An American Monarchy: How It Could Happen
You think you could never see royal rule in the USA? Think again...
The events of the last few weeks, the things I’ve been seeing, hearing and reading about, have had me thinking about all the possible places this could lead, and in the relative short-term future. The things I’m talking about of course are the successful conclusion of the war funding boondoggle bill, the campus Gaza protests, the militarized crushing of many of those, the House antisemitism criminalization awareness bill, and the other political/media rhetoric which has been flying around related to all of that.
These are extreme times, and out of those kinds of periods extreme consequences often result. Setting aside a nuclearized ending to it all, which could result from either of the conflicts, my thoughts are focused on the transition of American government into its next phase, and how the American people would play a part in that, how they would feel about that.
One of the things I’ve been saying forever is the Jews always go too far, and the Jews always pay the price. But at this moment that isn’t a given - the reason the Jews always go too far in these types of circumstances is that they believe they can win, it isn’t some kind of group suicide pact or self-hating wish for group self-destruction (the kind of thing E. Michael Jones addresses as his Jewish revolutionary spirit rejection of logos thesis).
So how could they possibly win arising out of our current situation? One of the moments which led me down this road was this one from a recent Glenn Greenwald pod:
Now, Gabbard is someone who I voted for in my 2020 CA presidential primary, as the most clearly anti-war candidate in that race; she was also then generally seen as a Sanders-style progressive, but also was slammed (including by many Bernie Bros) as an Assad toady and Putin apologist. But today I see a very different person, and I’m not even talking about anything that’s necessarily definable as her shift from the Dem left to the GOP right.
Greenwald says here that she “has long been a vehement supporter of Israel”; back in 2019-20 I couldn’t really find much of anything she was saying about Israel, but I knew she had adopted the Sam Harris neo-atheist/IDW cultural neocon rhetoric about Islamism being the biggest threat in our world, to which I then applied the wishful thinking strategy that she was saying that as a tactical political offset to her opposition to regime-change wars, still supporting the non-existent “war on terror” while blasting the actual wars of state destruction.
But Gaza has confirmed that she may actually believe that crap, in spades, and in the name of that belief she’s happily willing to embrace the latest fundamentally anti-American activities of the very people who created those regime-change wars she so hated.
Again, fuck Tulsi Gabbard, but there’s more to see here than just that. She’s not currently in office or running for office, so one might think that “AIPAC-capture” is off the table - except that there’s been a lot of talk about her as Trump’s running mate, just as there was regarding RFK Jr. And of course both of them are die-hard Israel supporters, and Trump has also been condemning in the strongest rhetorical terms these campus “Little Gazas”, doing his best law-and-order Nixon imitation.
Throw in the Mini Transformer Mike Johnson and Brighton Beach’s own Chuck “the Fuck” Schumer and we’re in a position where there’s nobody at the highest levels of government who hasn’t completely bought into what I’d describe as the neoconservative paradigm, that the fundamental purpose of US foreign policy is to militarily oppose the past and present enemies of the Ashkenazi Jews. And what we see today is that belief system being turned inward, extended domestically, that their deadly opponents/enemies, including militarized, now include Americans who don’t likewise believe that this is the rightful role of the US in the world.
And all of this, at least within the rhetoric, has a very substantial mythological element - the words simply don’t come close to matching the realities anymore. This is where it really gets scary to me; the loons, the Jewnatics, are running the asylum. To the extent that there’s any level of opposition to all this anywhere in the government, their rhetoric likewise doesn’t come remotely close to the truth of the matter.
As an example of the opposition outside of government, let's turn to the Judge this week and anti-war guest Jeffrey Sachs:
So Jeff starts out with the Israel lobby, which to 95% of viewers incorrectly means AIPAC, the Incredible Hulk on K Street, and then the vague reference to donors both to political campaigns and the private universities. Not a bad start for an introductory summary. Then the Judge asks a direct, straightforward, open-ended question:
Today's quiz: what is the one indispensable word missing from that explanation? Hint: I've already used a form of it in this piece. Anyone? Anyone?
