Inaugurating the Endgame

The free world ended on Monday and not exactly 24 years earlier, or 32 or 44 or 52 or 64 years ago... Right? 🤔

Today during the first week of Trump II I’m going to take a look at pre-Trump recent random matters than aren’t actually so random. Because connections are what I make.

Max Bombs Blinken

The first is Max Blumenthal’s “welcome intervention” during Antony Blinken’s farewell in the press briefing room, as presented on the Judge last week:

There’s a whole lotta Jew layered into that speech, both the parts openly stated and the parts still held back. It’s personal to Max because this mass murder is a Jewish operation soup to nuts, and because Max and Ant come from the same exclusive, birthright, powerful minority club, and the DC chapter of that.

What Blinken represents in the larger picture is Clintonism, the change in the Democratic Party that resulted from the Clinton Sellout in the 1990s, that sellout to the Jews including an adopting of a form of neoconservatism, which is Jewish foreign policy built around the twin pillars of the love of Israel and the hate of Russia. In that sense Gaza and Ukraine are his masterpieces, and he should be embraced as a hero by every Ashkenazi Jew whose belief system includes the Promised Land of sanctuary, the inevitable antisemitism of Christian Europeans, and the mandate of never forget. He is a manifestation of your spirit. Let’s call that the Jewish revolutionary spirit, since I’ll get to E. Michael Jones before I’m done here.

As for Max being “the personification of courage”, why is that? He made a verbal statement including questions in a press conference which got him tossed for a violation of etiquette, a setting where he’ll never get chosen to pose any questions anyway, and the cops told him not to come back that day, he did not resist, he broke no laws and did not put himself in any physical danger. No matter how unacceptable what he said was to those in control, he still is blessed with Jewish privilege. The most courageous thing he did was to connect Blinken’s Jewishness to his actions as a high-ranking government official, which of course is a violation of the strictest norms of political correctness in the age of the universal faith of Holocaustism.

But what if, say, a goy like Ryan Grim (he’s in that video) had done that? With him it wouldn’t be personal, it would be bigotry of the worst kind, blatant antisemitism by a gentile. A career-ending move. The personification of (social) courage is a non-Jew who openly addresses Jew shit to a Jew. Not that I don't appreciate what Max did there, but it’s Jews who not only have the greatest ability to address these matters, it’s Jews who have the greatest responsibility to do so. Because it’s their shit, and it stinks.

Also representing Clintonism is Kamala Harris in Max’s final words of the Biden era, from the last Grayzone livestream during that non compos mentis administration. And it is in some sense another case of never forget extremism, but a post-progressive version of that:

At the beginning there’s a slight hint of “audience capture” here, an annoying term I don’t like to use. Then he dismisses the idea that Trump could be worse on Israel/Gaza, based only on a role of some kind in creating this temporary ceasefire (and that Gaza couldn’t possibly get worse, the very definition of hell on earth, “the Auschwitz of our time”, which is BS in both directions), and basically takes the position that Harris being better than Trump on Gaza has been proven to be false. Except that cannot remotely be proven, we have no idea what might have happened related to the inauguration and PR deals had she won, and we have no idea what will happen going forward with the guy who did win.

Except that we have good reason to believe it may not be good. Chas Freeman on his Judge appearance after ME King Day addressed it all in his usual painfully direct manner, called it “a phony ceasefire deal”, and talked about the “sweeteners” likely given by Trump to Netanyahu to agree to the deal. In comparison Blumenthal sounds almost incoherent here, still fixated on Bombala and justifying the need to have destroyed her candidacy for the sake of the Palestinians, if even only for revenge.

Again, I said that I thought that the chances of someone backing off of Biden’s Jew-compliant policy were better with Harris than Trump, and the chances that someone would ramp up the death machine even further were better with Trump than Harris, and nothing that has happened in the last week changes my feelings on that at all. But those likely marginal differences are ones that can never be proven or disproven, no matter what Trump does do or doesn’t do.

