Back to Business...

The week before the Demo convention there's a chance to dive back into a broader range of ugly options

The Judge has been back from Italy for a few weeks now, but I’ve slowly resubmerged into more serious discussion of the wars and away from total focus on the explosion of election madness. Here are a few moments in recent discussions that I thought were worth noting, starting with probably my favorite guest, Larry Wilkerson:

I always appreciate when people talk with experience about Iraq and the Bush neocons and when they remind us of the USS Liberty, doing both without really pulling punches. These are classics from earlier days in the inexorable rise in Jewish power in America, and should never be forgotten. And Larry rightly describes where this evolution has brought us: “I own you people.”

Alastair Crooke also laid out some blunt truth related to a matter subject to lots of post-progressive back and forth, Kamala Harris and Palestinian protestors:

Crooke makes it perfectly clear where political power lies in America, and it’s within the deep state, the same network of people and organizations that control Harris. He didn't go into the capitol wondering what the congressional reaction to his performance might be, any more than an actor goes onto the stage wondering what his fellow actors’ reactions might be to his lines. They all know the script.

Of course not everyone in the Judge’s chambers is at their level; Jeff Sachs being the perfect example. But every so often he kind of surprises me:

There at the end Jeff describes something that eMike Jones has used as a feature of his framing of this broadening war, the idea that Jewish states never last 80 years - the current one is age 76, the USSR lasted 74 years, and I’m not sure what states in Judea in antiquity he might include in that, but the rise to power of Herod the Great’s successors to the destruction of the 2nd temple was 74 years. The Zealots were the Jews who chose to rebel against Rome in 66, resulting in the destruction of the temple four years later.

It’s interesting that Sachs chooses to openly tie current Israeli extremism to this tradition of Jewish political extremism, that to the point of being suicidal at a state level. Remember that Masada occurred only a couple years after the destruction of the temple. Not what I would have expected from Jeff the Neocon Eraser.

The last Judge clip features Karen Kwiatkowski, related to a piece she’d written about Ritter and the FBI as a component of the deep state. I wasn’t optimistic going in, but I have to say at a few points I was very pleasantly surprised:

“It’s gotta be the neocons” - yes indeed, Karen. “The sheer contempt that Zionists hold for any other people” - and then she rightly links this to religion, because Zionism is a religion, a faith. And then she says, “…Jewish, I shouldn't say Jewish, but Zionist fundamentalist contempt…” without any visible sign of remorse for her error whatsoever, as if she’s grown weary of this “hide the Jew” game related to discussion of US foreign policy. And she underlines the contempt held by Jews… sorry, Zionists, for Christians too. Do note just the use of the J-word, which in itself is a step forward.

On the non-presidential side of the election there was an interesting story in the Minnesota 5th district primary, where Ilhan Omar was undergoing an unsuccessful internal Dem challenge. First, let’s start with the outcome, from Ashkenocracy Now:

Omar’s challenger, Samuels, like Bush’s successful challenger Wesley Bell, is black. And now the day before the primary in more depth, in not in better quality, from TYT:

That segment probably tells one at least as much about TYT as it does about this primary. We see all the Cultural Marxist identity politics sprinkled throughout this report, the Zionist strategy is described as “wildly antisemitic” (?), the pro-Jew Alex Minn statement was “spoken like a true Republican” and not like a true Jew, etc. The interesting one to me was the “not sure what that means” aside after reading about neo-Nazis in Ukraine - is TYT in mainstream left denial of the Jewish alliance with uber-nationalists in that conflict?

The rationale offered by entrepreneur Sinensky (who apparently is the “Puerto Rico” connection - he recently moved there to start a business or something) is the same basic reasoning for the neocon landing in the GOP in the 1970s, that it was a better home for a Jewish operation focused around Israel than the Dem side. But this woman is offended by that because Trump is white nationalist (neo-Nazi) adjacent.

One of the points I’ve made about the core progressives or the greater squad is the extent to which they are (soon to be were) in congress because of their identities, and especially ethnic. These are people from districts with certain demographic characteristics which allowed for their success, and there is no way that this crew could be expanded much further.