Yes, it's neoconservatism. The thing that Sachs has become almost as loathe to discuss as Matt Taibbi is loathe to discuss that or anything else remotely of a Jewish nature. Yet again, the opening paragraphs to Sachs’ Tikkun piece on Ukraine in June 2022:
The war in Ukraine is the culmination of a 30-year project of the American neoconservative movement. The Biden Administration is packed with the same neocons who championed the US wars of choice in Serbia (1999), Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003), Syria (2011), Libya (2011), and who did so much to provoke Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The neocon track record is one of unmitigated disaster, yet Biden has staffed his team with neocons. As a result, Biden is steering Ukraine, the US, and the European Union towards yet another geopolitical debacle. If Europe has any insight, it will separate itself from these US foreign policy debacles.
The neocon movement emerged in the 1970s around a group of public intellectuals, several of whom were influenced by University of Chicago political scientist Leo Strauss and Yale University classicist Donald Kagan. Neocon leaders included Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Robert Kagan (son of Donald), Frederick Kagan (son of Donald), Victoria Nuland (wife of Robert), Elliott Abrams, and Kimberley Allen Kagan (wife of Frederick).
So the neocon wars, and the ten important neocon Jews he chose to name. That's about Ukraine, but remember the story about clueless Pres. Bush the Lesser in 2003 (!!!) asking Poppy Bush what neoconservatism was, and his one-word response: “Israel”.
But, no, once again Sachs is pushing Greenwald’s national security state including citing the CIA as the cause of this sea change in American foreign policy and so American democracy. It’s bullshit.
What this points up is how seemingly reliant we are in this time on Jewish voices of opposition, and the fundamental problem with that reliance - you simply aren’t going to get the whole truth. The truth you'll get is the “hey, my brothers in blood, we're going too far once again!” chamber-avoidance massaged truth. So we have J-people like Sachs, Greenwald, Blumenthal, Mate, Halper, Finkelstein, et al pushing the anti-Israel side of the discussion in the alternative media, and how many times have you heard specific Jewish organizations cited as part of these protests? The Jews are the good guys regarding Gaza! 🤔
And now we have the clear example of Taibbi, one of the inventors of the Jewvoiding censorship-industrial complex (CIC), as the problem with goys in the alternative/independent media, shitting his pants any time he gets within ten blocks of a Jew…
In this case let’s see how this distorts the following conversation by rejoining it less than a minute later:
So we get a story about a CIA coup in 4th-world shithole Haiti 20 years ago (there's a lot more to that story btw), then a side trip to the Great Distraction of covid and an intelligence agencies’ angle to it, and then the CIA starting all these wars. A bit more, just to make sure Jeff hasn’t misspoken:
So yeah, it all started in 1947 when the CIA, NSA, National Security Council, etc. were formed, not in 1967 when during the Six Day War Israel attacked the USS Liberty and LBJ covered it up, that war part of the change which birthed neoconservatism over the next few years, not in 1981 when the neocons first infected a presidential administration under Reagan, not in 1991 with the first Gulf War and the beginning of the American proxywars against the enemies of Israel, not in 1998 when Clinton’s Jewish-led foreign policy team first moved NATO eastward while PNAC was beating the drum of regime change in sanctioned Iraq, and not in 2001 when the neocons returned to the Bush Jr. administration and 9/11 “happened”, resulting in the start of two decades of continuous middle east wars.
I’m sorry, but this goes beyond mere bullshit to me, this is hardcore, obvious, undeniable misdirection. Has Jeff retracted that Tikkun article yet, for its gross inaccuracies, blaming all those poor, well-meaning Jews for the CIA’s crimes? Fucking antisemite, toss him in jail and throw away the key… 🤨
The point here is that we have a guy on the oppositional truther side of the issue who for inexplicable reasons gets huge respect generally, whose explanation for decades of history has gone from the neocons to the MIC to the CIA and security state in less than two years. These are three very different stories, there has been no apparent new information driving the changes, and yet no one I know of (but the guy in my mirror) has criticized him for making these narrative switches - or even asked him about them.