I feel sorry for Max, because he is clearly an anti-Zionist Jew who is suffering under what has been happening for the last 15 months. And he has genuinely tried hard to do something about it, including his verbal assault on Blinken in the press room. But like many post-progressives he’s taken the view as a leftist that the devil you know (better) is worse than the one you don’t, and so to at least some extent he’s entered into a dark alliance with the forces of Trumptardism. I think that will prove to be a mistake.

In his latest Judge appearance on Tuesday Max detailed some of his hopefulness re Trump, saying he doesn’t think that Rubio will last that long as Sec of State, and that the guy Trump wants to replace him with is Rick Grenell, who Max characterized as less of a neocon but too green to nominate from the start, along the same lines as Shady Vance. That struck me as very wishful thinking at this point, with Rubio on the job for only a few hours.

In fact I would go as far as saying it’s rather Greenwaldian, this blue-skying of the storm hitting Washington full force. Not a good look, Max - there’s a slippery-ass Jew you don’t want to be re-associated with. It’s bad enough that Blumenthal went on neo-Trumptard Dore’s show to receive his applause for assaulting Tony B. In the end I guess it is all about the Benyamins, this apparent cozying up to the contemporary uber-Zionist GOP and their army of online Trumptards.

Circling back to today’s theme, the inauguration that matters to Max isn't the one that took place on Monday, it’s the one that took place 32 years ago, the one that initiated the Clinton Sellout, the one that resulted in the Clintonite Democratic Party, the one that embraced neoconservatism and neoliberalism, defined by his co-ethnics like Blinken and Yellen over the last four years. His father was a Clinton insider, and so he likely knows the whole disgusting story better than I do.

Kyle Misses the Boat… Again

Next I’ll turn to a completely Judaized figure talking about another Jewish activist of a different school than Max, trashing the lead billionaire in the neo-Trumpian universe:

Kulinski’s description of the IDW indicates his having no idea what that really was - a Jewish-driven project which I long ago labeled cultural neoconservatism, an effort to build a new Jewish cultural center sitting on top of neoconservatism and neoliberalism - because Kyle couldn’t see the Jew if it ran over him with a Tesla truck full of fireworks.

But what Kyle displays here is a completely ignorant view of the neo-Bircher alternative right view of the world, with its essential theorem being that everything is fake. Musk didn’t necessarily acknowledge that Harris won the bet because he’s a conman, he did so quite possibly because he thinks Harris lost the bet. There certainly are lots of people out there who not only don’t think over a million people died from covid in the US, but don’t think covid even exists, and some of those because they don’t believe viruses exist. What I was seeing in the alternative internet universe in the earliest days of covid would make Musk’s bet not only look sanely reasonable but also ultimately unprovable. You can’t lose a million dollars if the other person can’t prove you’re wrong. And if they didn’t agree on the basis of determination of the numbers, like CDC-published statistics (which Musk may well have never agreed to), that bet could never reach its conclusion.

This is what the combination of the social media internet, neo-Bircherism, covid, and the 2020 election featuring Trump did to our world, however you view that. A bet that even ten years ago would have appeared truly uncontroversial, the number of victims in a theoretical future virus-based pandemic, was completely flipped on its head when theory became reality only a few years later. It’s quite possible that Musk’s view of making that bet may have been completely different than Harris’, that he was playing his version of 5D chess when Sam thought it was a simple game of checkers. Who knows.

On more election fallout, Kyle further displayed his lack of depth of perception when presenting some interesting poll numbers on Democrats’ view of their own party today:

The comparison to make, as always, is to 56 years ago, January of 1969, after the sitting president and presumed Dem nominee had dropped out of the race due to his controversial war to be replaced by his VP, who lost a very close election. So who became the leader of the party then?

Humphrey was presumed to be done in politics at that point, even at age 57 which is considered politically young today, until an unexpected opening appeared for him in the 1970 election when MN senator Gene McCarthy decided not to run for reelection, the victim of his own war opposition. Back in the senate by 1971 but without his old seniority, HHH then ran for president again in 1972.

