Skipping More Stones Across the Joo-Bloo Pond

More snapshot moments in our interesting times, including eMike on Tuck the Fuck and the "alt-left" on their new Mom Dani

My last couple articles focused in large part on Tucker Carlson and his great debate with Ted Cruz, in one way or another, but one important person was MIA on that, E. Michael Jones, who was off in the wilds of Croatia and Maine attending to other matters, mainly his current American Identity project (which is mostly a war on Judaized Protestantism) including the associated book tour. But now he’s back, and of course has things to say about Tuck the Fuck and his well-meaning public failing:

Note that he mentions the Scofield reference bible, something Tucker, Glenn Greenwald and Kim Iversen failed to do when addressing Christian Zionism as I detailed in those pieces. He doesn’t make a big deal about it, I assume because he believes his audience is already well-acquainted with that subject. It ain’t news.

I don’t quite agree with the way Jones describes the dance with Cruz, as if Teddy was leading and not the other way around. The accusation of antisemitism was implied and not overt, and it didn’t enrage Carlson nor did it disarm him; in fact he purposefully extracted it from Ted. And eMike should be denying his sincerity, and not in any way describing him as innocent. Just my opinion.

But he’s generally right about what Tucker should have done, although focusing on “moral corruption” would be a problematic direction to have gone in. Practical matters of influence and power seem likely more accessible to the average person than calling the Jews evil or the like. He’s probably right that Carlson doesn’t really want to confront reality, and definitely right that reality is confronting the Jewish Question.

More:

The two factions of the right Jones describes is something you will hear of again here, but it’s flawed imagery in that these two factions are not remotely equal in magnitude. And Levin isn’t really the right face to put on the much larger one of them, as he’s really the face of the string-pullers behind the scenes, even if these string-pullers are increasingly emerging into the light of day. Cruz is a better face, the dumb goy selling out the nation for fame and fortune and ego gratification, or maybe even a ticket to heaven.

From there Jones waxes philosophical, which is simply a transitional state on the road to the theological. What we get here is the tripartite soul of Jones: Jew warrior, right-wing Republican, conservative Catholic. He’s happy to attack Protestantism, even to the point of accusing it of becoming homosexualized, but he frames the political battlefield with only one side included, the Republican right. Many times I have heard him say Thomas Massie is the only person in congress opposing these wars, when the Democrats include a number of such congressional figures.

His political war is with '“conservatism”, the corruption of the right going back to Bill Buckley which is otherwise right (meaning correct), and the left is almost so beneath contempt that it’s not worth mentioning. This too will become a theme here. As for Massie, his anti-war position surely stems from his libertarian beliefs, and Jones is no fan of libertarianism either.

The end of his rant does include both sides of the aisle:

Col. McGregor apparently has finally added the critical adjective “Jewish” to the oligarchic billionaires of our day, and he and Jones are both right that Republicans and Democrats are both controlled by Jews, and in the same basic ways - manna and heaven, money and closely-held beliefs. Then Jones slips into the mists of history and wanders back into the sanctuary of the church to get out of the cold and damp.

It’s like, yeah, the Jewish Question is the primary issue of our time, but wouldn't it be fuckin’ great if everyone was a conservative Catholic Republican?

Later on in the Q&A eMike tackles Tucker again, responding to an Aussie question that laughably includes an appearance of slippery Jeffrey Sachs (I dissected the Tucker interview of Sachs back in December in my piece Right Cross: Donald Dick Shifts Clownworld into Overdrive):

Again left vs right comes into it, and he’s absolutely correct about a major sin of the GOP right being its attachment to neoconservatism and in particular the middle eastern theater of that ideology. But he chooses to define the Dem left in theological terms, the sins of abortion and pornography, instead of tackling its true failing, the cold embrace of cultural Marxism as the last remnant of leftism, the worship of minority victim groups as if racism and sexism were America’s biggest problems in the 21st century.

Think of how much American politics would change if the Republicans abandoned Zionism and the Democrats abandoned racism as core ideologies.

Where we end up here is the same place as always, the three pillars of Jewish power in the 21st century, built on the foundation of wealth resulting from neoliberalism and the willingness to spend on politics which has always been there, and Holocaustism, the religious component to cultural Marxism, the holiest order of victim groups being the Jews.

