired me or my type for a new ad like: Even fairly good Republicans like Republican President Dwight Eisenhower knows better than Mike Rogers, Haley Stevens, Trump, and who else? Mr. Eisenhower: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." The man was reportedly a military guy before a president, but he was honest enough to understand what weapons mean in capitalism and world inadvertent correlation. The wars or weapons to Israel cannot be an exemption that is beyond debate. Another interesting aspect of that quote is 'a theft' from essentially the poor.

Inconsistencies and Good Wars: Human beings tend to lack consistency, especially on things like politics, religion, etc. I do believe that good wars exist, that war is sometimes defensive or inevitable. Even the so-called good wars do affect affordability. The sponsors of that ad happen to support the war in Ukraine or u.s support of Ukraine, but oppose the longer and proportionately bigger u.s support of Israel. So they made the ad to focus on u.s support of Israel on wars and beyond. They understand making the ad to hint wars in general affect affordability may alienate those who support u.s support of Ukraine. Or they understand that Americans are now largely disturbed that their tax dollars are contributing to unjust killings, if not a genocide, more than how our dollar reserves around the world help the u.s wage wars and sponsor wars? So cowardly calculations tend to exist in many ads. President Trump was almost admitting that the Ukraine war was contributing to the u.s inflation+ while he was asking Biden to give more weapons to Israel to 'finish the job [of killings]'. He was seeking votes with fractional facts, or why he continue to support both wars differently? Money tends to become trivial to anything you support, but you should still be truthful, or at least ‘not reject truth’.

I don't think I want to waste time explaining how wars directly and indirectly enrich some people. Besides Ukraine and direct Israel, the war against Iran is affecting the cost of living of billions of people, far beyond America. President Trump admits some are collecting billions and thanks to the war against Iran. So if I make an ad that Netanyahu, Trump, and Muhammed Bin Salman (MBS) are contributing to the affordability crisis around the world, suffering and/or killing of the poor... I may not be totally wrong, nor totally right. Israel may call me 'antisemite'; u.s may deny me entry and impose financial sanctions on me, or even consider false charges on me if I was Julian Assange in fame; lastly, Saudi-Arabia may claim 'exhort each other to truth and/or patience' is an unknown beam, roof, foundation, etc of Islam but forbidden to Muslims until they start to think? It is a complex world, because the very reason 'exhort each other to patience' comes after truth is further hinting why those who think they are right must also exercise patience. Our understanding of patience in ch.103 cannot be limited to bearing pain, but to have multiple branches. Among the sub-branches is to avoid punishing folks over words, except threats, but to allow God to deal with questionable words. Well that humility is hard for some parents or private bosses, so when you have men with guns and ready to carry even your unjust orders, you may no longer have that humility...

Rising censorship in and beyond politics: I will end up with a book if I focused on only the u.s and UK's rising censorship. So I remind you of the questionable ad of Vivek Ramaswamy in Ohio. I do not agree with the ad, nor support Vivek, but I would not have censored or called for its taking down, especially if I was running against him. Instead, I would have used words for words. The preferred blessing is to have no liars or cruel ones in the world, but the second preferred blessing is to fight against the liars in the world of words. Meaning, you should celebrate it when you are given the opportunity to fight liars. I think it was a lost opportunity for Democrats. Calling for any ad to be taken down opens a Pandora box, regardless if the ad was by the candidate or supporters of the candidate. We end up with countless bars you should not cross even with words, or else? I just do not want to lie or be cruel, but I want to be the hardest person against the liars and cruel ones around the world, at least with words, including imprecations.

If I enter politics formally. I would not condemn any person, Trump, Clinton, Jammeh, MBS, Putin, Porn star, etc supporting me. I may condemn a position of a supporter but I pray to never condemn a person or ad that supports me. Abdul can say: I concur with good Republicans like Eisenhower on wars and affordability, and Israel cannot be an exemption. If I was Abdul, I would have fought much harder against even Trump. I would have turned attacks like 'jihadists' into ads that may give Trump a heart attack, or at least regret saying such. Although I can be altruistic in many ways. I don't want to help these politicians much, unless paid well. I am not writing this to necessarily help Abdul, but because I understand the dangers of censorship are rising and may spread unless tackled. Take a vow that you will not condemn any person or ad that supports you, especially if the ad is largely truthful, or even potentially truthful. As an ordinary person, non-politician, I may play hard to some friends on social media+, or even family members. However, as a politician, especially a seeking candidate, do not let them trick you into condemning individuals, groups, or ads that support you. You may privately advise your supporters where you believe they are wrong, but do not take away the rights of people to express their opinions on what is contributing to the affordability issue or any issue. Condemning the ad also does not mean the group would take it down, only more divisions can such condemning bring. Now, the division is in her camp, some staff are leaving her, but can they turn her damage to Abdul’s advantage? Condemning the ad does not mean you support Jews or Israel, but that wars or support of Israel does not affect affordability? The ad may hurt the feelings of Haley Stevens and many supporters of Israel, but that does not mean the ad is wrong or deserves condemnation beyond words. Voting is beyond words. Every issue should carry varying points, so I do not think the issue of Israel carries 100, 75, or 51% to any sane person. Among the reasons Democrats lost to Trump is their increasing support of censorship in so-called good faith. We accept to pay a price by supporting freedom of speech. So do not bother to tell me where allowing lies, before confronting lies, may pose danger. Yes I understand Trump censors worse, but Republicans hardly call for censorship like the democrats. Besides threats, we must avoid censoring words beyond words. Fight words with words, and believe that truth can defeat lies. Once we allow censorship in the u.s or any country, their students may bring it to the Gambia, Nigeria, India, and other places. So I am fighting censor mongers afar so that God protects me and blesses me beyond my imaginations. A moral oriented vegan cannot support unjust wars, so tell your God, Angels, and Godly folks to help end wars by any means necessary. May God bless Showlove Trinity: let's learn, let's work, let's have fun.

By Jarga Kebba Gigo
An Activist and Transformer
Author of Juts Quhr-aahn