Once Again, it's the... Them

The latest neocon war has everyone dancing around the blue turd in the middle of the floor, while trying to rescue Trumpism as the beating heart of oppositionalism

Continuing to sort through the internet detritus resulting from the Israeli attack on Iran a week ago, I am finding many different forms of processing the latest Jewish-initiated war troubling the entire planet, but a planet incapable of processing the Jew himself.

A comment led me to Brian Berletic, someone I didn’t know previously, and he led me to the Duran, a long-standing oppositional geopolitics operation which I have never quite become attached to in any meaningful way. But Berletic offered up one option on how to define this war with its sticky Jewish question:

So yeah, this is based on the Chomsky Theorem, that Israel is a puppet client state of the US which just does its bidding. So this is the first step in an American proxywar, with the Israelis acting as the Ukrainians, the American proxies, and so I guess Bibi is just an aging Zelensky.

But it’s not really Trump’s fault either, because he’s also just a puppet, it was planned long ago (the usual collection of benchmark moments during the half-dozen years leading up to 9/11, one assumes: A Clean Break, PNAC’s Rebuilding America’s Defenses, Gen. Wes Clark’s seven nations in five years, etc). Just as I assume it wasn’t Obama’s fault for doing the nuclear deal, which was just cover for this attack and nothing more, suggesting that deal, its undoing by Trump I and then its renegotiation by Trump II (and not Biden) was all part of the master plan.

By the time he gets to Syria he’s neck-deep into theyisms and we never do hear who they are. And Harris would have done exactly the same thing, because she’s also a puppet of “them”. Now, this leads me to the unavoidable conclusion that he’s talking about the Jews generally and the neocons more specifically, because Kamala is a puppet of the Jews, but later on they seem to clear up that confusion:

So antisemitism is just war propaganda, because Iran loves the Jews, including its own current 10,000. I won’t swear by this map, but it confirms that 10k one always hears…

…but it also says that population was 150,000 before the formation of Israel and the war that accomplished that. Mercouris says these Jews consider themselves to be Iranian, which I guess is the method of dealing with the sticky “dual loyalty” problem, and it may be true given that 14 out of 15 Jews there apparently have expressed their dual loyalty and left, most surely to Israel. Or were they driven out?

But what about former president Ahmadinejad and Holocaust denial and all the rest? Hasn’t E. Michael Jones gone to multiple conferences held in Iran which openly addressed the Jewish Question? Why are these guys pretending that things are different than we all know they are? That Iran is well-known as a place where one can actually address the Jewish Question and not simply be taken out and shot reputationally?

What is clear is that they are distancing themselves from the remotest suggestion that Berletic’s “them” is the Jews, it most definitely isn’t the Jews or anything like that. Which leaves the obvious question, who are “they” anyway? One can assume if pressed it would inevitably go to the usual villains: the CIA, the MIC, maybe Big Oil, etc. Or perhaps ethnically-cleansed “neocons”/”Zionists” Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Killary, Kerry, Pompeo, Bolton, Biden, Rubio? Which would be an incredibly superficial examination of US global politics.

Worthless. Speaking of worthless, here is how Glenn Greenwald dealt with his previous night’s prognosticating on war with Iran last Friday:

So he excuses his and Mills’ blue sky optimism on an attack on Iran as “quite reasonable” while also downplaying the extent of the blunder (Mills was very clear that he did not believe Trump would approve such an attack), and he’s also clear on the deception involved by Trump himself. But after having the weekend to think about it, he went in an interesting direction earlier this week on Rising Points, talking about (Jewish-controlled?) media propaganda:

Now, apparently Greenwald himself was fooled by this media propaganda, having pushed the idea that there was a rift between him and Bibi, and that he was negotiating a new deal with Iran over Bibi’s objections. Even though he’s saying this is a lesson we all should have learned long ago, as an expert on such things.

But then he proposes a hypothetical which he claims he doesn’t believe, that Israel initiated this attack over Trump’s objections. And so Trump pretended to have been in on it all along, so he wouldn’t look stupid or weak. Why is Glenn floating this, if he doesn’t believe it’s what actually happened? Because it plants a seed that the president of peace isn’t a deceiving warmonger after all, he’s just another victim of Israeli deception. That’s not intended to attack Israel, it’s to preserve Trump as the voice of oppositionalism in our government, something Greenwald was promoting during the election process and has become foundational to the worldview he’s selling.