The third leg is neoconservatism with its lazer-beam twin focuses being on hated mother Russia and the enemies of ancient mother Judea/Israel. And that is what has now divided the vocal activist elements of Trumptardian oppositionalism on the right, although not nearly so much the right proletariat, which we’ll also get to again here.

I will say I like eMike’s paradigm of the end of the 80-year third American republic (not included in his rant here), which had coincided with the rise of Holocaustism after the end of WWII. That kind of paradigm serves a purpose in framing history in a way that people can grasp, even if it doesn’t actually address cause and effect very well. It’s hopeful, but it also kind of allows people to sit back and watch, because it’s framed as inevitable. Judaized America can’t last beyond this year, the American empire will fall with her, and Israel can’t last beyond 2028 at most. Sorry, that’s not how the real world actually works, this is a battle and people have to fight in it to win in the end.

Switching sides of the aisle, something else of real importance happened this past week, and that was the shocking victory of Zohran Mamdani in the Dem mayoral primary in NYC. I am inclined to now see this as very important, because this is a Muslim who has been openly very critical of Israel’s behavior regarding Gaza easily winning a primary against a name Clintonite centrist who was backed by the Jewish establishment in Hymietown, the city with the most Jews in the world outside of Tel Aviv.

That isn’t nothing, and it’s absolutely the product of opposition to the sins of Israel rising on the Dem left. But it isn’t limited to the left, because the right can’t see a socialist-lite Muslim over there and not start screaming about jihadist Bolsheviks, the legacy product of the Reagan-to-Bush pipeline but built on older fears. Here Kyle Kulinski lays it out using examples:

On the GOP side Kyle uses the language of racism as the foundation of criticism, when the real issues on the right are political Marxism and Israel, again the cultural Marxism fixation on the left. It’s all bigotry all the time. His critique of the Clintonite Dem centrist establishment is somewhat more nuanced, and he does get to the heart of the matter - it’s the Jews, man.

More here from the KKK on the road in Sweet Virginia, scouting for good Trumptard lynching trees:

“My best friend Corin is Jewish.” This is as much as I’ve ever heard Kyle talk about the Jewish aspect of his upbringing in Westchester County, although I have certainly speculated about that. He offers up anecdotal evidence of the lack of connection between American Jews and Israel, which runs headlong into the statistical evidence of polling numbers, including these recent numbers:

Instead this kind of hard evidence becomes another form of bigotry, to say out loud what polling has reflected is simply antisemitic. Krystal builds her case by reciting all the Jewish influences around Zohran, including the very visible presence of Brad Lander, which brings me cold comfort. What she’s right about is the Dem base being ready for Dem politicians who speak out against Israel, the disconnect largely created by the “donor class”.

Trump’s shot is interesting, because his choice in the Russia/Israel dichotomy was to go after Zohran the communist and not Zohran the jihadist Muslim. Which I suppose is the more traditionalist route, harkening back to the neo-Bircher oppositional legacy of the John Birch Society going back 60 years.

TMR’s guest on Friday was Drop Site’s/Rising Points’ Ryan Grim, and he and Seder got into the Jewish face on anti-Mamdani oligarchy:

Ackman is of course the billionaire oligarch who has the plagiarist dualie wife whose designer projects at MIT were funded in part by Jeffrey Epstein, and whose husband came out of the woodwork to go after the Ivys’ willingness support freedom of speech on campus related to the Palestinian genocide, then mounted university presidential trophy heads on his study wall.

Steinfeld is the very image of the Jewish New Yorker, TV version, and Ritchie “with a T” Torres is the black Jew-sucker I recently covered in my piece The Underlying Sense of Horrendous Order in a Time of Chaos in a section titled The Proxywarrior, from his interview by the Judeo-activist Sam Harris. Once again, the rise of the Black-Jewish Alliance, and we know who holds the leash.

This is a reflection on the current state of Jewish power in America, that people like Ackman can do what they do so overtly, confident that the Jewish control is so great and the fear of the dreaded antisemitism accusation is so paralyzing that the goy will do nothing but shut off his brain to all he sees and hears. And, to a great extent, he’s probably not wrong.