In other words, we are living in the post-truth world, on both sides of the divide.
And in the process of this evolution he moves farther and farther away from his co-ethnics as the perps in the story. Which we also see reflected in the middle of all that talk when he says, “And this concoction, that this is about antisemitism, give me a break. I’m a Jewish professor at Colombia University, this is not about antisemitism.” Absolutely correct - although it should be about antisemitism - but in this context he leaves the impression that the CIA invented the cover story of antisemitism, because he offers no further explanation - by this point everyone’s forgotten about his brief mention of the “Israel” lobby and unspecified donors at the beginning. Give me a break, Jeff - everybody knows, or should know, who is screaming antisemite, and it ain’t Johnny Gentile from Omaha, Nebraska.
What he also does here is to openly declare the superior standing of his opinion as a Jewish Ivy League academic. Let’s all bow down respectfully to Jeffrey the Great.
On the other hand, there is someone like Col. MacGregor, who gets as close as one can get to telling an essential truth, one that Sachs also briefly hinted at there at the beginning when he mentioned campaign/university financing:
“Globalist-Neocon class” - remember that when I get to monarchy next. But, as eMike likes to ask, when will he stop dancing and just say the word “Jew”? 😁
Enough preamble, let’s get to the matter at hand - how do we get to an American monarchy? First, what is a monarchy? Here is the wikipedia definition:
A monarchy is a form of government in which a person, the monarch, is head of state for life or until abdication. The political legitimacy and authority of the monarch may vary from restricted and largely symbolic (constitutional monarchy), to fully autocratic (absolute monarchy), and can span across executive, legislative, and judicial domains.
The succession of monarchs has mostly been hereditary, often building dynasties. However, elective and self-proclaimed monarchies have also often occurred throughout history. Aristocrats, though not inherent to monarchies, often serve as the pool of persons from which the monarch is chosen, and to fill the constituting institutions (e.g. diet and court), giving many monarchies oligarchic elements.
It’s a form of greater or lesser authoritarianism, based on blood or a narrow group of elite. A monarchical state can have the usual three branches of government, which all can include the monarchic structure.
So what do we have today? In my view, the executive has been largely controlled by the ruling deep state faction since its assumption to power with the 1992 presidential election, with the somewhat limited exception of the 2017-2021 Trump administration. The Dem Clintonite presidents - Clinton, Obama, Biden - were all elected on mountains of Jewish money, and have embraced previously-GOP neoliberal economics and neoconservative foreign policy, as well as turning identity politics, a child of Cultural Marxism, into a religion, the last remnant of 20th century leftism. On the other side, Bush the Lesser was a complete puppet who turned foreign policy completely over to the neocons who in turn started all these wars, and his administration concluded with the biggest neoliberal disaster yet, the 2008 Wall St-created debt-based crash of the world’s economy.
There’s not much need to discuss congress, which in marginally-acceptable terms has sold its soul to AIPAC. An important change to note was that the first Dem reaction to the inexplicable Killary defeat by the Donald in 2016 was to elect the New York Jew Schumer their senate leader, symbolically and openly doubling down on the party’s 25-year evolution. As for the GOP, the most visible example of the deep state influence is perhaps Speaker Johnson over just the last few weeks.
It’s the Judiciary which shows the evolution toward monarchy the most clearly, though, and by that I mean the Dem appointments to the Supreme Court, where the issue goes back much farther, in this case as much as 60 years.