There were two major differences in 1969, one being that the Dems still controlled both houses of congress, so the majority leader in the senate (Mansfield) and the Speaker of the House (McCormick) were both recognized party leaders, and there were multiple long-standing powerful committee chairman in both houses, plus rising Ted Kennedy was the senate whip. Also, the Dem VP candidate, Muskie, was a sitting senator and would go on to be the frontrunner going into the 1972 presidential nomination process. Another sitting senator who had gotten his feet wet late in the 1968 nomination race was McGovern, who would win the 1972 nomination (with fewer primary votes than Humphrey) after Easy Ed melted down in the snows of New Hampshire.

Today at 60 Harris looks like Humphrey, someone who is out of work and may be done, at least in DC. Her VP running mate isn’t in DC, isn’t really their kind of boy, and took some flak damage during the run, so no one is really talking about him. The Dems don't control either house so don’t have important leadership roles there.

LBJ was damaged goods, but he wasn’t so visibly on death's door, so had higher standing in the public’s minds than Biden, who was frozen in time forever on that debate stage soundly beating medicare. The 2% who selected him must have been relatives, or residents of highway-to-heaven retirement homes. At least Obama is still alive and kicking, even if most of the time in Hollywood.

As much as the Dems have a presumptive 2028 nominee it’s Newsom, but unlike Muskie he’s not in DC so suffers from name recognition and job relativity for national party leader, not to mention as a California politician he is always in the right’s gunsights. Then we get to congress. Jeffries is the classic case of a product of the Black-Jewish Alliance, in that position for only two reasons: he’s black, and he’s a proxywarrior puppet of the Jews. That simply does not qualify him as a leader of half the country politically, and that clearly is recognized by most Dems, if only subconsciously. Although he does three times better (most of those votes of confidence coming from blacks I’m sure) than the senate leader who is the real deal, Chuck “the Fuck” Schumer. My view of that is that Schumer generally takes a rather low profile, in part because he’s the leader of the Dem deep state in DC and because no one wants to talk about the elephant in the room, especially when it comes to Israel. Pelosi was elevated in the past because of that, and even though she’s no longer House leader and is on the way out like Biden, she did as well here as Schumer, both at 3%.

So who’s not on the list? The warriors of 2016, Clinton and Sanders. Sanders we can assume in part because he’s not actually a Democrat and people know that, but also because he’s sitting on the Big Slide to oblivion next to Biden and Pelosi. Killary’s absence is interesting because there are actually people, like Kim Iversen, who incorrectly insist she’s still the big string-puller in the party. Idiots.

But the Democrats don't have a recognized leader today because politicians no longer really lead the party, rather it’s a party run from the blue-black shadows and featuring manufactured frontmen without political acumen or their own ideology - they don't stand for anything. Which again gets us back to the 1993 inauguration.

Kulinski, though, is in some sense stuck in 1973, when the inauguration was for Nixon II, that having parallels to Trump II but a different kind of con. While the defeated Dem candidate was McGovern, the nominee having the closest parallels to Kyle’s beloved Bernie, and the party of FDR was at that moment beginning 20 years of darkness which would only end with the Clinton Sellout. Nixon, unleashed by a real landslide mandate, demanded resignations from his entire cabinet and would only rehire those with sufficient loyalty to his cause.

But then came Watergate.

Chris Never Hedges his Bets

On the subject of impending fascism now apparently already arrived, Mr. Cheery Leftist Chris Hedges made his pre-Trump statement, with the grim meter still stuck firmly on 11:

So basically an advert for all of his books. 😅 This is his victory dance, of course joyfully taking no joy in being correct.

Which of course he isn't, because, like Kulinski, he couldn’t see the Jew if it hit him with a Musk SpaceX booster rocket. That he leads his list of voices of reason with Wolin and Chomsky is no surprise at all; that Hannah Arendt isn't there with them is the only surprise.