Shifting gears slightly, Rising Points covered the recent Bernie sighting on Rogan, where they got into that paralyzing fear, this time felt by politicians:

There are two very separate pieces to this to consider. First, Bernie. Hamas is a terrible terrorist organization who committed a war crime, confirming that this is in fact a war, and Israel has a right to defend itself, but where does that stop? Once all the attackers were either dead, captured or back in Gaza, is that defense limited to getting their hostages and prisoners back? Hamas killed 1200 people, which is the Jewish/Israeli death count on that day; about 500 of those were active Israeli military, and of the remaining 700 some unknown number were killed by the IDF under the Hannibal Directive, maybe 100, maybe 200, maybe more, who knows.

Bernie then says the Netanyahu government had no right to kill 52k people in Gaza, grossly underestimating the dead there, the latest study concluding that something close to 400k have been killed. He introduced a bill saying no more military aid to Israel “under these conditions”, which means that military aid will start up again once “these conditions” end, and I certainly have no idea what defines “these conditions”, given that his position is that Israel has a right to defend itself in some unstated manner.

Then he gets to the heart of the matter, but he says “moneyed interests” on the GOP side say you will be driven out of office if you oppose Trump, which I’m not clear that applies to Israel (think Musk), and the same on the Dem side if you oppose “the Netanyahu government”, which means Israel is not responsible for this, rather it’s just the Likud-led coalition now in power. That reflects a chronic Sanders problem widely cited, that he fixates on ol’ Benji and so excuses the rest.

What he’s right about is the corrupt campaign finance system, primarily founded on two things, the McCain-Feingold campaign reform legislation that increased the individual contribution limit considerably, and the Citizens United ruling that basically eliminated the good stuff in that financing “reform”. I will give Bernie some credit on that, because when he ran in 2020 when that limit was $2800 per candidate per race he proposed reducing it to $500 (it was $1000 before McCain-Feingold); now it’s $3300.

But the only specific finger-pointing Bernie does here is at AIPAC and their superPAC, which didn’t even exist until the ‘21-’22 election cycle. Their financial power came from their individual donor network. And Bernie could pursue campaign financing reform from his Senate seat, but I’m not aware that he has.

In other words, overall just another limited hangout, by the guy the oppositional left absolutely worships - fuck Bernie.

Cigaar is dealing with the sudden new reality, which is that MAGA Trumpland specifically and the right more generally is supportive of US militarism for Israel, the unquestioned GOP position going back at least a half century. That has come to light in two recent polls I’ve shown before:

Rising Points spun the first one just like so many others, boomers versus millennials, as if Gen-X doesn’t exist, but the real news there was the Dem-GOP split and the change in support for Israel by older Dems. The second, you can’t spin that anywhere, it says what it says about the Trumptard right, as plain as day.

What Cigaar does is to create this split between core MAGA, people like Dave Smith, Tucker and Candy-O, who oppose neocon wars, which he bizarrely labels MAHA (the RFK Jr ‘Tards? what about the Shmuley-sucking?) and the rest, who apparently make up 19 out of 20 MAGAites and are principally boomers, again with the ageism. He doesn’t claim it’s 50 or 60%, but he also doesn’t say it’s less than 5% of Republicans, which is surely the case. I mean, Glenn Greenwald is more closely aligned with this microgroup than Joe Rogaine, for fucksake.

This is an indication of what I speculated about in my last piece, that the current situation on the right has created a serious problem for the progressive-libertarian alliance model of RP, because the size of the anti-war crowd on the GOP “oppositional” right is becoming very clear just as that is exploding on the Dem left in general, in all age groups.

Btw, Grim SSweeted this last week:

This is a good point and also an example of why Breaking Points is a genuinely superior model for delivering accurate news to people. Because Emily Jashinsky & Saagar Enjeti engaged directly with Mamdani and his supporters early on, they understood what he was about and why people liked him, rather than trying to figure him out refracted through a Charlie Kirk or MattWalsh rant about sharia law.

…to which I responded:

C’mon, Ryan, that’s just the Progressive-Libertarian Alliance model at work, designed at the Hill to attack the Clintonite Dem centrists from the oppositional left and right. The NYC primary had no MAGA or GOP component, it was a straight fight between a Clintonite scumbag and a pro-Palestinian POC progressive and there was never any question where BP would come down on that.

