Even More Mamdapsteining

A multi-part affair: biased pop historians, Israel-cleansing NYC, and an Israeli blanket descends on Russiagate intelligence

Yet again today it’s all Epstein and Zohran, the latter fighting back against the onslaught thanks to me… and uncle Norman. In my last piece a major component was the contribution of pop virtual historian Darryl Cooper, and I don’t want to abandon that niche on the right quite so quickly. First up is Candy-O’s favorite expert from France, Cullen Bohannon… or was that the lead character in bio-series Helen Weals?

Cut!

This is Candace the gossip video columnist, her two stories of regular interest as far as I can see involving Reynolds the closeted homo and Brigitte “Big Hands” Macron the transsexual. I know nothing about any of that except that the Macron thing seems highly implausible at best. The latest is that Candace is now being sued by the Macrons, for defamation or something, I think related to Broussard’s “reporting”.

The one thing I will say about this lawsuit is that I hope she loses, because the lack of responsibility in the disinformation-industrial complex is staggering, and that‘s largely if not overwhelmingly on the right. Given her wealth, I have no sympathy for her in this action. People need to recognize that they can’t just make shit up, and the people who listen to this crap need to come face-to-face with the reality that they are believing in crap. As I have said many times before, I believe that the justification for censorship is largely based on shit-shovelers like Candy-O and Alex Jones and sooo many others.

That had me thinking, with Bohannon’s assistance was she going to claim Epstein’s family has a long history of sheep-shagging in Scotland, or some such nonsense? So what has she had to say about l’affaire Triomp?

I have to give Owens/Bohannon props for including the Courant Institute in his history, which is more than I can say about Cooper. But she drags the Khazars into it, suggesting that she perhaps is a student of niche Ashkenazi cultural fantasy herself. On the other hand, she also drags Jewish crypsis into it - religious conversion, name changes, that kind of thing. But his (and his son’s) ethnicity is only important related to the Mossad and Israel; domestically it’s apparently no issue.

So Epstein was “inexplicably” hired to teach secondary school math to children, after studying the subject for as much as five years at rather elite institutions - apparently Candace believes a piece of paper makes the man. But as the photo she shows demonstrates, he can’t even spell his own name.

Then on to Bear Sterns, because “he was tutoring someone’s kid”, who turns out is BS top dog Ace Greenberg’s son, a minor detail on this minor. Jeffrey doesn’t qualify, in part because “he knows nothing about math”, again the “diploma or bust” absolutism. How many people like Epstein have become billionaires in Silicon Valley, people who don’t have diplomas or the specialized skill set?

The path Candace is blazing here is actually well-worn at this point, she’s just tidying up that path which leads to nowhere. Nice try, but let’s move on to another self-taught historian (what, no diploma??), one that Cooper mentioned, appearing on Tea Time with Kim:

So the obvious answer is that Trump is protecting the intelligence agencies, but is that actually obvious, at all? It seems that way, if you listen to all these people who have lived in the “it’s always the CIA!” bubble ever since they discovered alternative history on JFK. After that he mentions “just powerful people”, but that gets buried very quickly, even though “powerful people” have a lot more money than the CIA and Mossad do.

He mentions John McCain’s second wife Cindy, and she gets us to her father Jim Hensley, who gets us to liquor and organized crime, and read about that here.

After that he stumbles around but always lands on the side favoring Trump - he doesn’t have a taste for the young’uns, there’s no evidence of anything because it would have come out already, he doesn’t sound like he’s covering for Israel, he’s just afraid, it was Clinton who was best buds with Jeffrey.

What he’s right about is that Trump seems afraid - not in a normal way but rather in the manner of a person who knows he has no choice regarding the matter, and it doesn’t matter how bad this makes him look to many of his supporters, he simply has to tow the line on this. This does not feel like a situation where he’s sat down and done the political math, but rather that math was done for him a long time ago, and no matter how many times he tries, 2+2 still equals 4.

Okay, that’s strike three and out - Cooper, Bohannon and Horton. Maybe I should give Scotty as pass because he has a Jewish wife, but…

Instead of talking historians let’s talk history, and a blast from the past:

Because boy scout Ryan insists on keeping it clean, here is the count: Monica Lewinsky is a Jew, Daniel Halper is a neocon Jew (an editor at the Weekly Standard) and note how they ethnically-cleansed him: “right of center, Bush era”; Jonah Goldberg is Jewish, and of course so is his mother - she’s the one who told Tripp to tell Lewinsky to tape her calls with Clinton.