The framing of this as fascism is the first clue - the so-popular meme of fascism is of Italian origin and the face on that was Mussolini. But no one refers to a “new Mussolini”, it’s always to the new Hitler, including related to Trump, so we’re actually talking about Nazism. This is a theme that began with the fall of communism and the rise of the Jewish deep state faction 35 years ago, and the first two New Hitlers, Saddam Hussein and Slobo Milosevic, related to the first two neocon wars.

Btw, the only one of those books I’ve read was Death of the Liberal Class; the theme there was that liberalism existed to hold off the worst impulses of the (fascist) right, but not to do any more about a corrupt system based on rapacious capitalism. So that was based on the idea that FDR liberalism rescued the system by playing a middle ground between fascism and socialism, the political Battle of Europe between the wars, but that by this century liberalism had collapsed, leaving the door wide open. Which gets us back to 1993 and Clinton, the Dem reaction to the rise of Reaganism.

Rejoining a minute later into this diatribe:

Wow, just wow - there is so much to cover there.

Hedges begins with Reaganism’s rise starting in 1981 and Reaganomics or neoliberalism, a term he uses but without attribution to its pied piper, Milton Friedman, or its source at the Univ of Chicago. He transitions that into neoconservatism’s wars without a hint of acknowledgement, including its common intellectual roots at at UChicago, suggesting the military-industrial complex paradigm of what started as banker’s wars long ago. He blames it all on both parties, which is true, but without the notable differences on exactly how and why.

Then he moves on to demonize the south, America’s version of Nazi Germany, with blacks being the victimized and brutalized Jews, a relationship which started with the conviction of Leo Frank in Atlanta in 1913 and the subsequent Jewish takeover of the NAACP as well as the creation of the ADL.

As for the quoted Howe, “Howe was born as Irving Horenstein in The Bronx, New York. He was the son of Jewish immigrants from Bessarabia…”. The capital of Bessarabia was Kishinev, the site of the notorious never-forgotten 1903 pogrom. Howe was, along with Irving Kristol (the father of neoconservatism), Daniel Bell (Bolotsky) and Nathan Glazer, one of the Jews who famously occupied the Trotskyite alcove in the CCNY cafeteria in the late 1930s.

Of course Hedges next links the American deep south and Russia, as the source of his slimy creatures. In the south these were the creatures who first prevented the Democratic Party from meeting its destiny as a moderately Marxist party, one assumes, and then switched teams like they were neocons and dragged the Reaganite GOP into neo-fascism, prepping the ground for Trump decades later.

In Russia this meant both Stalinism, which purged communism of its Jewish heart, and Putin’s brand of nationalism, a reestablishment of tsarist imperial Russia with its Pale of Settlement, half of which was Ukraine.

Switching from the Jew Howe to the Jew Wolin, Hedges slips in the Jewish victimhood concept of “otherizing” almost unnoticed, and links that to the demagogue Trump, presumably as a racist and antisemite. He mentions Eric Garner’s loosies, which links southern racism and the BJA to BLM and the rebirth of the BJA. When he talks about the failure of liberalism to police capitalist crimes, it reminds me of the Harvard Boys power couple Andrei Shleifer and Nancy Zimmerman who I mentioned in my last piece, making hundreds of millions on international insider trading deals for Russian resources and being fined a paltry few million as punishment in the settlement, Shleifer not even losing his job at Harvard thanks to his mentor Larry Summers.

But the larger picture there is the 2008 world economic collapse caused by Wall Street greed and a lack of regulatory policing, neoliberalism's ultimate consequence until the rise of so-obvious oligarchy 16 years later. How much time did Lloyd Blankfein (Goldman Sachs), Ace Greenberg (Bear Sterns), Dick Fuld (Lehman Bros) and Jamie Dimon (JPMorgan Chase) do, all Wall St. CEOs with dirty Jewish fingernails?