In 1962 JFK nominated Arthur Goldberg to fill the “Jewish seat” being vacated by the retiring Felix Frankfurter (who had replaced Louis Brandeis*). In 1965 LBJ replaced the retiring Goldberg by the Jew Abe Fortas, and then in 1967 placed the NAACP’s Thurgood Marshall on the court, its first black coming from an institution which had been led by Jews going back to the Jewish reaction to the Leo Frank conviction in 1913. In 1968, after LBJ had become a lame duck by pulling out of the race, he tried to replace retiring Earl Warren as chief justice with Fortas and failed; Fortas then had to resign in 1969 under a cloud of scandal: Fortas later resigned from the Court after a controversy involving his acceptance of $20,000 from [Jewish] financier Louis Wolfson while Wolfson was being investigated for insider trading.
*Technically Frankfurter replaced Benjamin Cardozo, the only Jew appointed by a GOP president, who died in office. Brandeis retired effective two weeks after Frankfurter joined the court in early 1939.
The next Dem SCOTUS appointments would have to wait until Clinton (Carter didn’t get a shot), who placed the Jews Ruth “Gator” Binsburg and Stephen Breyer on the court during his first two years, when the Dems also controlled the Senate. Then Obama started by nominating the first Hispanic Catholic woman Sonia Sotomayor, feeding some critical constituencies in serious play between the parties, and followed with the Jew Elena Kagan. In 2016 during his lame duck last year he nominated the Jew Merrick Garland, a nomination the GOP-controlled Senate simply tabled. When Biden got his shot he nominated the first black woman, Ketanji Brown Jackson, fulfilling a specific campaign promise he’d made during the critical (for him) South Carolina primary.
It’s been 62 years, just before Goldberg in 1962, since the Dems have placed a male of Euro-Christian heritage, Byron “Whizzer” White, on the court. During that time they have fed minority constituencies with three (Jewish proxywarrior) appointments, and their other five have been Jews. And the only nominee who failed to be seated would have been a sixth and a fourth Jew on that particular court. The party of feminism has never nominated a female of Euro-Christian heritage, a group that in itself makes up roughly a third of the US population. Instead their female contributions have been two Jews, a Hispanic and a black, coming from groups who combined (including their male halves) make up a third of the population. Whitey need not apply.
The GOP, they just nominate Catholics; race and gender don’t seem to matter as much. Obviously the driving issue there has been abortion.
Today there is only one Jew on the court, but we have only gotten to that level through circumstance and dumb luck. It’s pretty clear that the Dems have been engaging in a court-packing scheme since 1993, as part of the Clinton sellout, and there’s no reason to think that won’t continue. Had things played out slightly differently here and there, we could quite possibly have a court with a Jewish majority today - and most Americans wouldn’t even know it. How many people knew Obama was trying to place a fourth Jew on the court in 2016? Maybe if they read the Forward, but…
In 2020 there were five Jews who sought the Dem nomination for president, roughly 20% of that huge field, and how many knew that, or cared?
The one element of the Dem party base which is significantly opposed to these wars is an element that is coming off of nearly a decade of Bernie worship, the so-called progressives. To this point the deep state elements in ownership of the party - the Wall St./Brooklyn “my crowd”, the Chicago Jewish political mafia, the Hollywood/Silicon Valley elite - have selected goy frontmen, in 2020 Kamala Harris and Pete Buttiplug, but ultimately had to settle on Biden.
Another trend to note. From JFK in 1960 to Obama in 2008 we elected nothing but sunbelt candidates - two from southern CA (Nixon, Reagan), three from Texas (LBJ, the Bushes), one each from Georgia (Carter) and Arkansas (Clinton). [MI’s Ford wasn’t even elected VP] In addition to the transitioning deep south politics, that all reflected the WASP Rockefellerist deep state faction and their industrial financial base - Big Oil and the MIC, aerospace/defense.
But then came Chicago’s Obama, and then the all-NY Killary vs Trump cage match; now it’s Biden from Scranton… er, Wilmington, DE. The heirs-apparent on the Dem side are both Bay Area CA, VP Kamala and Gov Gavin. They may all be goys, but they come from centers of Jewish power, which means they relied on that to get where they are.
