Monarchy Postscript: The Swamaramy Two-Step

One of Greenwald's favs strangely lands himself in the shit, stuck in the gray between black and white, and no Jew in sight

Today I’m going to tie up a few loose ends from my last piece, in part because there have been some coincidental events which happened at the end of the week that dovetail with some of the things I wanted to address anyway.

The first thing to cover is a little of what I included in a clip of Batya Ungar-Sargon on Glenn Greenwald’s podcast which I didn’t address in that piece. Here is that bit from early last week, the beginning of another interview she did late in the week, and a brief bit from later in that clip when things started to get more heated:

“Not this minute, but…”

So I think it’s pretty clear that she tries to fake sympathies for the Palestinians which she simply doesn’t hold, as a former settler Israeli Jew - and of course co-ethnic Greenwald lets her get away with that. Her style is to do that and to act sweet and smiley and friendly, while pushing lies to assist her ethno-state in a genocidal assault by corralling American sympathies, and in that last bit you can see Hill getting a little frustrated with all that (you can also see just a hint of her claws coming out). But he’s basically a mainstream media figure, and so among other things never commits the PC faux pas of identifying her as an Israeli/Jew, not does she fill in that blank. I assume that she’s a dual-citizen Israeli-American, but the part of that which is in doubt is the American part - she was born in Israel, and so with near-certainty she’s still an Israeli, she has never disowned her nation of birth, in any sense.

My feeling is that she should either shut the fuck up (i.e., publicly recuse herself on matters involving her ethno-state) or go back where she came from, and I say that exactly because she does things like not identifying what she is, which is absolutely critical to the matter at hand. I mean, can you imagine a Russian-born dual-citizen without any hint of a Russian accent coming on to anything approaching the mainstream media arguing the Russian side of the Ukraine war without first being identified as Russian? It's the ol’ crypsis game.

As for Greenwald, we just see more pro-ethnic behavior from him every time he subjects his audience to this lying bitch and pushes back on her not at all. Blood is thicker than water.

Btw, in another part of that Al Jazz interview she makes the same reference to ML King as she did there on Greenwald - this harkens back to the black-Jewish alliance which I discussed in detail related to King in my 2022 piece linked below, and this is an undercurrent running through what I discuss in this piece.

Moving on to the feature, I realized Friday evening that I’d left out a small bit from that last article which I intended to include, and that related to Greenwald’s promotion of Vivek Ramaswamy. I realized that when I randomly came across this Sabby Sab livestream:

Before I get deeper into that, I thought about what Kyle Kulinski might have to say about this, being a committed and completely Judaized Dem-adjacent progressive and not one of the post-progressives like Greenwald that I’ve focused on a lot here, and in another coincidence his clip on it was right near the top of the feed on that Sabby video:

Sorry, that’s part of a clip he posted on Thursday, the day before this one with the little woman, another interesting coincidental juxtaposition:

So it’s simply all about knee-jerk racism, or as Kyle made clear more specifically in that first clip, the first among racism’s equals, antisemitism. There he explains his hated right and their absolute support for Israel in four ways:

1) Christian Zionists, the standard means of blaming whitey and not American Jews for enabling the actions of the ethno-state, who actually want the Jews to go straight to hell

2) Default, instinctive or legacy pro-Zionists, but without explaining that this requires a source, and that is a lifetime of propagandizing, mainly Holocaustism

3) Zionism-adjacent white nationalists and their parallel desire for an American ethno-state

4) Antisemitic uber-racialized nationalists or essentially neo-Nazis, resulting in conspiratorial fantasies about Jews and philo-Hitlerism.

What he doesn’t do is address cause-and-effect mundane things like this:

Now he’d likely never discuss or even acknowledge any of that apparent squid pro quo, or that the GOP is so pro-Israel because of that quarter of their campaign funding, surely easily their largest single special-interest source, and it so clearly being tied to Israel.

He also doesn't put anything on the Jews for “the rise in antisemitism”, they are simply God’s perfect victim group. Given he’s opposed to what's going on in Gaza, I guess Israelis aren't actually Jews?