Another Jewed-up character in this story is Bernie Nussbaum, who was White House counsel for Clinton. He strongly recommended that Clinton not appoint an independent special counsel to investigate the case, that person turning out to be Ken Starr. Nussbaum worked at Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz in NYC, and that firm has had some interesting lawyers: Glenn Greenwald, Jed Rubenfeld (husband of Amy Chua, Yale mentor to Shady Vance), Elizabeth Holtzman (who narrowly defeated Emanuel Celler of open immigration fame in the Dem primary for that House seat in 1972; Nussbaum represented her in an action to overthrow that outcome, and then they both played roles in the Nixon impeachment hearings), Robert Morgenthau (son of Henry Morgenthau Jr who ran the southern district of NY for decades, and who once ran for Governor of NY), and others. One of the firm’s partners, George Conway, represented Paula Jones in her lawsuit against Clinton (working with Anne Coulter and Matt Drudge), and later on was a partner in the Lincoln Project and a dedicated never-Trumper; his wife is Kellyanne Conway. A real nest bed.

Clinton has said the biggest mistake he made as president was to reject Bernie’s advice on that. And the rest is history. Tripp worked for Nussbaum, and Vince Foster, the father of Seth Rich, was his deputy.

In any case, Jeff Gates, the author of Guilt by Association, the book including the chapter I linked above, basically has said Lewinsky was a honey pot trap set for Clinton. If true, we have a case here of one form of political blackmail, imposed by certain unnamed domestic “powerful people” being supplanted by Israelis, specifically Bibi and more generally the Mossad. But Bibi could easily have known about this without the Mossad playing any role, through his US contacts among those “powerful people”.

Are you starting to sense a theme here? Remember it for later, because we’re about to take a side trip.

So let’s jump the shark to the Mamdani side of the divide, and a discussion between BJ Gray and Norman Finkelstein, one which I thought was quite interesting. Here they are debating his prospects, and BJ has raised Kshama Sawant as a comparison:

This is a very Marxian exchange, class warfare with the tinge of revolution, the masses versus the unnamed elite. I assume that Marianne is Marianne Williamson, the Jewess who twice ran for the Dem presidential nomination and who I labeled the candidate of cultural Marxism in 2019, as opposed to Bernie being the candidate of political Marxism. BJ brings the ‘60s and its assassinations into it, an area where Norman is resistant to go, but it’s there that they go anyway, and right to an aspect of the black-Jewish alliance:

Norman admits to being a Panther groupie, and let’s remember that E. Michael Jones refered to them as “a Jewish fantasy” back in 2015 related to BLM, created by David Horowitz, his Ramparts magazine and various Hollywood types like Bert Schneider of Easy Rider fame. Here are Bert and Huey as best buds:

So Norman was part of that club, and he’s not proud of that; Horowitz has made a much bigger deal of that inter-ethnic affair, making it the lynchpin to his flip to neoconservatism in the ‘80s. Norm then shifts to ML King, who was deserted by people like Bayard Rustin, the black homosexual who also became a neocon tool by the ‘80s. He talks of King “developing”, becoming more principled and so more radical, which sounds like his post Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts move to go north in 1966, to come out against the war in 1967 and finally to his death in 1968. The question I have posed was, how much did his factotum Stanley Levison have to do with all of that, which I tried to address here:

But BJ insists on pushing the assassinations as the whip of compliance, which is a simplification of a very complex period of shifting political fortunes on many levels, and brings the Kennedys into it:

Norm trashes RFK as an opportunist, reminds us that he’s the one who wiretapped King which gets us back to Levison and the meeting between King and JFK where he told King to dump ex-commie Levison or he couldn’t politically support him. He mentions the Dump Johnson movement and Allard Lowenstein, who first went to RFK as a candidate before going to McCarthy, and was one of the first to publicly question Sirhan Sirhan killing RFK. The story of RFK’s entry into the 1968 race is more complex than what Norm suggests, and McCarthy’s appeal was more to white college students wanting to avoid the draft than a broader base, a sort of Sanders type appealing to college types with loan debt.

But his criticism of the two Kennedys is that they weren’t people of the left, which I think entirely misses the nature of the threat they posed to establishment power during this critical time with regard to the deep state. What they were was Catholic, and establishment power was then still Protestant, with the rising threat from the Jews, and the killing of the Kennedys marking the death of the Catholic faction opened the door for the Jewish faction in the ‘70s and ‘80s.