Let’s recall that the whole point of Force the Vote wasn’t to get M4A passed into law, rather it was to identify who on the Dem side was opposed to it, so they could be targeted and primaried by progressives. What chance do you think there was of that actually being successful? None whatsoever? These progressives got elected because of the demographics of their districts, but also I believe because of the extent to which they were acceptable to a certain element of Jewish power, that being more leftist Jewish power who at least saw identity benefits in all this.

The MN 5th is like that - there’s a significant Somalian community within that, Keith Ellison represented this district before Omar, and the district is 17% black, somewhat more than the national percentage of 13-14%. But look at a map of the district and what do you see?

Yes, there it is - Saint Jewish Park. What role might these good folks have had in dampening down or at least covering over an AIPAC open attempt to remove another anti-Israel voice from congress? Surely they supported fellow Muslim Keith Ellison, right, but perhaps they got more than they asked for from feisty Omar? I don't know that much about the politics of this district, but one might have assumed that the Omar of “Benjamins” fame would have been AIPAC’s primary target for defeat, especially considering how close she was to that in 2022 when Samuels also challenged her.

Moving on to Glenn Greenwald and what would seem to be his reaction to the heightening open discussion of the truly despicable behavior of the Israeli government with regard to Palestinian captives, and the apparent support of that by Israeli Jews. So he decided to interview a good one, an Israeli activist from a human rights organization, to help pretty up that pig.

Here is an early question, just to get this matter out of the way:

“Barbarism and savagery” on 10/7 - not subtle, Glenn. We should remember that Greenwald clearly fell into the “condemn” camp after the attack, repeatedly saying anyone who didn’t recoil in horror at those events had something fundamentally wrong with them emotionally/psychologically. And he then featured people like his buddy settler Israeli Batya Ungar-Sargon, who has pushed headless babies and mass rape on the day. Because, you know, his audience should hear both sides of the story and not just the truth.

Of course there’s nothing in the question or the response about Israeli atrocity exaggerations and lies, the Israeli Hannibal Directive killing of their own people, etc. It’s just a reset to the picture as painted for all of us in early October.

Later on Greenwald compares 10/7 to 9/11 and being in Manhattan on that day, and his Israeli guest throws in that she was living in New York at that time. The thought that I had was the so-close connection that exists between the Jewish State and Hymietown, and the way that some Ashkenazi Jews seem to view both as their rightful homeland.

Then he tiptoes apologetically into some essential territory when evaluating this entire sordid affair:

Note that the Holocaust is potentially about two things: the human capacity for evil, and/or the matter of murderous antisemitism. Apparently no other possibilities exist. Underlying that question of course is the real one: are Israeli Jews anti-genocide or are they just anti-genocide when it comes to Jews? That gets to the matter of genocide and how that label is perhaps misused, and not just with Gaza but also with the mythological version of the Holocaust, the mother of all yada yada.

But with regard to the most mild version of the defining of these events, it’s more than obvious by now that the Israeli Jews as a group don’t really give a damn about mass murder of a people who are a serious internal irritation in their ever-expanding ethno-state. And nor do the Jews in America, that being defined as a political entity - it doesn’t matter if the majority of American Jews voice opposition to events in Gaza, because the net political impact of Jewish influence is exactly the opposite.

His guest then spills out a lot of words, but basically just repeats the question rather than answering it. Fail. Greenwald is still up to his old post-10/7 tricks in the game of hide-the-Jew under the surface appearance of oppositionalism.

Moving on to Sabby Sabs and a rather fascinating discussion about Tulsi Gabbard hitting the terrorism watchlist. Talking about the hated Tulsi among post-progressive Berniecrats can be a complicated matter.

Sabby’s spin on this goes in the Kim Iversen direction, that Tulsi’s problems all started with Hillary and the bailing on the DNC and endorsing Progressive Jesus Bernie in 2016 - the days of the good Tulsi. She’s right that at that point Tulsi was no longer being groomed for a top spot in the corporation, that’s obvious. But then she gets to 2020, which is when things got really complicated, but chooses to only address the Kamala takedown. Again this has shades of Iversen, with Kamala as the protege of the all-powerful Queen Killary.

What’s missing though is the offense Tulsi committed in the eyes of the Berniecrats themselves, staying in the race instead of dropping out and endorsing Bernie when he got into it. Every single vote she would get would be a vote Bernie deserved in their eyes. That's when the attacks on Tulsi from “the left” started, which are echoed in other places in this story as narrated by ex-Berniecrat post-progressive Sabby.