He can only take so many hits to his “journalistic” judgment. And so he goes to the shelf to pull out tested, reliable concepts, starting with the CIA Mockingbirding the mainstream media 70 years ago. Lord knows he doesn’t want to be talking about our actual pathetic situation as it exists today.

Btw, Candy-O is also playing at this game, trying to preserve the Great Leader.

Moving quickly along, Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon did mutual appearances on each other’s shows to talk about the new war; I have not watched the War Room version although I have seen some clips, but I did watch the Fucker’s version, and here is how it started:

His intro also frames Trumpism as oppositionalism in America, just as slavish Tucker-wannabe Greenie does, that Trump has broken the divide and now it’s the ‘Tards against the establishment. That’s both Trump’s and Bannon’s brilliance here, going back to the 2016 election, understanding the moment and exploiting that, no matter how dishonest and deceptive as that was.

But this is the amazing coalition, which is compared to FDR. In the 1932, 1936 and 1940 elections FDR got 57.4%, 60.8% and 54.7% of the popular vote; in his three elections Trump has gotten 46.1%, 46.8% and 49.8% of the vote. Tucker spins the FDR coalition largely based on the difference between party politics then and now, mainly related to the Dem solid south that was the core of the party in the 1920s and now is the core of the GOP, and neither of these guys says why that coalition lasted so long - it was responsive to the plight of the working man and his family, the average American, and it built the great middle class.

Tucker says Brooklyn, Butte and Birmingham, how did that happen? Well, Birmingham as the heart of the Jim Crow south was still a blue given in 1932, Brooklyn was the center of the other shade of blue and up in arms over Hoover’s capitalist depression, and Butte went along because it was an ocean-to-ocean landslide. But by 1940 the great plains states were back in the GOP column, although Montana wasn’t; that wouldn’t happen until Ike in ‘52.

In purely political terms, that FDR-to-LBJ coalition came apart largely because of one thing - the cultural Marxist social revolutions of the 1960s and ‘70s, which is why the Reagan revolution in the 1980s could start deconstructing all that progress going back 50 years. And in its place were installed the other two pillars of Jewish power in this century, neoliberal economics and neoconservative foreign policy.

If Trump/Bannon were building the same kind of anti-establishment coalition they would have roped in the Occupy crowd on the left and not just the Tea Partyers on the right. But Hollywood Steve had made a film slandering Occupy in 2012, Occupy Unmasked, and here is what Michael Tracey had to say about it then:

Writing in The Nation, Michael Tracey allows that it would be possible to sensibly criticize some aspects of the Occupy Movement, but nonetheless characterizes Occupy Unmasked as "total fantasy" and "a deranged hodge-podge of bizarre memes, wild dot-connecting and unadulterated fury."

No, those people went to Sanders instead, and to the extent they voted for Trump in 2016 it was really a vote against Clinton and the Dems who stole their moment of glory. But in some sense this was the rebirth of the Brooklyn-Birmingham-Butte alliance, if only because of Nixon’s southern strategy and Bernie’s soft socialist oppositionalism.

Back to the matter at hand, when Bannon talks about his three planks of MAGA it’s these same three things - end the neocon wars, end and reverse open immigration, and end neoliberal free-market globalist economics.

But when it comes to the Jews it’s basically “I love Israel!” by Bannon, and Tucker the Fucker concurs - it’s the deep state, stupid, which here sounds like a combination of the notorious intelligence agencies and the even more notorious “them”. And we’re all relying upon Pete “Day Drinker” Hegseth, Kash “Only” Patel and Dan Bon Jovi…

In the middle of this discussion they do a long jam on the CIA, having as much fun here as they did anywhere in the discussion, which is odd considering there is a vague framing of this as the big threat to America, the core of the deep state. They come out of that talking about Tom Cotton and the JFK files, before getting to Lindsey Graham:

They seem awfully confused about Miss South Carolina, given that everyone really should know that his goal was to replace John McCain as the biggest neocon-sucking goy warmonger on the GOP side of the senate. This one photo says 10,000 words, Lindsey sandwiched between the biggest Zionist donors to the two parties in this century. Lindsey likes to be the meat in a blue sandwich.