But at some point it’s going to be a Jew they back. Some people thought it might be Al Franken from St. Jewish Park, MN, but he was undone by Me Too (lesson: don’t get bit by your own dog in the fight). Before that John Kerry was a kind of stealth candidate, a nine-holes guy like Barry Goldwasser. Today there seems to be a lot of grooming talk around Danny Sachs Goldman, and pencil-neck Adam Schiff is moving up with the big boys in congress. There are also four current Dem state governors, led by the chubby oligarch JB Pritzker. In case you missed it, Dean Phillips-Pfefer took a brief shot at the 2024 nomination (he got 20% of the vote in NH), and Marianne Williamson, the candidate of Cultural Marxism, took her second shot as well.
What might be changing the math is the current Gaza crisis, which is shifting the playing field in undetermined ways. One thing that it has made completely clear is the long-time strategy of the GOP seeking Jewish money by out-philosemitizing the Dems in a targeted manner, being Israel’s best friend. Even when they’re committing genocide. Even when it means the GOP’s leadership siding with the Dems. And funding is one thing, but law and order is another - this is their wheelhouse.
Gaza has brought the Dems back to the LBJ/Nixon Vietnam era as well, but without all the hand-wringing. Then they had Eugene McCarthy & Co., but now they’re reliant on Bernie, the wannabe AOC and her fellow squadites of color. Different ballgame. Sanders recently said Gaza might be Biden’s Vietnam, but you don’t lose the party if the party isn’t remotely divided, and a lot of that is on Brooklyn Bernie the Jew.
Enough of today’s horseracing analysis, it would take a mental/psychological leap to get to a definable monarchy. And that’s where all this antisemitism stuff comes in. If enough of the people buy into that, into the notion that we are on the cusp of Nazi Germany in 1933, the people opposed to this righteous genocide, at home and abroad, are the antisemitic Nazi terrorists, and the God’s-perfect-victim Jews are threatened with Holo2, then the possibilities would be altered.
On the other side, there is a real “if not now, then when??” question regarding the naming of the Jew. That by practical definition is antisemitism today, but it may be by law very shortly, even if that law has no ultimate enforcement power. If you want to push back on Jewish influence and power, now is the time, because that might well become much more difficult. Strike while the blue steel is hot.
But part of the problem I’ve already addressed - there is a lot of Jewish blue in the opposition side. And there is a hard line in the sand they won’t cross. It’s what the Mossad calls embedding.
Both parties already have in place the mechanisms for the takeover of the nomination process. They both are utterly reliant on Jewish money to stay in the electoral game, and Citizens United increased the power of billionaire oligarchs in pulling the strings. The Dems since 2016 have learned how to manipulate their nomination process toward a desired outcome, and the GOP already had that down pat, until 2016.
And that gets us to Trump. To this point he’s been the oppositional candidate running in the party he made the oppositional party. But now Israel is front and center, and he’s trying out of necessity if nothing else to reinforce the belief that he’s their boy. Hell, he might even name sonny-in-law Jared Kushner his running mate. [I hope that’s a joke] He has no choice but to embrace Israel, which seriously wipes away the shine on his oppositional profile. But the people offended have no place to go, since RFK Jr started sucking his Shmuley in public.
And zero alternative is the essence of authoritarianism.
So if somehow we all come out of this crucible with the majority embracing Jewish leadership in some manner on all sides, with laws and practical realities that reinforce the idea that opposing that isn’t even a legal option, then we are in a mental state where both parties can start nominating Jewish candidates and we either can’t object, won’t even notice, or actually embrace that. Our new elite who have been through so much hardship, have persevered and then thrived - it’s the fucking American dream! Why make do with these frontmen when you can have the real thing?
So we have presidents of the blood from this narrow elite, our version of kings and queens. Congress ends up being our House of Commoners, but under the leadership of Jews, answerable to the Jewish-owned parties and with increasingly limited power, a situation that has already been slowly developing for decades.