This all ends up being an act of revenge by the evil Dems led by Hillary and Kamala - but on a certain level just desserts for what Tulsi always really was, a construct built in 2019 when she was seen as a Benedict Arnold and a junior-grade Pocahontas, low-hanging voter fruit to be harvested by the Bernie bros. This didn’t start with her despicable behavior after 10/7.

Oh, and note how Sabby dragged BLM into this and then hinted that some of those people were “disappeared” by unnamed forces. Yeah, the brutal suppression of those protests was a major scandal, wasn’t it? Remember when the tanks rolled into BLMistan in Seattle? Recall that Sabby is someone who criticized Tim Walz for calling in the National Guard, while the right has criticized him for not calling it in soon enough. If politics is the art of compromise, sometimes you simply can’t win.

More of the same:

I didn’t include the negative stuff here, about how Tulsi was never really anti-war (unlike Saint Bernard one assumes), she was always an anti-Islam racist, even that she wasn’t pro-veteran, which seems kind of crazy to me. And, again, this stuff didn’t start after 10/7.

One irony is that Tulsi recently published a book called For Love of Country: Leave the Democratic Party Behind. That sounds like a book that Sabby might have written… well, maybe not with the first part related to patriotism, her black self-identification likely would stop her short of that in a country which won’t pay its multi-trillion dollar debts to its slavery-afflicted. But Tulsi kinda left out the back door, headed in the direction of the GOP right instead of the 3rd party left like Sabby did.

The anti-Islam comment deserves a closer look. What Tulsi openly was and is is anti-Islamism, and here is a definition of that from its wiki:

Islamism (also often called political Islam) refers to a broad set of religious and political ideological movements. The advocates of Islamism, also known as "al-Islamiyyun", are dedicated to realizing their ideological interpretation of Islam within the context of the state or society. The majority of them are affiliated with Islamic institutions or social mobilization movements, often designated as "al-harakat al-Islamiyyah." Islamists emphasize the implementation of sharia, pan-Islamic political unity, the creation of Islamic states (eventually unified), and rejection of non-Muslim (especially Western) influences.

So this is similar to the difference between Judaism and Jewish political activism and cultural worldview. As eMike says when he talks about the difference between “the Jews” and “all Jews”, which aren’t the same thing - “the Jews” is a political entity, the general or dominant socio-political position of the Jews as an ethnic group (or religious group in his eyes). And that doesn’t mean all Jews hold those beliefs.

This is apparently Tulsi’s justification for being anti-Hamas and so unjustifiably pro-Israel. My take on that has long been that she apparently spent too much time listening to Sam Harris and his co-ethnics among the neo-atheists and intellectual dark web. That certainly had an undercurrent of anti-Islam in the neocon Jew sense, but it’s an odd accusation to make of someone called an Assad toady by a neocon Zionist Jew (Bari Weiss).

Another side of this that Sabby doesn’t mention is Russiagate and Tulsi’s opposition to that narrative, the regime-change war in Ukraine (re Putin) and her lack of support for impeachment of Trump related to that paradigm (unlike St. Bernie, who voted for his undemocratic removal from office).

In my view, Sabby’s history of philo-Bernie progressivism makes it difficult for her to address this matter, because that distorts her view of Tulsi’s history and creates the desire to be overly critical of her, meaning prior to 10/07 (it’s open season after that, of course).

On the other hand, this matter is difficult to assess, exactly because of Tulsi’s blind support of Israel’s mass murder in Gaza. I think it’s too easy to just blame it all on Hillary and Kamala (neither of whom was or is president, let’s recognize), which is just a way of blaming it on the Dems.

One person who Sabby never mentions in this segment is Alejandro Mayorkas, who is the Director of DHS, which control this watchlisting. He’s sold as a Cuban refugee, but he’s a Jew who grew up in New York City and LA, and went to Beverly Hills High School, where I think Sam Harris might have also gone - I thought the notorious neocon Richard Perle went to school there also, but he actually went to Hollywood High (where he dated foundational neocon Albert Wohlstetter’s daughter). Mayorkas was endorsed for his post by another notorious neocon Jew, Michael Chertoff, Bush’s 2nd-term director of DHS.