That middle image on the 2016 Garland nomination for the SCOTUS is to me the best example of what all these Jewish donors on the Dem side are buying, Obama attempting to make 44% of the court sourced from an ethnicity that makes up only 2% of the US population, a staggering level of overrepresentation, that from “the party of diversity”. I discussed the history of this clear court-stacking matter in my last piece in some detail. Coulter also says in this interview that the Supreme Court is actually more powerful than the presidency, and at least on certain matters she’s absolutely right. A critical part of my monarchy speculation rested on control of the Court, which means control of the constitution and what it says.

I wondered what babyface Kyle might have thought about the Garland nomination back then, and so I tracked down this video:

So after a bit on criminal justice he said Garland is good on Cultural Marxist issues but bad on corporate matters and particularly Citizens United and money in politics; he also says the rest of the Dem court, citing Jews Ginsberg and Kagan specifically but not mentioning Breyer, is weak on the corporate (neoliberal) stuff. Oh, and he also had no problem with Arabs stuck in Guantanamo without due process. What that suggests is that these justices are pushing a Jewish agenda (which Garland has reinforced as AG under Biden), including this one:

What he isn't afraid of at all is Jews taking over the majority of the court. In part because he's completely consumed by the left-right thing.

And finally, the actual left position on healthcare is socialized medicine; the progressive position, which means the Bernie position, is single-payer M4A. That system doesn’t really care that much about massively-inflated healthcare costs in the US, it just cares about who pays for it. Which ultimately would end up being US taxpayers; all that Wall St./corporate tax stuff was just smoke and mirrors. And who plays a disproportionate role in the “medical-industrial complex”? I’ll let you guess.

So let’s get back to the negress (you should start to see how “black” this show really is):

So the black expectation is that he’d go ballistic on the guest on his own show, instead of engaging in a discussion about ethnicity and government. Note the dual citizenship thing again (re Batya earlier), and Sabby’s claim that, “there are many politicians in congress who have dual citizenship to Israel” - I don’t know but I’m not aware of anyone who has dual-citizenship including Israel in congress. The most likely way for that to happen is for someone to have been born in Israel and then later move to the US, but I don’t know anyone who did that. It’s rather unlikely that a Jew would be born in the US, then emigrate to Israel and establish citizenship, and then return to the US to become an elected official. So I think this is ass-pull on her part; much more common is “dual loyalty”, which is the real issue. This is the nature of black conspiracy theory, which is a real and substantial cultural phenomenon, stuff like black Jesus, an interestingly robust subset of broader CT.

In any case, I don't know enough about Coulter to say if she's a Zio-sucker or not, but Kulinski suggested that she might be a closet antisemite or worse. I think it would be important to know which, in the evaluation of this discussion.

At this point Vivek is, in my view, slipping back a little from his general Trumptardian position on closing borders - he doesn’t have so much of a problem with the people who previously came here during the current era of open immigration, which started with the 1965 immigration acts, something pushed by Jews for decades, since the first immigration-limiting acts in the early 1920s - see Brooklyn's Emanuel Celler, who made it his life’s mission: “One group of people is just as good as another”. Because Coulter has put him in the gunsights, as a child of post-’65 immigrants from a very different culture. That will be a thread that runs through a lot of this discussion, although I won’t really focus on that here.

What Sabby seems to be setting aside here are the books Vivek has written on this wider subject, including critically about minority victimization. I looked at that in my piece on him nearly a year ago, where I also concluded I couldn’t vote for him, and also in part because he's a first-generation American-Indian:

And of course Sabby has to drag blacks into this - “people who are descendants of slaves [blacks self-defined by slavery]… would not be part of that landscape”. The only thing I heard her say is that she thinks a presidential candidate should have some WASP blood - which I assume Obama did, since she said every president has had that (he also didn’t have US slave blood). And of course Ann’s only talking about her voting, she’s not saying that laws need to be changed to exclude POCs or early-generation post-immigrants. She has every right to vote for whoever she wants, for whatever reason.

Then it’s “descendants of slaves who built this country”, which sounds like overstatement to me. Most of what black slaves did in the US to my knowledge was to raise and harvest crops, and that mostly for rather well-off plantation owners, so they certainly helped build the wealth of the aristocracy of the Antebellum south, but that’s not the same thing as building this country, especially in light of the civil war. A better argument can be made about blacks after slavery, but there they’re not playing a much different role than the rest of the working class, especially the post-war immigrant working class. This country was built in the northeast, the Midwest and the west, not the reconstructing but still damaged agrarian south.