And once both parties embrace the Jew-stacking of the courts, we just have to wait for all those damned goys to die - the voters have no say in judicial appointments anyway. And then the laws will mean nothing. The constitution after ~250 years will revert to being just a piece of paper.
And Voila! A blue velvet revolution, without a shot fired. Instant monarchy, the absolute rule by blood and our new 2% elite, and no means to object or to change anything. The nation remains a democracy on paper, the constitution remains our dogma, we continue to have farcical elections, but none of that really matters. And quickly the propagandized will accept all that as if it’s not the actual reality - we are intentionally selecting Jews as our leaders because they have special leadership capabilities and ethics and morality honed through centuries of horrendous oppression. Hell, they might not even be thought of as Jews; instead they are just the best and the brightest that we so thankfully rely upon to run the country.
So we’ll have nomination races between tomorrow’s Bloomberg and Sanders, and we’ll have elections between one candidate who will send $50B of aid to Israel every year and another who will send $100B.
And pretty soon the Super Bowl will be played on Saturdays…
To bring this full-circle back to Greenwald featuring women on his pod who at least soft-support the genocidal assault, this week he again had his buddy Batya Ungar-Sargon on his show. She's an Israeli Jew who was born in a Gaza settlement, so assumedly now a dual-citizen, who is an editor at Newsweek, and she was the author of that WaPo piece I showed above on Jews in the ‘20 Dem race. She’s promoted mass rape and baby-beheading on 10/7.
The long interview’s purpose is interesting in itself, because it's about promoting her new book which has nothing to do with the wars, at a moment when Greenwald has been entirely fixated on the wars and their ramifications in the US. What it is apparently is a survey of the socio-political working class, one which is purposed to support Batya’s neo-right libertarian politics. In other words, it's an attack on the now-establishment Clintonite Dems created by her fellow Jews, promoting this oppositional neo-right (“neo” meaning “Jew” in Greek) libertarian vision, one that is increasingly-obviously shared by Greenwald.
Here’s the intro:
There is a shit-ton to talk about just in that intro. Let's start out by erasing the fabrication that this Jew from Palestein and Brooklyn has any interest at all in working class Americans, she is merely using them to promote her political vision for America’s future. It's worth noting that this is a borrowing from Marxist class politics as well, allowing her to steer clear of the actual ethno-culture war that underlies so much of today’s socio-politics. That's a strategy which brought Jews into the halls of power in hated Russia a century ago. As for her hated elites, I'm going to fill out that concept a bit by using an old Greenwald clip I've used before:
The key tell words in that clip: “the dating pool in north Brooklyn”. In other words, Batya’s ethno-stomping grounds.
But let's jump back to the intro, which is at least subtly different than the way he introduced his other friend Tulsi the goy earlier: ”There’s a lot of things I agree with her about and a lot that I don’t.” Then he bashes her for projecting her Islamism beliefs on pro-Palestinian protestors - as he should. But where is the Batya-bashing?
Glenn does float an obvious question related to the book and her theorem here:
So it's clear that she's just a tourist in the American working class, an orthodox Israeli Jew from a gentrifying neighborhood in Brooklyn with her relatively well-off parents and her PhD, rubbing shoulders with the Jewish media elite. But she’s invested as an American and her real concern is American democracy. 🤢
At the end he finally gets to a couple questions on the broader matter of Gaza, but it's not even softball, it's grapefruit-tossing. Here is the toughest one:
🤮 So she's creatively bashing the protestors and praising the working-class cops, and she uses the 100% Jew Finkelstein (who she otherwise has 0% agreement with) to make her case. And that's basically that the protestors shouldn't chant “from the river to the sea” which so deeply offends Zionist and other Jews here and there, and apparently American goys who have become propagandized and Judified - why else would some Lutheran of Scandinavian heritage from southern Illinois be offended by this expression? Oh, I forgot about 60 years of Holocaustism...