In fact her listing may be related to her statements on Ukraine, Russia and Putin and have nothing in particular to do with political revenge or Israel. Hillary was the one who so famously labeled her a Russian asset. And support for Israel is so universal in government and media that it may not have much value.

In any case, it’s absolutely governmental overreach, which again gets us back to Crooke’s deep state and not frontpeople like Kamala and Hillary. It may feel like just desserts given Tulsi’s view of Israel, which may well relate to political opportunism (has she been angling for a Pentagon or State Dept top spot in a Trump administration?), but it’s more than that.

Which Sabby struggles with here in handling the matter, making it all feel like a big cat fight - Tulsi, Kamala, Hillary, Sabby and even Kimmy, whose BS narrative she relies upon. Sabby ends the segment with, “She’s weird, she’s weird” - in the post-Walz world that could mean just about anything, but nothing good.

Moving on yet again and to some humor to end this piece, this time from the horse’s mouth herself, Kimmy, and a segment on her darling RFK Jr’s loss in New York courts related to ballot access in that state. She starts out with outrage over the absurd determination that RFK isn’t a New York resident, as he falsely claimed on his application, but after a while she finally concedes that he actually isn’t:

So she agrees that he doesn’t live there, but then she claims the address is a “clerical error” that should just be corrected. But in order for something to be a clerical error it has to be, you know… an error. Which she clearly admits it wasn’t, rather it was an intentional fabrication. And the purpose of that was to avoid officially recording that he’s actually a resident of California, that because his ATM VP is also a resident of CA.

She goes into why that’s a problem, which is the exact same issue that she previously represented meant it wasn’t legal for Kamala to run as Gavin Newsom’s VP or vice versa. Now she seems to finally have a better but not great understanding.

My understanding is that the constitutional amendment dealing with this says that when the electoral votes are counted for a state where the presidential candidate and the vice presidential candidate both reside, there is an invalidation of those votes. I think that invalidation only relates to the VP, but I’m not certain of that.

I believe that this was a potential issue with Cheney in 2000, but he changed his residency away from Texas and I assume to Wyoming. My understanding is that if he hadn’t done that Bush would have won anyway but so would have Lieberman, Gore’s VP, who would have gotten the TX electors. Not that it would have necessarily changed things much if at all - remember, Scooter Libby was from CT just like co-ethnic Joe… ✡

So RFK can’t correct that “clerical error” without creating this issue in CA, which apparently was the motivation for his falsification of his application. Ultimately it doesn’t matter, because he won’t win in CA or NY, but he also can’t just concede that without making this an obvious glory run.

But Kim goes on to reveal how little she actually cares about the law - “there’s just a rule in the constitution…” - and how much she hates CA’s government. Under Newsom and since covid, that is:

So, based on that and my general impression of Kim, I would bet the farm that she tried to cheat on her taxes and got caught. Long ago I talked about her expansive wardrobe and that she likely deducts all that as a business expense. And then there’s the matter of her unpaid government-backed college loan.

I moved to CA long ago with a car, and I knew I had a certain amount of time to get it registered. I also know that there are specific auto emissions issues with CARB, which has higher standards than other states. My current car which is in CA has to be tested every other year at registration renewal for emission levels, even though it’s a CA and not a 49-state car.

I don’t recall Kim ever making a talking point out of Newsom and the fascistic CA government back when she was a pre-covid Berniecrat. But after the lockdown that so cramped her social life (but apparently not Gavin’s) and the discovery that covid oppositionalism sells on the disinformation-industrial complex internet, and that she can simply make shit up related to that, everything changed.

So her general bimbonic view seems to be that laws are there to be broken, and that her favored candidate intentionally trying to skirt constitutional law should simply be set aside, as just a “clerical error”. Kim, he tried, he got caught, he got fucked, let’s move on. But only after noting what this actually says about RFK Jr, this fine, upstanding truth-telling lawyer. 😂

But WAIT… that’s nothing - here is Kim during her Trump/Musk “didn’t watch party” (too boring), talking about a pseudo-prophet named Brandon Biggs who predicted The Bullet… sort of:

Btw, in his prophesy Biggs saw “torches that looked like fire” 🔥 Were they tiki? 🙄 I loved when Pasta deadpanned his “no” answer to Kim’s question. And regarding her fascination with this guy, we have to remember that she not only comes from the black helicopter country of Idaho, but she was raised Mormon, and LDS is very much into the whole prophet thing. She is truly receding into her roots.