It’s amusing that Tucker described closet-job Lindsey’s behavior as “florid”, though. 😄

After a bit on goy non-neocon Pompeo they circle back to flowery Lindsey, and Bannon’s answer is basically the military-industrial complex. Those two guys with Graham are not the CEOs of Raytheon and General Dynamics, Steve.

In this we hear Bannon spinning tall tales everywhere, things like Biden not backing Lina Khan’s efforts to de-monopolize Silicon Valley when it was Trump who fired her, surely at the behest of people like Peter Thiel. Gail Slater’s route to the administration went through Shady Vance, who is Thiel’s protege. It’s all bullshit.

Then he gets to China and their assumption of neoliberalism in the ‘90s and today they have even more billionaires than the US does, a raging success in terms of what neoliberalism really is, a tool for building an oligarchy. But instead Bannon spins it as a kind of communist infiltration into America, classic right-wing propaganda, an old set of clothes on the actual perpetrators. The promise of Trump may have been to break that, but the reality of Trump is a reinforcement of exactly that. Which is why the Bernie tour is packing them in across the country.

They circle back to the “forever” (neocon) wars as they looked in 2016:

“They became the head of the World Bank“ There’s no question that he’s talking about Paul Wolfowitz there, the most powerful Jewish neocon in the Bush administration as Deputy Sec of Defense right under Rumsfeld, who was made president of the World Bank in 2006 after Iraq had gone bad. But he goes unnamed, and instead we get a series of theyisms from Bannon and a story about Mike Pompeo from Tucker, before we’re back to the three pillars of Jewish rule. What this reminds me of is the flawed neoconservatism history piece written by the Jew Ron Unz two years ago which I dissected in a two-part article, and in that he named Pompeo nine times, more than anyone, with Wolfie in second I believe, at four times. Here is the second part of that piece, which starts at Bush the Lesser and includes the stuff on Wolfowitz and Pompeo:

Tucker tells the story of Bill Kristol turning against Trump in South Carolina, as much of a face on neoconservatism as existed at that time and the son of the father of neoconservatism Irving Kristol, but reminds us that he worked for Bill for years at the Weekly Standard, the official rag of neoconservatism.

Which gets to the point that these guys know Jews and neoconservatism as much as anyone, sloppy Steve having worked at Goldman Sachs, in Jewish Hollywood as a producer, and with the Jew Andrew Breitbart at Breitbart News. So when they avoid that subject, it’s either intentional or they are so soaked in Jewry at this point that they’re the fish in the deep blue sea who don’t know they’re all wet.

Instead they drop right into those theyisms - “They think that playbook works”.

So here is a bit of that South Carolina debate, where Trump is first asked about foreign policy:

Jeez, that doesn’t sound like a peace candidate to me, an anti-interventionist. So what does he say there? He says we need to hit ISIS hard in Syria, and this is the guy who we just saw schmoozing with the ex-al Qaeda operative now running Syria. He says we had to end the Obama Iran nuke deal, one of the worst deals he ever saw, and he’s been trying to negotiate a new one which, surprise, looks likely to be very much like the one Obama did - or it did before Bibi took out their top negotiator and a lot of other people, that is, ending the talks and likely for good. And finally he said we should seize the oil militarily and just keep it, which sounds awfully imperial to me, simply stealing other countries’ resources.

Then came the Don's current Sec of State, and he’s the one who rightfully raised China, the pivot to the east, although that pivot shouldn’t be militaristic. Then he throws in Iran and Russia, which indicates that he had then been lining up to be Graham’s successor as the biggest neocon-sucking goy warmonger on the GOP side of the senate - the GOP always has a succession plan.

That Tucker clip ends with the aligning of the GOP establishment with the Dems on the three pillars, and more extreme right bullshit - 10M illegals came into the country under Biden, and they all gotta go. 10M might be about right on total illegals/undocumented, but they have been pouring in for decades, under both parties. Pew said there were 11M as of 2022, but this was down from a high of 12.2M in 2007, under Bush II.