That's the threat to the establishment which BJ speaks of, and it sounds like she knows the theory that Israel had at least RFK killed. Which is the parallel to Mamdani that counts, his position as a Muslim of color, an African-Indian, who is not bowing down to Israel and its benefactors in the US centered in NYC.

Norm comes back with Plekhanov, who has been called the father of Russian Marxism and was part of the anarchist movement Zemkya i Volya which split over tactics in 1879; he was a founder of the Black Repartition, and the other was the terrorist People’s Will (Narodnya Volya) who went on to assassinate czar Alexander II in 1881, the first domino to fall in what brought America to what it is today. Plekhanov was a huge influence on Lenin’s thinking, as much as he was a critic of the Bolsheviks in power.

They are both missing the point here, because someone as a symbol of a moment can help change things even if he is not a Great Man in practice, and the compromises people make on the political stage are far from all due to the threat of assassination; no one is going to kill Zohran over a few city-owned grocery stores.

The claim here is that Mamdani’s win was due to awakening leftism, and not due to the growing outrage over Gaza on the Dem side in NYC, a city politically and financially dominated by Jews, while 88% of its population are goys. Does Mamdani win with his politics while staying silent on Gaza? Does he win with more mainstream Dem politics but the same positions on Gaza? Those are the questions.

The argument they have is that BJ believes in the spiritual purity of leftist ideology, while Norm knows from experience that people become disillusioned, and not just because of assassinations and other external attacks and suppressions. Norm raises Ritchie Torres, and says it’s just money, but he as a black homosexual pro-Israel diehard is also the face on Jewish proxywarriors today, and so he laughs it off.

By the end Norm brings oligarchy into it, we know who dominates US oligarchy, we know how many oligarchs live in NYC and environs, and we know what Zohran has said about billionaires, another statement of opposition to that power base, its face today being Bill Ackman.

What I think is interesting is the faith in Mamdani that BJ expresses, given that her post-progressive thinking has paralleled that of friend Sabby Sabs and RBN, and they have been trashing him as not revolutionary enough, a sellout in waiting. Norm says something about him wanting BJ to join his campaign on the communications side, what she did for Bernie in 2020, so maybe she’s softened her tone while considering that possibility.

But that's not selling out, nooo. 😉

Moving to the heart of the matter, the neo-center of American politics, and a discussion between Sam Harris and the Canadian neocon Jew of “axis of evil” fame David Frum. First, let’s establish Frum’s bona fides as a Jewish neocon and neoliberal:

Note that as a neocon he’s concerned about two things: the security of the ethnostate (and in particular related to Iran) and hated mother Russia. China, that’s a neoliberal problem if it’s a problem at all, and just a consequence of the wisdom of global free market capitalism. Later on he talks about friends in China’s sphere of influence having doubts because they now don’t know if they can trust America as a consequence of Trump, which is where neoliberalism and neoconservatism come together.

It‘s interesting that when he’s attacking protectionism he uses the historical example of cloth manufacturing, as eMike has used that industry as key to a nation’s development and ongoing economic health - any nation that doesn't make its own clothes inevitably has a problem.

That done, let’s get to the politics of Trumpism:

They don’t get there, if they do at all, until after the paywall descends, so that’s it on Epstein.

What Frum reinforces is that America's politics are based on a two-party system, and while the components of the parties change over time the foundation doesn’t. That’s the reality that post-progressive leftists like Gray and Sabs don’t acknowledge in their fight to kill the Democratic Party and replace it with a more socialistic left party. Even though the Bernie movement really wasn’t that, it was an attempt to take over the party's politics with a more populist politics. But to them, it’s one and done, and no real recognition that they backed the wrong horse, unless they viewed that as just the first attempt, an opening salvo on a longer project.

Frum defines the bases of the two parties as part of their identity, which is interesting considering eMike’s current identity project, and he even mentions Catholicism there. He says elections are decided on the margins, which is why Epstein is so big, but I’m not yet convinced that it’s that kind of sustained wound to a movement which isn’t actually that much of a definable movement anyway. Which is the very nature of populism, it comes and goes.

The problem with Epstein is that the Epstein iceberg is in everyone’s basement, so when it gets hit everyone goes down. Which is exactly why it matters to so many people, on both sides of the aisle.

Let’s shift to eMike and what he’s had to say about Trump and the E-files:

So eMike goes to Israel and the Mossad just like everyone else, and instantly he becomes the target of his own question - when is someone going to say the word “Jew”? In fact it’s Kev who brings “powerful people” into it, but labels them all as Mossad. Which is kind of like paralleling the idea that the CIA is the operational arm of the American deep state - except that the Mossad is the operational arm of the Israeli deep state and that doesn’t really equate to the America deep state, although they are of course linked.