But the main thing is that she can’t engage with this discussion without seeing her black nose right in the middle of her view of it.

I'm not sure why she focused on Vivek being born in the US at the beginning, given that Coulter said, “…or the children of immigrants”, which is what he is.

I’m also not sure why she’s focusing so much on the gender thing here, since Vivek raised it here (“X and Y chromosomes”), but she did seem to want to point out that white women benefit most greatly from this, suggesting it ain’t what it’s cracked up to be for her folks - even though I’d be quite surprised if she hasn’t benefitted by affirmative action at some point.

As for Vivek, he continues to walk the tightrope on ethnicity versus worldview, as if ethnic culture doesn’t have a huge impact on worldview. At this point Sabby is exhibit A on that - almost every reaction she has is predictably black, or black female, or black female leftist. A black male would have just shot both of them. Just kidding.

Speaking of people who deserve to be shot, at the end she raises the twin specters of the despicable billionaire oligarch Jew Bill Ackman and his dual-citizen (I assume) Israeli wife Neri Oxman, but only in the context of DEI and not the silencing of student speech via shit-canning university presidents with his billions as the club. My guess is it’s not her X chromosome pairs that have led to her privilege - just look at that uber-wealthy lovely couple...

This next one includes a clip from 2012 during that election:

Sorry, Sabby, but civil rights, as in the civil rights movement, was for blacks, at least on the surface - I have no idea why this is confusing to her. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 didn’t address blacks specifically, which kind of provides a hint of its broader Cultural Marxist intentions (and the apparent view of Short George here) - women, gays, immigrants, etc. But to Sabby this was just a very racist comment.

Then she implies something really strange to me, about Even-Shorter Bob: “He didn’t say anything about what’s owed to descendants of slavery”. Now, that sounds a lot like reparations to me, and let’s remember this is 2012, before BLM had really become a thing and before Tallahassee Coates set off the movement for reparations with his article (in the Atlantic, if you can believe that), both in 2014. But Sabby thinks Bob was obligated to bring this up at that point of the discussion, as a “liberal”. Why? We all know why: “Show me the money!” There's something wrong with you if you're on the left and aren't willing to simply turn over your bank account to righteous black folks. I ask you, does Sabby seem like someone who deserves a big, fat reparations check from whitey?

Reich in that clip plays the standard tune Nation of Immigrants to justify open immigration today, but let's remember he’s part of a group whose self-image is very much about immigration, or should I say emigration, the Wandering Jews who so famously have been expelled from 109 states and are always running from antisemites. I’d bet the house he knows exactly where his grandparents and great-grandparents come from and their experiences there. Me, I don't know anything about my great-grandparents and their experiences, I don't know anything about when my family came to America, or why, I just know my nation-of-origin mix, likely from some point in the 19th century but maybe earlier. I am a fully-assimilated American.

Reich actually has an interesting personal connection to civil rights that I think is worth exploring, so let’s go to his wiki:

Reich was born to a Jewish family in Scranton, Pennsylvania, the son of Mildred Freshman (née Dorf) and Edwin Saul Reich (1914–2016), who owned a women's clothing store. As a teenager, he was diagnosed with multiple epiphyseal dysplasia, also known as Fairbank's disease, a genetic disorder that results in short stature and other symptoms. This condition made Reich a target for bullies and he sought out the protection of older boys; one of them was Michael Schwerner, who was one of the three civil rights workers murdered in Mississippi by the Ku Klux Klan in 1964 for the registration of African-American voters. Reich cites this event as an inspiration to "fight the bullies, to protect the powerless, to make sure that the people without a voice have a voice".

So Reich is Jewish and I’d be willing to bet if his parents weren’t immigrants his grandparents were, from central or more likely eastern Europe (the Pale). And he has this personal connection to Schwerner, one of the three freedom riders so famously killed in Mississippi; the other two were James Chaney and Andrew Goodman. As for the lesson he learned, might that have actually been hatred for goys and the realization that he can only rely on his co-ethnics? Just a thought.