More from Bannon on Trump, as successor to Monroe on US domination of the western hemisphere:

After doming off the Americas, Bannon describes Tucker as a combination of Chamberlain and Hitler, an antisemite and an appeaser. We’ll hear more on that theme.

Then it's the evil specter hovering over the capital, and it’s not clear if that’s the Dems or the “them” centered in the CIA. Now, you can assume that these guys really are talking about Jewish power but won’t say it because that would be like releasing your own guillotine blade. Or you can assume they really understand that, but largely ignore it and instead use that as a kind of scary but undefined menace to push what is a rather extreme form of Republicanism that contains elements of libertarianism, Bircherism, paleoconservatism, maybe fascistic nationalism, but definitely not neoconservatism or neoliberalism.

I should say the opposition to neoliberalism isn’t remotely opposition to capitalism or any embrace of economic regulation, rather it’s about the state interjecting itself to protect certain industries and essentially their captains, which we have clearly seen in the first four months of the administration.

The big problem is that in the end the enemy is basically the centrist Democrats, which encompasses even a mild form of leftism, let alone anything more radical. That the GOP establishment surely is included in this makes it seem to be non-partisan, when it’s really just right-wing extremism. This is the flaw we saw right at the beginning, when Bannon tried to frame Trumpism as outside of the left/right partisan divide, essentially as the entirety of oppositionalism, when it is not. That was harder to see in 2016, which it seems everyone wants to focus on, but it’s readily apparent today.

In the middle of that Tucker tells the story of Ari Fleisher, Bush’s Jewish neocon press secretary during the run-up and into the second Gulf War, who pushed the WMD lies as Bannon adds. His mother was a Holocaust “survivor” immigrant from Hungary, and they were Democrats who were horrified when son Ari did the full neocon shape-shifting thing.

Bannon tries to convince Tucker that he needs to get in that door and exert his influence, because Bannon himself is one of the banned. Not just to break the neocon hold on the presidency of course, but to shift the spin toward this collection of propagandistic mythologies that can be sold as non-partisan oppositionalism when it’s anything but that. The ship is heading in the right direction, he thinks, or rather it was before it hit the iceberg of Iran, it just needs a subtle course correction.

In general there is a battle over Republicanism going on that is similar to what happened in the 1990s, except the difference then was the Great Communicator Leader had already left office and his successor was about to be defeated, in part by that civil war. Today the Great Leader is in power, and so the battle is over who can get next to him and influence him in his aged state to adopt their philosophy and policies before he fades out completely. In some ways it looks like the “elder abuse” we just saw on the Dem side, except there wasn’t much of a civil war over there, that’s been decided.

Perhaps the most bizarre moment in this discussion was when Bannon was talking about what Trump was doing in his second term and then went on to talk about what he’ll need to do in his third, as if the constitution doesn’t exist, without Tucker batting an eye. These people don’t care about anything but raw power - it’s not a democracy, it’s a republic!

Tucker came up in a segment on TMR on Wednesday:

What this immediately reminded me of tactically was Douglas Murray astoundedly grilling Dave Smith on not having ever been to Gaza. I only heard someone say the day before I watched this that Iran has 90 million people, and had anyone asked me to guess how many there are before that I probably would have guessed about half of that, around the population of Ukraine, given that it seems to be very inhospitable terrain, arid mountains and deserts, goat-herder country and not exactly the breadbasket of Asia. It matters, but do we know that Tucker has long known this, or did he find out recently and used it as a gotcha question? That he knows it’s 92M and not 90M suggests he’s checked recently (its wiki says 92.418M).

Which is not to say that Cruz likely having no idea how many people live in Iran isn’t problematic for a senator pushing for war with that country. Quite possibly he had no idea how many people lived in Ukraine when that war started three years ago, and that number was actually pretty important.

Before that, the attack on Tucker, and the entire right, is based on racism, the core concept in cultural Marxism since the civil rights movement kicked off that new form of leftism (the New Left) after WWII and the red scare. But in this case it’s also the tip on that spear, antisemitism, as Sam teaches us that your problem with Israel can be that it’s a generic ethno-nationalist state, which is just a great view to have, or that it’s the Jewish state exhibiting the same disgusting behaviors, which is simply a bigoted view, but what you can’t have is a combination of both. The evidence presented is South Africa, the assumption being that everyone on the right was behind white supremacy in that case.