It's clear that Glenn isn't entirely in agreement, but his pushback is so soft that she barely feels it. Instead she giggles from his tickling. The signal is that her very creatively-dishonest way of dealing with the matter of Gaza in front of Glenn’s fanboys, with his full cooperation, has been a success.
As a side note, I find interesting her use of the term “shareholders”, which I think should be “stakeholders”, a way of completely genericizing the people she’s actually talking about, those billionaire Jewish donor oligarchs like Bill Ackman and Haim Saban, and she’s using a Wall St. term on top of that. So in this story the only Jews involved using that term are the blue snowflakes she and Norman are so concerned about.
Then it's back to promoting her book, which is the connection to the theme of this article. When I think of Glenn promoting this slippery co-ethnic Zio-cuntess I also think back to him pod-featuring co-ethnic attorney Jenin Younes, who I addressed at the end of my Sept ‘23 piece The PLA and the Confederacy's Mississippi Campaign, who likewise clearly has taken this journey from the progressive left to the libertarian neo-right. She's apparently buds with the Doppelganger Jewess Naomi Wolf, who likewise has gone on a left-to-right voyage, although Bizarro Naomi’s has the taint of the lunatic fringe.
The sell of their libertarianism is the social side, middle Americans getting out from under the oppression of identity politics. But libertarianism has another side, and it’s right-wing American libertarianism’s core aspect, Austrian School free-market capitalist economics. And that is only slightly different, more radical, than Chicago School free-market capitalist economics, neoliberalism, the plague of the American working and middle classes over the last four decades.
But it strikes me that this neo-conservatism if you will, this neo-right vision of these J-people, probably fits very comfortably in the vision of a Jewish monarchy. The Dem left is already fully captured, their brains soaking in blue formaldehyde, there’s no concern there. But the right, that’s a different matter. Batya attacks the mainstream legacy Republicans here as much as the Dems, yet does not really embrace New Hitler Trump and MAGA, rather just uses them as evidence of the problem with the traditionalist GOP. Which means she’s pushing a third way on the right, and that seems to be built upon the libertarian movement which while marginally viable for decades hasn’t really gained full traction yet.
And it works economically - neoliberalism over those last four decades has been a critical component of the rise in Jewish power, among other things resulting in our new oligarchy, who play such a major role in that. Libertarian economics will just shift that into overdrive, guaranteeing that America would become a 3rd-world country with a small uber-wealthy elite and masses of people living in at least relative poverty.
This also explains the uncritical promotion of Ron Paul by Greenwald, who recently called him one of the most ethical people in congress in this century or something to that effect. If you look at Paul and don’t see his Bircher associations you’re not seeing him clearly. And one of the main things that he’s pushed is effectively ending social security, and the very working class people who would most likely opt out of that system in their 20s and 30s are the ones who would need it most in their 60s and 70s - sorry, bud, we all fuck up, enjoy living out your few remaining days begging on the street. Etc.
Greenwald has also been promoting Vevik Swamaramy in this election cycle, the candidate of neoliberalism, a youthful Reagan clone on steroids with an even deeper tan. Oh, and in defense of Ann Coulter 😅 I also have serious problems with the idea of subcontinental heads of state, based on Vivek’s full embrace of neoliberalism, Nimarata Haley’s deranged embrace of neoconservatism, and then there's UK’s hideous PM Sushi Rinak; Ro Khanna was also the first Dem rep I heard saying he’d protect Mike Johnson's job. It's as if Indians are trying to outdo blacks and homosexuals as proxywarriors for the Jews.
So the Trump movement seems to have opened the door to these kind of Jewish activists attempting to covertly take over the right under the cover of its new oppositionalism. The evolution of the GOP to being the new working class party just plays into the hands of people with the historical legacy of leading the proletariat a century ago, then from the left.
So yes, we could be witnessing the beginnings of a velvet revolution in America, a soft revolution leading us to truly monarchic Jewish rule which takes place without the firing of a single shot.