Let's look at Schwermer:

Born and raised in Pelham, New York, to a family of Jewish heritage, Schwerner attended Pelham Memorial High School. He was called Mickey by his friends. His mother, Anne Siegel, was a science teacher at nearby New Rochelle High School, and his father, Nathan Schwerner, was a businessman. Schwerner attended Michigan State University, originally intending to become a veterinarian. He transferred to Cornell University and switched his major to rural sociology. While an undergraduate at Cornell, he was initiated into the school's chapter of Alpha Epsilon Pi fraternity. He entered graduate school at the School of Social Work at Columbia University.

So we can see this guy’s increasing self-identification as a Jew, going from a cow college in the midwest studying veterinarian arts to Cornell and Colombia studying sociology and social work, and joining a “historically Jewish” frat. I’m not clear how he became buds with Reich, since he was in Westchester County hangin’ with Kulinski’s old man while Short Bob was in Scranton getting bullied by Biden.

Goodman has an eerie similarity:

Andrew Goodman was born on November 23, 1943, in New York City, the second of three boys born to Robert, a writer and civil engineer, and Carolyn Goodman, a psychologist and social activist. He grew up in the city's Upper East Side. Goodman was Jewish, like fellow civil rights activist Michael Schwerner, alongside whom Goodman would be murdered. Goodman's neighborhood was a racially-mixed community of white, black, and Hispanic families. The Goodman family was involved in intellectual and socially progressive activism and were devoted to social justice. His mother Carolyn was a lifelong labor activist. In her youth, she helped farm workers to organize and was active in community efforts to support the Republican faction during the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s.

I think what the wiki authors were trying very hard to do there was to avoid just coming out and saying his family were Marxists. It says his neighborhood was racially-mixed, but the wiki on the upper east side says this: Once known as the Silk Stocking District, it has long been the most affluent neighborhood in New York City. Once one gets up to Spanish Harlem it’s different, though, so who knows.

Cheney was a black guy from Mississippi, so maybe he just got caught hanging out with the wrong crowd, when the crackers down there weren’t too wild about New York Jews coming down south and telling them how to live. But I guess sacrificing his life helped to cement the black-Jewish alliance. From his wiki:

At the age of 15 as a high school student, he and some of his classmates began wearing paper badges reading "NAACP", to mark their support for the national civil rights organization, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, founded in 1909 [and taken over by Jews in 1914]. They were suspended for a week from the segregated high school, because the principal feared the reaction of the all-white school board.

So that’s when the Jews first got to him it seems, and the rest is history. I truly feel sorry for Cheney and his people - the other two, eh… not quite so much.

Back to Reich, he latched onto Dollar Bill at Oxford, and I’ve long wondered what Reich’s role was in the Judification of Bill Clinton project.

One last short clip on this topic:

Why? He’s saying racist actions aren’t the exclusive purview of white people, which means Euro-Christians. He’s saying black people can be racist too, but Sabby is pissed not because he mentions black people, but because he mentions black people in a negative way that isn’t reflective of the paradigm of black victimization. Victimization by whitey, that is.

What Sabby seems to want is full victim status like Jews, who no one will talk about as a group unless it's on-your-knees complimentary. Sorry, Sabby, but your people were invited into Club Jew to serve the drinks, not to sip on them.

So here is what I added to my previous piece, after getting a first look at the Coulter offense:

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.

I was planning to include this before I knew anything about the Annie Outrage, and you can interpret that to say I would be very hesitant to vote for an Indian for president. That because almost all American Indians came to America after that 1965 immigration act, and most later on after Jews had largely taken over American politics and culture. If that's all people like Vivek and Nimarata know, including from family histories, then it's no wonder that Vivek is a true believer in neoliberalism, Jewish free-market capitalist economics, and Nimarata is a true believer in neoconservatism, Jewish militarized foreign policy. Indians strike me as a new class of Jewish proxywarriors, and one with lots of money. But maybe not so much common sense. Why? Because historically they are not part of the American commons.

One of my first experiences with Indians in America was travelling around the country and staying in “economic” motels; this was like 40 years ago, give or take. At some point I realized that so many of them were being run by Indians, and most of the time that meant they were going to seed in various ways. So one pretty much knew what the deal was when you walked into the office and smelled the curry.