But not being able to combine the two leaves a problem, and that’s the level of Jewish support for Israel in America and the impact of that. Because a generic ethno-nationalist state won’t have intense advocates for it over here, because no one is intensely generic. The Jewish part is absolutely critical to the matter of Gaza in American politics, to suggest otherwise is absurd. If we were talking about a right-shifted newly-apartheid Swedish state committing internal genocide of its Muslim immigrant population, for example, and then out of nowhere attacking Denmark under some fallacious rationale, America wouldn’t be all in on backing the dastardly Swedes.

Well, maybe Trump would, because that would open the door to seizing Greenland…

Now, there was an open argument between Cruz and Carlson on Tuck’s antisemitism that I won’t bother with, because Cruz should be right and Tucker should be wrong, the absolute opposite of what oppositional America interprets this as - Tucker should be openly talking about Jewish control over the US government and Cruz should have to defend that. Instead Tucker comes off as righteous because, at least technically, he’s not doing what Teddy Ballgame is accusing him of, which is that addressing the actual American power structure is inherently bigoted, an absolutely bizarre notion.

In other words, what Tucker was trying to do was to take the Jewish Question off the table, when where it belongs is right in the middle of that table.

In the Rising Points segment on this interview on Thursday, Cigaar said:

“This is part of a years-long campaign, and especially since October 7th, to conflate Zionism and Judaism itself with the state, which by the way is antisemitic.”

So “conflating” Zionism or Jewish nationalism, the exclusive faith of the Jews of Judaism, and the Jewish state resulting from Zionism, is antisemitic? Under whose logic? How can one possibly hope to extract these three things from each other, all being so deeply embedded in the culture of an ethnic group of 15-20M people?

Krystal had already answered that question:

“First of all, no one said anything about ‘the Jews’. We’re talking about a foreign government. And actually it’s quite antisemitic to conflate every Jew with this foreign government, if you want to talk about actual antisemitism.”

*Sigh* We’re always right back to where we started…

All you need to do is to find one Jew who has been in a coma for the last decade and that absolves “the Jews” from any responsibility for current events. More than three years after the start of the Ashkenazi revenge war in Ukraine and this is where we are, seriously??

And in the second half of this segment they go completely off on Christians, after playing Tucker’s probing of Cruz’s idiotic religious justification for supporting the Zionist state militarily. It’s fair to do that, especially if one brings the Scofield bible as Jewish Zionist propaganda into it (they don’t), but the problem is how one-sided this looks after tip-toeing around the Jews and antisemitism so very, very carefully. No one says this is anti-Christian bigotry because you can easily find millions of Christians who don’t believe this shit, just starting with the Catholic Church.

In listening to the whole interview I’m struck by all the things they say which won’t get highlighted in the oppositional media. Example: at one point Cruz blames the LA riots on Bass and Newsom and says, “When you elect communists who hate America… you get what you get on the street”, and Tucker responds, “Amen, I agree”. I’m not going to get into LA Bass as a NorCal guy, but you can only see Newsom as a communist if you’re a fascist or some other form of right-wing extremist. This guy is a classic Clintonite centrist, and communism - extreme political Marxism - is long dead anyway. What Cruz was doing was throwing red meat to the animals in the cages on his side of the aisle, just as when Dems start harping on racist white supremacist Nazis on the other side. And Ted and Tuck aren’t that different.

Their discussion on AIPAC and FARA was interesting, because what Cruz describes regarding the funding he receives is the AIPAC donor network of individual contributors which was empowered by McCain-Feingold 20 years ago, which increased the individual limit per candidate from $1000 (the number Cruz mentions) to $2300; it’s now $3300. You know who McCain was, and Feingold is a Zionist Jew.

Their debate on FARA had me wondering if the core problem is how that law was written, which perhaps does allow for the leakage involving Jews and Israel. But the core problem isn’t AIPAC or FARA, it’s the size of campaign contributions allowed combined with Jewish unique levels of dual-loyalty. Again, this is an area where Tucker needed to force Cruz to defend the notion that talking about Jewish behavior is antisemitism and not hide behind these acronyms and hop back instinctively every time Teddy said he had a toe over that thin blue line.