At the end he gets to neoliberalism as a giant fraud and the rise of oligarchy; he says neoliberalism promised much but delivered only mass misery, which also sounds a lot like 20th century communism to me. But then he links neoliberalism to unstated neoconservatism via the goyische Cheneys, which reinforces the false definition of the term, the mirror image of falsely-defined neoconservatism, cleansing both of their true meaning as political philosophies and their ethnic origins as distinctly Jewish.

But he’s right at the end, that Trump mocks this charade, possibly knowingly but more likely unknowingly, and that this is the popular attraction. Which gets us back to Jewish Hollywood and Mike Douglas playing Bill Clinton and Mike J. Fox playing George Stephanopoulos 30 years ago:

The tasty presidential cake described there was of course Reagan (waiting on W frosting), so I guess I’ll say the inauguration operating in the back of Hedges’ Jew-addled mind is 1981, the start 40 years ago of his flawed narrative.

Gordo Joneses for Truth

Moving on. In my piece Does eMike have TDS? Round Two... Three? posted a week ago the core matter was criticism of E. Michael Jones as a political partisan in this moment. In that piece I included a clip of Jones talking about fellow Catholic activist Timothy Gordon perhaps coming around to something more akin to eMike’s view, via having read Jones’ own publication of the 1890 articles in La Civilta Cattolica on the Jewish Question in Europe.

In that I concluded with: “So I think he’s a long way from sitting down with eMike and having a heart-to-heart on the Jew. But it’s progress.” But in fact before that virtual ink was dry eMike had sat down with Gordo for a discussion on the JQ, and I was mostly wrong - I didn’t really think they wouldn’t end up talking, but rather I questioned the value of any discussion they might have, the extent of any meeting of the minds. Although the discussion had some of the expected limitations it actually wasn’t painfully bad, far from it: they started out going down what seemed to me the wrong path with Jones’ Libido Dominandi, porn, contraception, abortion, and ended with what appears to only be the beginning of a long discussion on nostra aetate as the church’s current statement on the Jews, but in between they got into some meaty stuff of more interest to the non-Catholic.

That earlier piece was about the polluting effect of partisanship on people’s thinking, and related to that I’m going to feature two moments in the middle of this conversation where conservatism raises its ugly head. The first includes Gordo mentioning a familiar name:

That started with the 19th century Ashkenazi enlightenment and Jones telling a story about the war between Bolshevism and Zionism that Churchill famously wrote about in 1920, one that is really kind of flawed. But ol’ eMike has a way of story-telling which is simplified and intended to make certain points, even if not technically fully accurate. So the Six Day War had so much more to do with a change in Jewish psychology worldwide than the (temporary) end of the Black-Jewish Alliance that it’s ridiculous, but no matter, two stories for the price of one. And communism had been on the Jewish deathbed for 15-20 years at that point, evidenced in the rise of the New Left over that time, cultural Marxism replacing political Marxism. But righties, they’re obsessed with communism (and its atheism) and never want to let that one go.

Which gets me to that familiar name - Myron Fagan. There were three people I detailed in an article two years ago on the history of right-wing conspiratorial thinking, its roots in the French revolution, and what I call the Bircher Bottleneck in the ‘60s-’70s, when the JBS took ownership of the narrative and essentially cleansed it of the Jew. Those three people were Nesta Webster, William Guy Carr and Myron Fagan. Included in that piece is a linked abridged (~20 minutes) version of the Fagan recordings - his part of the piece starts about a third of the way through it, after Webster’s, and then it gets back to Fagan near the end:

The half of the Fagan presentation left out by Gordo, who only mentions the CFR here, is about Illuminism, what was left after the JBS cleaned out Jewry in their tale, fantasy villains replacing real ones. Also addressed there is the Jewish question as applies to Fagan himself, the belief by some that he in fact was a Jew and that his name was taken from the slimy Dickens character Fagin. I point out that the embedded clip of Fagan’s work doesn’t really talk about Jews at all.