Jones underlines this by saying “anything that impacts Israel is not going to be investigated”, which again is a total capitulation to the belief that Epstein was an agent of Israel, period, and makes him no different than many normies in the left media space. Was the complaint on Garland that he was working for Israel? Were the investigations into Catholics all related to Israel?

Then he says his namesake put too much hope in princes, but wasn’t eMike the one who was enthusiastically painting a picture of Trump telling Bibi “I’m in charge now!” after the election? Not terribly insightful analysis on eMike’s part.

On to the final topic for today, which is Obamagate, the Trump Russiagate reaction to Epstein criticism featuring Tulsi Gabbard doing her job as DNI. First, an intro from Rising Points:

I assume that was Cigaar’s chosen guest, and he focuses on the ability to pursue criminal charges more than their legitimacy, which Krystal focuses on this as just a distraction from Jeffreygate. Both are claimed to be anti-Russiagaters from early on, according to Cigaar, but as always the devil is in the details of that. So let’s get further into the weeds with Matt and Walter:

Walter gets to the heart of the matter when he gets to the press, and Matt cites the two stories by Isikoff and Corn, then Walt throws in the Atlantic, which means we are 100% talking about the Jewish media. Later Matt adds the NY Times and WaPo, then both Jewish-managed newspapers.

In my last piece I mentioned that my moment on Russiagate had occurred when I became aware of Marty Baron’s WaPo promoting the PropOrNot website on treasonous alt media, which was completely obvious bullshit. And I knew right away what this really was, and who was behind it. That was in late November 2016, and Matt say the shit hit the media fan in early December. And the media is absolutely at the core of what happened, the deep state in action and nothing to do with the fourth estate.

Let’s remember that Walter once worked for Franklin Foer at Marty Peretz’s New Republic, so he has to have more understanding of what was going on than he lets on. Matt, he’s just playing his censorship-industrial complex narrative that it’s all intelligence and the Clintonite Dems, and every time he sees a Jew he looks off into the distance and stats chanting, la la la. After this he says this was the beginning of the end for him as an accepted left media figure, the same story Greenwald spins more unsuccessfully.

Me, I voted for Trump, which was really entirely an anti-Killary vote. Sorry, Matt. Their discussion, as far as I got into it, was a reprise of the matter itself and not the legitimacy of the administration’s actions today. Oh, and a lot of bellyaching about how right they were and how they were so wronged. Except they weren’t actually right, rather they were merely righter than many others of their ilk. At that point I saw Russiagate as one of those great divide things, in that case a divide between those who had some understanding of how the world actually works and the great unwashed of normiedom which included people like Taibbi and Kirn, even if they could see the bullshit in Russiagate - those were just some trees and they couldn’t see the forest, and didn’t want to.

Maybe the funniest moment in this long bit to me was when Walter said, “I was in a writer’s room in Hollywood at the time of this investigation, okay, and you can imagine how lonely that was for a Russiagate denier.” Maybe not as lonely as it would have been for a Holocaust denier, Walter, but I think we get your point - you know more than you will ever plainly say. That was during a long segment on Colbert being cancelled which was focused on his Russiagate bits, mainly the Moscow golden showers. In that they made a deal out of Obama senior staffer Ben Rhodes being the brother of David Rhodes, the president of CBS News at the time; Colbert was on CBS. What doesn’t get mentioned is that the Rhodes boys are Jews from the upper east side of Manhattan, so again there are parallel tracks but it’s treated as a monorail.

So let’s finally move to Grayzone, where we can see more daylight peeking through the trees:

Again, the key framing: “and the media went along with this”. They were compliant but not some of the instigators, right. Eventually Max gets to “Russian” oligarchs, and, lo and behold, they’re all Jewish! The one of these who I once explored a little in my Ukrainian history series of articles, Victor Pinchuk, isn’t even Russian, he’s Ukrainian, and he did contribute $150k to Trump’s foundation in 2015 but was absolutely tied to the Clintons too.

Max says these guys had citizenship in Israel, but doesn’t say that they did at least in part in order to obtain Israeli passports, which have been a kind of get-out-of-jail-free card for Jews in post-Soviet lands. When you’re an international financial criminal it’s important to have sanctuary preplanned.