Oh, and Teddy Ballgame doesn’t even know what AIPAC stands for. And Tucker thinks we should immediately nuke Iran if there’s evidence that they're trying to assassinate the Great Leader Trump (do you agree?). I thought the most interesting part of the discussion was on Ukraine, where Tucker ultimately kinda messed it up by constantly changing the focus and then moving on. And I am coming out of this conversation more conflicted over who was right and who was wrong (or rather who was wrong more of the time) than I expected. Maybe it’s just Tucker’s irritating snarkiness… 🤭

At this point I’ll switch from gutless goys to Jewish voices on this new neocon hot ethno-war, starting with Emma’s Saint Bernard and his statement this week:

What’s interesting here are two things, first something that Sanders has been criticized for many times, which is to personalize Israel’s actions to Netanyahu, as if having a different prime minister would change Israel’s behavior materially. It wouldn’t. The second is that he never acknowledged the Trump administration’s involvement in this war so far, acting as if the US has nothing to do with this. He also refers to “another Netanyahu war” instead of another neocon war, and that’s also in denial of Bibi not being PM when Iraq happened. So as is typical of Bernie, it all might sound good on the surface, but it’s really fairly pussified underneath. Ol’ Bernie just doesn’t have his heart in dumping on the beloved Jewish ethnostate.

Next let’s go to the Jewish-American Princess Bari Weiss of the Free Press and a guest analyst, Michael Doran, about whom she says is “in my world as big as Beyonce”:

Okay, so this guy is clearly thrilled about what’s just happened, and who is he? He's senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, and before that he was the same at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy within Brookings, which was founded and funded by Haim Saban, the dualie who you just saw in that photo with Graham and Adelson. Doran was on the National Security Council under Bush and supported the invasion of Iraq.

So what is the Hudson Institute?

Hudson Institute is an American conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C. It was founded in 1961 in Croton-on-Hudson, New York, by futurist Herman Kahn and his colleagues at the RAND Corporation. Kahn was a physicist and military consultant known for envisioning nuclear war scenarios… Hudson Institute was founded in 1961 by Herman Kahn, Max Singer, and Oscar M. Ruebhausen. Kahn was a Cold War icon, often interviewed in magazines, who was purported to have the highest IQ on record and partly inspired the 1964 movie Dr. Strangelove. In 1960, while employed at the RAND Corporation, Kahn had given a series of lectures at Princeton University on scenarios related to nuclear war. In 1960, Princeton University Press published On Thermonuclear War, a book-length expansion of Kahn's lecture notes. Major controversies ensued, and Kahn and RAND parted ways. Kahn moved to Croton-on-Hudson, New York, intending to establish a new think tank that was less hierarchical and bureaucratic. Along with Max Singer, a young government lawyer who had been Kahn's RAND colleague, and New York attorney Oscar Ruebhausen, Kahn founded the Hudson Institute on July 20, 1961.

Kahn was the son of Jewish immigrant parents from Poland. He was recruited to Rand by Samuel Cohen, the son of Austrian Jewish immigrants, who is considered to be the father of the neutron bomb. Here is the beginning of Singer’s bio on the Hudson website:

Max Singer was a Senior Fellow and Co-Founder of Hudson Institute. He was also at the BESA Institute of Bar Ilan University in Israel, and served as Research Director of the Institute for Zionist Strategies in Jerusalem. He founded Hudson Institute with Herman Kahn in 1961 and served as its president until 1973. From 1974 to 1976 he was managing director of the World Institute in Jerusalem, and from 1977 to 1978 he was director of the Institute for Jewish Policy Planning and Research of the Synagogue Council of America.

If you saw the Netflix series on the cold war and paid close attention, you noticed Daniel Ellsberg talking about his days at Rand and Kahn…

…and another guy of real note:

While at Rand in LA his high school daughter dated young Richard Perle, and Wohlstetter also taught at the Univ of Chicago, where he was Paul Wolfowitz’ mentor - he knew Paul’s father while in NYC in his new immigrant days. He and Leo Strauss, also on the Chicago faculty, were the earliest buds on the tree that became neoconservatism. Wohlstetter went on to be the intellectual source for the CIA’s Team B in 1976, run by elder neocon Richard Pipes, that developed the more aggressive anti-Soviet strategy alternative to Nixon’s detente that took over under Reagan in the 1980s.