The fact that new polling shows MAGA is all in on Trump’s warmongering in Iran is going to complicate the editorial decision-making at BP. Dave Smith has been a friend of the show as an anti-war libertarian Trumptard, but now he’s waffling on his criticism of Trump because he sees where the winds have been blowing within the base. The delicate model of your show, really designed in the beginning to benefit Trump and based on a problematic alliance between more radical left and right, is going to see some inevitable strain.

Especially as the centrist Dems, the original target of the show’s concept, abandon the battlefield on these wars for Israel, stuck between the party’s Zionist owners and its increasingly anti-Israel base. Good luck.

Ryan didn’t respond, of course. I hated using “Zionist” there at the end, but to say “Jewish” would have guaranteed turd-in-the-punchbowl status for what I had to say.

On the subject of right-drifting, libertarian-adjacent post-progressives, Kim Iversen discussed the Mamdani phenomenon with hardcore Paulite libertard Daniel McAdams of the Ron Paul Institute, and the heart of the matter here is how to play establishment Democrats and establishment Republicans in maintaining a consistent but audience-friendly narrative:

There were three things that McAdams said that really jumped out at me there. The one good one was toward the end when he said: “These are the people, these are the Jewish billionaires, who finance presidential elections, they are certainly going to finance a New York City mayoral election…” It’s good to hear someone on still relatively-mainstream independent media say it plainly. And Kim doesn’t react negatively to that.

The other two were in the first segment, starting with this: “I wish we could get rid of New York and California and all these places”. I see no indication that he was joking, and of course the places don’t matter to him, rather it’s the people who live in those places, which means significantly Democrats. If you get rid of “those places” you would be left with a very right-wing nation, let by Texas, which one assumes would be his nirvana. What is clear is that he’s not America First, because he doesn’t really consider “those places” to be part of America. He’s Republican Red America First.

Now, I suppose one could read this as getting rid of these places as getting rid of the “coastal elite”, meaning the Jews, since Jewish wealth and power is so rooted in these two states. But that would still be throwing out the baby with the pee-colored bath water.

The other was when he said. “…blue states and blue cities, let ‘em elect the stupidest socialists possible”. That certainly indicates that he thinks Mamdani is stupid on top of having the absolutely wrong politics ideologically, one assumes because he thinks libertarianism is what is smart. This also suggests the core of his libertarianism is economic, because the major aspect of socialism is more egalitarian economics. For someone who talks abut Jewish billionaires this doesn’t seem like a display of superior intellect to me…

What I’m saying is that McAdams seems to be the representation of the true nature of Paulite libertarianism, which is a blend of Jewish utopian right-wing economics and a John Birch Society worldview rooted in the 1950s cold war and the 1960s civil rights movement, individualism over collectivism in G. Edward Griffin terms. Sold using “freedom” or liberty, which has an unspoken dark side - how many leftists enamored with the idea of the PLA understand that the Paulites’ concept of freedom also includes the right of, say, the owner of a lunch counter to not serve blacks or the owner of a bakery not to serve homosexuals if they don’t want to? You have an absolute right to take it up the ass, faggot, but don’t count on being able to feed yourself in this town, whether it’s a grilled cheese sand or a homo wedding cake.

It’s a double-edged sword over on that side, lefty.

As for Kim, it was her reference to Mamdani as “the commie socialist” who the voters chose not because of his politics/policies but rather his lack of compliance with the Zionist imperative. That’s an odd thing to say for someone whose political activism was ignited by democratic socialist Bernie Sanders in 2016, who she also voted for in the 2020 California primary. Even after having supported Tulsi Gabbard to that point, one assumes primarily because she made the regime-change wars the centerpiece of her campaign while Bernie didn’t, and right now the right doesn’t seem like the greatest home for anti-war activism.

Kim also talks about the split on the GOP side, but nowhere does she say how overwhelmingly that leans toward Israel, based on this recent polling. What she does acknowledge is how clearly the anti-war/anti-Israel component of the Dem left has grown to now dominate that base. She generalizes how the Dem politicians are out of step on that, focusing on the Clintonite majority and not the Squaddy oppositional minority, which is still much greater than their brethren of the very few on the GOP side (Massie).