One of the people purged from that editing was Jacob Schiff, who plays a meaningful part in Fagan’s actual story. Schiff was basically a Rothschild agent in the US, and it’s too bad that Jones didn’t mention him as being involved in that takeover of the NAACP in 1914 along with the Spingarns, because Gordo might have made that connection. The last time I talked about Schiff here was in my recent piece Backsliding to Ukraine where I addressed his funding of the Japanese in their 1904-05 war with Russia. Ol’ Jake was a busy fella - it’s hard work throwing dem damned shekels around.

Btw, the long conclusion of that piece was built around elements of a book by folklorist Bill Ellis, my follow-up piece to that went deeper into Ellis’ analysis, which got me to the contemporary Jews, and I ended up back with eMike and his Catholicism:

But back to eMike and Gordo, and the second appearance of conservatism as a potential hindrance to the conversation:

Gordo says there of Massie’s reveal, “Every single other member of Congress, even the Republicans, besides him, had an AIPAC handler”. In fact what Massie the Judaized libertarian said was that every other Republican had one and he didn’t know what the situation was on the Dem side. In fact the GOP is notably more committed to Zionism and certainly has been at least since 1967, which is at least half of the reason why the original neocons generally switched alliances to infiltrate the GOP by 1980. (The other half related to the cold war and hated mother Russia, of course.) If you think Rashida Tlaib has an AIPAC handler you need to have your head examined. Of course I could be wrong, maybe she just has a woefully incompetent one who she barely tolerates, sends him out to the deli for coffee and bagels, etc.

Jones, on the other hand, breaks free of this restrictive bias and after correctly saying it’s money, puts the blame on Reagan and Trump, Reagan for starting all this with the installation of neoliberal economics and Trump for taking it to its logical political conclusion - billionaire oligarchy. Good on him for that. Jones, I mean, definitely not Trump. So, like Hedges, his inauguration took place in 1981, the one that also opened the door to neoconservatism in government.

Endgame

But the bottom line is that the inauguration of Trump 2.0 owes so much to two prior inaugurations, the ones in 1981 and in 1993, and how that all coalesced after the inauguration of 2001, creating the uniparty, and more specifically after 9/11/01. All three of those elections had aspects of deep events - the Bush/Casey October Surprise taking out a sitting president, various manipulations by people like Alan Greenspan and Rahm Emanuel taking out another sitting president, and then the Monica Jewinsky impeachment and the SCOTUS Real Steal elevating a loser to winner in Florida.

The next 16 years of “stability” produced the inauguration of 2017 and the beginning of open warfare in the nation's politics. And underlying that were always the three great political philosophies of our time - neoconservatism (endless middle east war for the benefit of Israel), neoliberalism (increasing wealth discrepancy and the rise of an oligarchy), and cultural Marxism (the fomentation of domestic racial, ethnic and gender division as an attack on the majority).

Virtually every issue contested in this election comes down to those three things, I suppose other than the hangover of the Great Distraction of covid and climate change, which I think was underplayed until southern California recently caught fire. But those two matters are so divisive exactly because of neo-Bircherism and the alternative right belief that they are both Great Fakes, versus the left's defense of the politicized science underlying both. And neo-Bircherism arose out of the JBS’s decision to cleanse the right’s alternative worldview of the Jew in the earliest days of the rise of Holocaustism. So again we end up at the same place, no matter if we start with Blumenthal the openly-contentious Jew, Kulinski and Hedges the Judaized leftists, or Jones and Gordon the red-pilled Catholic conservatives.

Or if we start with 1961 and the first Catholic president and the birth of Holocaustism, 1973 and the clear realignment of the parties and the first rejection of the New Left, 1981 and the reestablishment of the deep state and the green-lighting of two great Jewish political philosophies, 1993 and the sellout of the Democratic Party to the Jews and the end of the last WASP/Rockefellerist deep state president, or 2001 and the real beginning of the end, including the flipping of the big blue switch eight months later.

But, hey, at least we’re all happy that the Ukraine war is officially over and the Crimeans are free at last, free at last, thank the Führer, free at last! 🤭