On the matter that ended Kahn’s relationship with Rand:

Kahn was a poor writer and with the assistance of several ghostwriters turned his lectures into his known book, On Thermonuclear War, which was published in 1960. On Thermonuclear War angered several of his colleagues at the Rand Corporation, whom felt he plagiarized their ideas in his book. When Kahn presented a draft of On Thermonuclear War to Albert Wohlstetter for comments, the latter told Kahn: "There's only one thing to do with this, Herman. Burn it!" In On Thermonuclear War, Kahn put forward what came to be his "most notorious idea", the Doomsday Machine, a computer that would set off an enormous stock of hydrogen bombs that would end all life on Earth if there was a nuclear attack on the United States or if there was an attempt to deactivate it. He argued that no-one would attempt to attack the United States if it possessed the Doomsday Machine, which serve as a deterrent, which would thus preserve the peace. However, he admitted that there was always the possibility that a few "coding errors" in the computer might accidentally set off the Doomsday Machine.

The smartest Jew in the whole damned world and that’s what he came up with, a means of destroying the whole damned world. Hmm… that must mean something…

Later on Doran psychoanalyzes Trump… and Tucker:

So Tucker is simply an antisemite, because he’s saying there’s a cabal of Jews who are dragging America into all these wars. These neocon wars, neocons being Jews and neoconservatism being a Jewish political philosophy of militaristic aggression against the past and present enemies of the Ashkenazim, Iran and Russia being at the top of that list.

While these two celebrate what is very likely a new American entry into yet another war, if it isn’t already that, and undeniably started by the Jewish state. Maybe the problem is “cabal” and not “Jews”? 🤔

The only problem with the Tucker talk with Bannon is that I never heard that, I heard absolutely nothing about the Jews dragging America into another war. All I heard was some stuff about loving Israel, and the CIA and MIC and deep state and goys like Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton and Mike Pompeo. And them, there’s always the Them. But wait, he did say “World Bank”, which implied Paul Wolfowitz, so maybe that was enough?

It’s really too bad that Tucker didn’t erase all doubt, like Phil Giraldi did eight long years ago, and again three years ago.

By the end Doran makes it completely clear that he views Trump to be superior to Obama and Biden and especially Harris in terms of reliability in correctly handling this latest escapade of the National Socialist Party of Greater Israel led by Bibi. Because the Dems always have this one weakness, which is the morality question, the very reason that the baby neocons abandoned the Dem left over the course of the ‘70s to regroup inside the Reaganite GOP in the ‘80s. When push comes to shove the Republicans tend not to get so squeamish, which is born out in that polling on Israel, a clear majority of Democrats (pre-assault) being critical of Israel and a clear majority of Republicans not.

I’ll close this out with the intellectual voice of Jewish Hollywood, always choosing his words so carefully when it comes to matters of Jewish supremacy:

So a new twist - poor Israel is having to assume the burden of a war that America should have fought for them years ago, the logical extension of Wesley Clark’s seven countries in five years that concluded with the big prize of Iran. That was in the weeks after 9/11, which means the US should have initiated this war by 2006, according to Wolfowitz & Co inside the Bush Pentagon. Instead Wolfie was off to the World Bank and globalist neoliberalism, because they had tripped up over WMD so obviously in Iraq. Absolutely appalling that this has drifted almost two decades beyond that initial scheduling.

Sam says the nuke that Iran apparently isn’t working on will be dropped on Tel Aviv as soon as it’s completed, a sort of Los Alamos Trinity East (leave it to a Jew to name the first nuclear explosion after the Christian conception of God), but we don’t get the details because the paywall comes first - for the Jew, making a profit on their propagandizing is always the frosting on the cake…

But it was important that Samuel said, “we being the United States”, because otherwise the “we” in a discussion with his business partner Tom Bradystein might have been interpreted as meaning the Jews, and we all know that interpretation would be stepping out onto the slippery slope to rabid antisemitism. 😳