Good Liberals Hate International Law And Love Laura Loomer
The US has openly announced its intention to dismantle the International Criminal Court and liberal journalists who for years have screeched about the threat to democracy posed by Donald Trump have had absolutely nothing to say.
Neither the New York Times or the Washington Post (which maintains a “democracy in America” section to document how the Trump administration is targeting US legal institutions), have run a single editorial or opinion piece opposing the efforts to dismantle the highest legal authority on the planet “brick by brick,” in the words of Marco Rubio.
Neither of them have had anything to say about the attempt to bring about, in the most real and practical way, the end of international law. The great liberal opinion setters, the self-proclaimed guardians of the rule of law, the “democracy dies in darkness” people have decided that international law can die in darkness, thank you.
Why? Because they are Zionists, imperialists and nationalists. Because they agree with Rubio’s rationale that the court, in its pursuit of justice, is a threat to US interests, sovereignty, and to Israel. Because they believe that the US and Israel should be able to run the world unhindered by the rule of law, that they should be able to commit genocide and war crimes if they want to. They believe, like Trump and Rubio, that the US, not a global court of experts, is the highest political authority on the planet. Because they believe, in the words of the disgracefully departed Lindsey Graham that the court is “designed for Africans and thugs like Putin,” not the masters of the imperial universe. Because justice for Gaza would threaten the foundations of a Zionism they hold so close to their fetid, sickly hearts.
There is a sickness at the core of the liberal. A sickness that allows them to support genocide, deny justice, and still pretend they’re the good guys. As I’ve written before, my ire is reserved overwhelmingly for liberals because of their moralising double-standards and hypocrisy. Because of their snooty claims to moral and intellectual superiority over the right despite being, in flavour if not decorum, essentially their mirror image. Because they get good people to support bad things.
The biggest joke of all is that ICC has been a good friend to American war criminals. Despite the abundance of evidence that US troops committed heinous war crimes in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the court refused to investigate possible US crimes, despite repeated and sustained appeals from victims, their lawyers, and human rights organisations. Numerous organisations submitted evidence and legal filings to the court documenting allegations of torture in CIA black sites, abuse and murder at detention facilities, and the mass murder of civilians. Even Karim Khan, now in the gunsights of the Zionists for issuing arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, himself acted to block investigations into US war crimes. When he became the head of the ICC in 2021, he announced he would deprioritise investigations into war crimes by US forces and instead focus resources on investigating the crimes of the Taliban.
And look what he got in return for this act of imperial solidarity!
Last week the newly minted US protectorate of Venezuela announced it was withdrawing from the ICC. Was there outage in the liberal media? Of course not. Can you imagine if Venezuela under Chavez or Maduro had announced the country was withdrawing from the ICC? Scribes for empire would have denounced it as proof positive that Venezuela was run by an authoritarian regime with a brazen disregard for the rule of law. But because the country is now a compliant imperial puppet and dutifully serves empire, liberal media passed over it without comment.
Liberals are like this about everything.
Last week the deformed MAGA nutjob Laura Loomer visited Ukraine and renounced her previous support for Russia, saying she had been misled. From PBS to the Washington Post to the Guardian, outlets across the west ran with news about a grifting social media loon going to Ukraine as if it was a defining geopolitical moment of the 21st century. The New York Times opinion columnist Nicholas Kristof tweeted that he now admired Loomer. The Guardian had an 800-word analysis about its political significance! These supposedly progressive outlets reported on her damascene conversion it as if can tell us something essential about war and peace and international relations, and it wasn’t just a massive grift and a switch of paymasters. When looney Loomer got back to the US she tweeted that Muslims are polluting the US “like an incurable disease” and she liked Ukraine because there wasn’t a Muslim in sight.
I guess being a hateful, evil racist is forgivable and fine if you support Ukraine in the end!
But liberals aren’t racist, ok.
And as long as they serve empire, liberals just love the rule of law and legal institutions.
(If you appreciate my work you can buy me a coffee here or upgrade your sub)
Simple. Loomer is a Trump cultist. Whatever Trump is for, she is for. Whatever Trump is against, she is against. Until Trump flips. Then she will flip.
Rationalizations will be manufactured as necessary to support the cult leader. Whether the rationalizations are nonsensical or hypocritical doesn't matter. All that matters is that they support Dear Leader's policy of the moment.
Hence, a Loomer could loudly and piteously bewail the fate of Muslim Crimean Tatars on the one hand, and in the same breath rejoice at the lack of Muslims in Ukrainian political life. Any argument to support Trump.
And, no, thus is not limited to trumpers. Democrats and liberals do the exact same thing, although they are usually more glib.
In a just world every USA president would have gone before an ICC and been booked in a Hague but were instead built up in the media with libraries and accoutrements that only coloniality’s academics journalists and artists could provide for the plantationocracy.