I stuck Greenwald in there as contrast, a post-progressive who doesn’t really define his professional politics beyond a short list of “principled” positions, taking the exact opposite position of McAdams on the broader political fortunes of someone with Zohran’s politics getting elected. Of course with Glenn there’s always the “Lovely Luigi” question, how much of a role his homo wood plays in impacting his judgment of young Zohran… 😉 But he’s a ghuy who has praised Paul as highly as anyone I’ve heard who isn’t an outright declared libertarian of the Paulite school, people like Ryan Dawson and Scott Horton, where the word “worship” comes into play.

The last look at Zohran comes from Sabby Sabs, a post-progressive who moved to the left instead of to the right, and so has a somewhat different view:

The tweet she showed there was from an article in Politico on May 20 that started with this:

Actor and activist Jane Fonda is the latest celebrity to throw support behind Mamdani, as campaign finance records show she donated $1,000 to a super PAC boosting his mayoral run.

But that was dwarfed by a $100,000 contribution from Faheem Zaman. It was the biggest donation by far to New Yorkers for Lower Costs, making up nearly half the $210,115 the pro-Mamdani super PAC has reported raising so far.

It wasn’t immediately clear Monday night who Zaman is, given limited biographical information available online. Neither the super PAC nor Mamdani’s campaign responded to a request for comment. Previous donors include actor and politician Cynthia Nixon and billionaire software developer Tom Preston-Werner.

Mamdani may need the help — a super PAC was filed Monday to oppose the democratic socialist’s campaign. Roy Moskowitz, an ad man and veteran of Staten Island Democratic politics, formed NYCU — which stands for New York City United — “to prevent the most antisemitic candidate ever in the most Jewish city outside of Israel from holding citywide office,” he told Playbook.

Sabby’s math is simple: if you support Mamdani you are just fine with superPACs conceptually, and if you are opposed to superPACs you shouldn’t support Mamdani, on principle. And there is a hard tie between “a grassroots campaign” and the opposition to any superPAC-enabled funding. It doesn't matter if someone gets money from, say, a superPAC created to push a specific policy which does not accept funds from anyone which exceed the individual donations limit, it’s still dirty money (Zaman’s donation does exceed that limit, of course, but not Fonda’s, unless NY election law is different than federal law).

Here is a story on Mamdani’s superPAC which includes this:

He has raised more than $3.4 million with public matching funds since his campaign announcement in October — much of that money coming in the form of small-dollar donations, which his team has touted as signs of strong grassroots support.

So why is Sabby up in arms over this? I will guarantee you it’s because Mamdani ran in the Democratic primary and so will run as a Dem in the election. If he was running as a Democratic Socialist candidate she likely would be supporting him as a 3rd party left candidate and so would never have mentioned this superPAC money. Because she HATES the Democrats. Mamdani might to some extent be the new face of an internal revolution against the Jewish-owned Dem establishment, and not a Jew like Bernie is or AOC has claimed to be. But she doesn’t care, because her stated position is that the party cannot change, so the only possibility for improvement on the left is its total failure and death.

This only has happened once in US history, in the 1850s when the Whigs died out and were replaced by the GOP, then the GYP. Two parties which weren’t actually all that different, and after the Civil War the Republicans imposed reconstruction on the south, which had its inevitable backlash, and unleashed the robber barons nationwide. This also suggests that she has no understanding of the American deep state, and no real understanding of specifically who owns the Democratic Party in this century.

In the process she refers to this as corporate money, implies that it’s shadowy Thiel money, and claims that Bernie and AOC never took any superPAC money, which at least in Bernie's case isn’t true from what I understand. Meanwhile Zohran’s major opponents take in millions in superPAC money, much of that in the form of shekels, if you know what I mean. So what's really important to Sabby the pro-Palestinian, anti-war progressive carving out a living in independent media while fighting for truth and justice, at least justice for black folks?

Which is where this segment goes - she says the DSA problem is that they focus only on class and not ethnicity, don’t spend enough time in the black ‘hoods, and so Eric Adams may actually win, like Marion Barry rising from the dead in DC. In other words, suck black dick or lose. Or in Sabby’s terms, ain’t no reparations in Zohran’s platform - wtf. Pay me or I’ll vote for the criminal I know, says the black community.

Later on she openly says her view was formed by the personal hope and disappointment embodied in the candidacies of Obama, Sanders and AOC. This is strictly personal, Sonny, it’s not business.