The main thing to note here is on “them”. As I’ve said many times before, if someone keeps saying “they” and you don't know specifically who they’re talking about, stop listening. “They” is a pronoun, “used to refer to two or more people or things previously mentioned or easily identified”. But Kim openly admits that she doesn't have a clue who “they” are, and then reads off the list of possible “thems” from the standard conspirator’s handbook published by the John Birch Society. The only thing she knows for sure is that “they” exist.

Her utter cluelessness on this should set off alarm bells across the internet. Her whole socio-political narrative these days is based on the existence of a villainous “them” who control everything from the covid response to the Democratic Party. And yet she doesn’t have a clue who “they” are?? This is absolute vaporware, her theory on how the world actually works is an empty box. She has just openly declared: “I don’t know what I’m talking about.”

From there this devolves into a session of Dem-bashing and “everything is fake!” theorizing characterized by simply choosing what to believe based on nothing but what they want to believe. Kamala’s poll numbers are fake, her fundraising is fake, her crowds are fake - and her victory in November which they don’t even want to suggest is possible will of course be faked. And even though Pasta speculates that Trump is a Manchurian candidate, no one here even hints that the Bullet might have been faked - what would they be saying if it was Kamala who got winged? “No one believes that she was really shot!”

Btw, “Ben” is Benjamin Rubinstein, and when I looked at his YouTube channel his latest video is an appearance on Jay Bermas’ TNT show - Bermas is a Jew who was, I believe, listed as a producer on the third Loose Change 9/11 doc flick (main man Dylan Avery is also a Jew) and worked for Alex Jones at one point; he and Jardula, who grew up in Florida Jewcentral Boca Raton, are also friends.

I don’t know what to think about this guy in terms of seriousness. His response there in terms of the deep state wasn’t a bad one, if somewhat dated, but he also referred to “globalists”, which can be a generic term (largely related to neoliberalism but hinting at world gov’t) but also a euphemism for “Jew”, similar to “internationalist” or “cosmopolitan”. In that discussion on Xwitter with Bermas he uses the term again, after earlier declaring himself an anti-Zionist Jew, in the answer to this question:

Ben, who lives in Managua, has a bit of a Grayzone vibe about him, sort of a poor man’s Benjamin Norton, but there’s also the apparent neo-Bircher element, including here the fixation on technocracy and globalist associations like the Five Eyes Brit-legacy nations. When he says a characterization of collapsing empires is the failure of their infrastructure including digital, but when has that actually happened? Did Rome’s failed infrastructure include digital? How about the British Empire’s? As always with neo-Birchers, the distant past foretells the future, even when it doesn’t. The only Jews included in Kim’s listing of evils were the Rothschilds, and their heyday of shadowy power was in the 19th century.

Here is something from Ben last year:

I was once one of those ultra woke western leftists. I changed, some people think I was influenced by specific individuals but that isn't what happened. What happened was I moved to Nicaragua two years ago and saw what successful socialism actually looks like…

So now what kind of leftist is he? That change happening in 2021 aligns with post-progressive disillusionment, which would make him kinda like Sabby. His appearance on this livestream only makes sense in that light, the real function of it being “anyone but Kamala!”, even if that inevitably means Trump.

One of the elements of that question was censorship, which of course is a major concern of these people, making their living off of the information economy. What they can’t see or will never admit is how bad so much of their information is. When the serious censorship comes it will be people like Kim Iversenmectin who are the face to be put on that, people who demonstrably misinform and outright lie, for their personal benefit and without consideration for the broader impact. She is the disinformation-industrial complex that is the one nugget of truth underlying the drive for censorship. Look in the mirror, girlfriend.

So I started here with serious people trying to address serious things, whatever flaws or limitations may exist in their efforts. And I end it with someone who admits she doesn’t know what she’s talking about as she complains that her blue boy isn’t allowed to just skirt the law, as she apparently has a record of attempting to do. Such is the nature of our times.

As RFK (Sr) said in his final words in LA in 1968, my thanks to all of you, and now it’s on to Chicago and let’s win there.

Which we won’t - but we have to keep fighting.