But what we have here is a melding of another Jewish scandal with Israel, presumably because we now can openly criticize Israel but still cannot openly criticize Jews. You can see this evolving narrative all over the place, the construction of the Israeli-Intelligence Complex, the old alt villainy led by the CIA being united with the newly-allowed alt villainy of Bibi’s ethnostate. But the American Jewish deep state faction? They are still largely permitted to stay in the shadows.

A bit later Max turns to the Democrats:

Slotkin is the perfect person to embody this new IIC narrative, the Jewish senator from Michigan who happens to be ex-CIA. Max stumbles through the campaign financing of these candidacies, trying to rope intelligence into that, and fails miserably. Then it’s on to Trump not putting the brakes on the intelligence coup, and Tulsi’s reveal on intelligence behind Russiagate not going to lead to anything, and so we’re back to John Brennan being the great evil a decade ago and never forgotten.

He sums up with Epstein, tying the bow on this IIC narrative, dead Jeff being the face of this Israeli-Intelligence nexus, and suddenly the idea of Jeffrey the American Jewish operative tied into a network of powerful Jewish influencers has been erased just like Jeffrey the human being was. Not your best moment, Max.

Then Aaron drags the pre-corpse of Bernie into it, framing him as the savior-in-waiting of 2016, and was he actually running against the US no-daylight relationship with Israel? I don’t remember that. Did Russiagate have anything to do with his defeat? Absolutely not. He plays a video which shows Bernie behaving exactly like any Judaized Dem of that time and converts it into something else by applying this false history of the Legend of Bernie Sanders. He ends by saying Bernie “went along with their scam” - who’s “they”, Aaron? Bernie the Brooklyn Jew went along with a Jewish scam? 😱

Max ends by bringing in Hollywood, just as Matt and Walter did, and speaks of a neocon-Hollywood alliance, naming Bill Kristol and Rob Reiner, again more Jews but not Israelis. Hell, Reiner made the film Shock and Awe, which named actual neocons creating the WMD lies. But hated mother Russia, that’s apparently different for Reiner, who has Ashkenazic roots in central/eastern Europe.

There’s a lot of good stuff in this Livestream, but I’ll limit myself to one more clip, of a couple points much later on where Max gets triggered by some co-ethnics:

James Rubin was married to Amanpour from the late ‘90s to the late teens, when she was the face on international affairs at CNN. What Max doesn’t say is that he was Madeleine Albright’s right hand man when she was Secretary of State under Clinton. He also doesn't mention that Rubin went to his own bar mitzvah when Max was a child. He does say that Blinken made him the head of the Global Engagement Center, which gets us back to Taibbi’s ethnically-cleansed reporting on the Twitterfiles.

Then it's on to neocon journalist Bari Weiss, who let’s recall Taibbi worked with on the Twitterfiles, making hay on her media operation because of intra-ethnic “Zionist” connections. Max says David Ellison of CBS is the buyer, the son of Oracle founder and head Larry Ellison, one of the richest people in the world. Ellison’s relationship I assume arises out of his deal with Shari Redstone that has his Skydance Media currently merging with Paramount to create an even larger Jewish media giant.

Max then mocks Weiss’ interview with Rahm Emanuel, one of the key Jewish operatives in government over the last 35 years, from a family of hardcore Zionists that has its own Hollywood aspect (brother Ari the power broker agent).

This in its entirety is a total condemnation of American Jewry as a major influencing operation over the country’s socio-politics. And yet we have this emerging narrative of the Israeli-Intelligence Complex as the way to explain the Epstein affair without stepping over that thin blue line. And from what I can see pretty much everyone in the alternative media space is playing along with it - when eMike echoes the tune you can tell it’s gotten serious alt traction.

One assumes the attraction is that it allows for an alternative and mainstream convergence of narrative related to Gaza, which creates a larger unified resistance bloc against that atrocity, one with a greater chance of success. Of course that means even if it does succeed we’ll end up largely in the same place we started, minus the same degree of acceptance of Israel. Which would also likely reverse some once Bibi has gone, which will eventually happen.

Since Russiagate has been revived in the American consciousness, I am going to leave you with another reminder of the ground-level grinding of the machinery behind that, the beginning of JRE’s interview of Renee DiResta, my 2023 Person of the Year as the Zelig of disinformation related to the Twitterfiles, in March of 2019, when Rogan was still clueless about the nature of Russiagate (or is he still clueless today?) and ol’ Renee was dishonestly working her ethno-mission:

Oh… I forgot… she had a CIA fellowship in college… and once again the gunsights were set too far to the right, a clean miss.