I remember in the early ‘80s seeing some group insurance program documents for these kind of places, and virtually all the hundreds of owners were named Patel, which is historically a name for a certain (higher) class of people from a certain part of India. My assumption was that they were pooling their resources and going around the country buying up cheaper motels, mostly in shithole towns. America’s motels had become patels.

In 2020 I was taking a road trip during the lockdown, and I was staying the night in Thermopolis, WY and I stopped at a motel that turned out to be booked up. The woman there recommended another motel, specifically so I wouldn’t end up at one of the Indian joints, which suggested to me that little had changed over 40 years, these people hadn’t really assimilated at all, they were still strangers in a strange land conducting their rather strange ways of business. Just an example of how specifically Indian immigration impacted me (and many others I’m sure) negatively in a small way - you can stay in Indian shitholes more cheaply, or pay the gassed-up prices for the remaining American-run places and feel more comfortable. But in a way that makes me wonder how much Indian immigration has benefitted America at all, beyond adding another form of quality cuisine to the nation’s table.

Tech is another example - we have all over the years dealt with Indian call centers, which seem to be intended specifically to get people to not make calls for assistance for fear of having a stroke. Another piece to that are all the India-sourced programmers and other tech workers in the US, the main reason for the high level of average Indian income here. Well-paying desirable jobs - Indians are not like Mexicans hot-footing it over the border, these are the relatively well-off who could afford a higher education at home and then fly to America - but they’re hired in part because American programmers want to be paid more, an issue with immigration going back to the Chinese in 19th century California and the first federal immigration act.

I remember when I was working in a building that also housed Wells Fargo IT operations, and the elevator rides were like working in the UN, but most of those people were Indian. I don’t think for one minute that the slower pace of development over the last couple decades in practical tech, including visible things like the absurd definitions of “user-friendly” and “intuitive” functioning, don’t have something to do with that staffing pattern. People raised in radically different cultures think and work differently.

The bottom line with any group of immigrants is, do they make the country better, meaning better for the people born there? There is no other viable test for immigration. Reich’s line about a nation of immigrants is BS, it’s trying to guilt Americans using twisted logic into allowing people in she really doesn’t want or need.

What Vivek knows about America is that for a smart guy with some money it's a great place to make shitloads of money. His politics are built on benign disdain for the commoners, with various forms of spin he's learned from the former GOP of corporatists and the wealthy, in particular his hero the charismatic puppet Reagan who always knew just the right line. It was nice to see him have to manage being told to his face he doesn’t actually belong to the club he's trying to lead. He handled it pretty well, although his reaction, as muted as it was, mostly seemed to be ethnicity doesn’t matter - hey, I've learned all the rules and lines, why am I not as good as the rest of you?

Thank God that we don’t have call centers for producing presidential candidates…

This was as much of a mainstream discussion as I’ve ever analyzed here, which means it's seriously polluted with partisan political thinking among other things. So we kept hearing about the 2nd amendment between Vivek and Ann, “the amendment that puts the teeth in all the others” - I guess that means you can shoot someone if our first amendment rights are violated? Talk about that and you're instantly a terrorist and probably a white supremacist neo-Nazi terrorist (since we know who really wants free speech curtailed/ended today).

The discussion is on a subject that is prohibited from being openly discussed in America, the role of ethnicity and roots in politics, unless one adheres to the now-standard company line on the victims and the oppressor. Coulter is talking about something that is a reality, that America historically has been a WASP nation, that is American culture, such as it is. Opposite to that here are Vivek’s new American blood who says American culture is more than ever the unencumbered pursuit of wealth, and Sabby the proxywarrior who says don't forget about us but only have the best memories - and don’t forget to pay us for them as well.

And no talk of the subtle corruption that blacks have made to American (hip-hop) culture since achieving civil rights, at least in those terms. What I see in her is a level of deeply-held resentment for the historical core of American culture, and that's not a basis for a presidency of the people. Maybe that explained why Obama, a child of an American white woman and an African man, a freshly-minted American cafe con leche black man, was deemed acceptable in a way that mildly-militant roots guy Jesse Jackson never was.