Now that I’ve turned to Sabby, let me end this piece by taking a listen to a discussion she featured involving Scott “No WMD” Ritter and Garland “No Dick” Nixon:

Scott is right that huge numbers of Soviet Jews bailed on the lands of the Pale after the fall - something like 90% of Ukrainian Jews either left, one assumes mostly to Israel, or changed their official identification. But I believe the con of non-Jews moving to Israel came later, when Likud was involved to boost their conservative base.

But he frames this as a kind of alliance and I don't think that’s really the case. Nixon throws in the oligarchs, but doesn’t say anything about them leaving unwillingly. That’s the story that gets told in the documentary The Rise and Fall of the Russian Oligarchs, made by Alexander Gentelev, a Soviet Jew who moved to Israel in the ‘90s. Here is a bit of the beginning of that 2006 film:

Those three oligarchs and the fourth one featured, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, are all Jews. Berezovsky moved to London under an Israel passport, Chernoy lived in Israel, and Gusinsky also had a home there, in addition to his villa in Spain and later a home in Connecticut. Khodorkovsky, once the richest man in the world under the age of 40, lived in a jail cell in Russia for nine years as a guest of Putin, then moved to Switzerland to shack up with his remaining billions, and later to London, passport unknown.

Here is part of Gusinsky's wiki:

In February 1996, in Davos, during the World Economic Forum, together with Boris Berezovsky, he organized a meeting of Russia's most prominent businessmen. The group met to decide how to support the Presidential bid of Yeltsin and to prevent the communists from returning to power. Further, the group contacted Anatoli Chubais, the creator and advocate of Privatization, and convinced him to lead and manage Yeltsin's presidential campaign.

The documentary shows that very moment between Berezovsky and Gusinsky at Davos…

…as well as the two of them with some of their other co-ethnic billionaire oligarch scumbags doin’ the Davos thang of plotting for greater power:

Fridman is a “Russian” oligarch who was born and raised in Lviv, Ukraine, Abramovich ended up in London and owned the Chelsea football club, and they both have gotten caught up in the war’s fallout, both suffering under western personal sanctions.

Here is the “other investments” section of Gusinsky’s wiki:

Gusinsky had a shareholding in the Hapoel Tel Aviv basketball team for a period of three and a half years, acquiring 60% of the team in November 2000. Until November 2008, Gusinsky held 27% of the shares in the prominent Israeli second largest newspaper Maariv, which he exchanged with Bank Hapolaim to settle a debt to the bank. He was one of the main forces behind the Moscow Holocaust museum, having lost several family members to the Holocaust.

I think we can draw certain ethno-conclusions from that, yes?

There is absolutely a deep history between Russia, Putin and the Jews that impacts the Russian relationships with both Israel and the US, but I don’t think these guys did a very good job describing that history or its ramifications today.

More:

That story Scott tells of his trip via Israel and Istanbul was during the height of the Turkish-US-Israel triangle in the ‘90s, which is part of the story told in the Sibel Edmonds documentary, made around the same time as Gentelev’s oligarch doc, which I featured in my last article Women. Here again is that clip:

Now replay that story in your mind with “Israelis” replaced with “Jews”, and you’ll be approaching reality.

Nixon gets unacceptably close to that reality when he asks who owns YouTube, probably meaning Google but also meaning the Jews Page and Brin. Sergey Mikhailovich Brin was born in Moscow in 1973. His family left the USSR in 1978 under the framework of Jackson-Vanik, imposed on the USSR as part of detente and driven by the baby neocons (Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Abrams) in Sen. Scoop Jackson’s office.

But this all flies over the head of Sabby, who is silently steaming over the hated Democrats, Sandersnista progressive or Clintonite centrist, for not supporting reparations for her fellow NDoSers. 😒 When she looked around there for “Israelis” I wonder if she noticed her producer EricT…

Me, I think the combination of Trump’s attack on Iran, the supportive MAGA reaction to that, the Mamdani primary victory, and reaction to that in both the Dem center and the GOP right has created an important moment in our process of moving forward toward addressing the Jewish Question. The action on that has suddenly amplified and also shifted from the right to the left in meaningful ways. I make no predictions on where it will go from here, but I feel like we have had a possible break from just watching blue glacial ice slowly melting, because the dynamics have suddenly changed.

And that hasn’t required a sudden boom in conversions to Catholicism, eMike… 😅