This is the product of the culture wars of the last century, the battle between Protestants, Catholics and Jews to define what America is and will be. E. Michael Jones likes to point to the theory that after three generations one’s culture becomes narrowed to their religion, because their national origin culture has mostly melted away by then, they have become assimilated. That probably applied sufficiently and generally to 20th century America, because the immigrants had come from Europe, mostly were still religious and had made a largely irreversible commitment to America, but it feels like more of a relic in the 21st. Then again, maybe it's the way we should look at Vivek, a dish only half-baked, not ready to take out of the oven. Call us back after your grandchildren hit age 35.

What's entirely missing in this discussion is the Jew, of course. Both Vivek’s and Sabby’s existence in the public space which enables their inclusion in this debate is quite likely at least in part because of the Jew, because of his Cultural Marxist fights for civil rights and open immigration coming to fruition in the mid-‘60s. But there is zero hint of acknowledgement of that - as is absolutely expected.

As for Coulter, her rather confused presentation of the WASP as still the heart of America not only doesn't acknowledge that the Jews had essentially won the war by the dawn of the 21st century, but it also doesn't answer Kulinski’s question - is she an “antisemite” pushing back against the Jewish rise to power, or doesn’t she see that at all, is she just living in the past? Is she pushing a line she doesn't fully understand because it feels good and fits into her fame-and-fortune ambitions, very much like Vivek?

Her background suggests she could well be a closet “antisemite”, going back to her father’s admiration of Joseph McCarthy and her own writings about him and the red scare, where she (rightly) concludes there were “Soviet agents” in the government. It isn’t much of a stretch to look at the titles of her books and imagine that “liberal” is a partial euphemism for “Jew”. She also is a believer in some version of the great replacement theory, which I would guess she blames on “the left”.

On the other hand, all that could be coincidence, because the Jews have played such a huge role in defining the American left. On a third hand, she's been an extremist on the war on terror; on a fourth, she been in hot water with the ADL more than once (which admittedly doesn't take much). The only thing we know for sure is that even being on the fringe of the Overton Window generally (not Ben Shapiro’s which is really an Overton Peephole) she won't ever openly address that - she's not socially suicidal.

Anyway, I thought the dynamics of this gas-in-the-wind incident were interesting enough to address.

One last item, in an effort to circle back to where I started, Greenwald and Gaza, from the Grayzone. Here are two moments late in last Friday’s live stream, the first part not so good and the second part very good:

In that first part he talks about Jewish power and influence in America, this privileged position, which he’s been doing with some regularity since 10/7. But when he’s talking about the new antisemitism laws he says they put Jews “above any other minority group in the US, including those who still face racism - which Republicans deny”. Sorry, Max, but that comes way too close to the standard Cultural Marxist line on victim groups, and includes nothing about the Euro-Christian majority that these laws are actually aimed at.

And then he cites Greenwald, at the end of the same week that Glenn opened with his blood-lusting buddy Batya for her third appearance there since 10/7. Boo. At least he says Jews are protected by the Civil Rights Act, which I think was by the end of the civil rights era the Jewish activists’ main goal. In that sense Sabby was right - civil rights wasn’t really about blacks. Maybe she was suggesting more than I thought, maybe her “liberal” was a euphemism for…

I loved that he didn’t really pull any punches in that second bit about an Israeli mob-style presidential hit. The line about the Zapruder film was an old joke going back decades I think, but usually it’s the CIA who sits the new president down on his first day and plays it over and over without saying anything - back and to the left, back and to the left, back and to the left. Here at least one can read into this that it was the Mossad who did the hit, or at least played a part.

But he limits the responsibility in both clips; in the first one has says it’s the small group of billionaire donors, but anyone who knows the details of Jewish donations knows that the majority of donation dollars come from places like the AIPAC donor network, where well-off but not truly wealthy Jews donate in a coordinated fashion at or near the individual donation limit per candidate, which the last time I looked was at $2800. If only 10,000 Jewish doctors, lawyers, professors, stock brokers, realtors donate at that level, that’s $28,000,000. Not exactly pocket change, and it’s all legal and essentially untraceable.

In the second it’s limited to Israelis, which begs the question - who shows the Zapruder film to the president? It’s unlikely that there’s an Israeli in the situation room (with W as a possible exception). The mafioso behavior of Jews certainly doesn’t end at the Israeli border. Remember the JDL? And we know that we’ve been waving in the “Russian” mafia since Jackson-Vanik 50 years ago.

But, hey, you can’t have everything.