The Blue Greenie Doin' da Thang and Gettin' Done

Brazilian Bikini Boy Glenn makes hay on a strategic nocturnal release... as it were...

When I posted my last piece on Sunday that included a couple clips of Glenn Greenwald I didn’t realize that there were other videos of him circulating and getting many orders of magnitude more attention. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, to quote co-ethnic Steinfeld…

What I’m going to warm up with is one of the two subjects of that piece, the AJC double-tap in DC and how that’s being manipulatively played for strategic political advantage (I like inter-article continuity 😄). Greenie addressed it the night after it happened, in a long segment with the general subject being how the shooting was then already and would continue to be used rhetorically by Israel and its allies in the US, and he did touch on the ethno-religious question regarding the two victims, which is where this series of cuts starts:

So both victims were Americans according to Glenn, even though the male victim was actually of German-Israeli dual citizenship, and he pretties up the female victim by framing her as a good Israeli, kind of like his despicable buddy Batya Ungar-Sargon the settler dualie atrocity liar. Then we get the now-standard Christian Zionist spin including the Christian mother. So two Americans, one good Jewish and the other Christian with incidental Jewish blood and an IDF problem.

In the second clip Glenn establishes as a given out of the box that conflation of Jews with Israel, the Jewish state, is actually an antisemitic trope. So if you happen to be talking to a Jew and just randomly you wonder to yourself what he/she thinks about Gaza, you are a bigot and of the worst kind, almost a Nazi. Things get more hazy after that, but he says the distinction is very clear; the key phrasing in that is “blame all Jews”, because there are many Jews who are opposed to Israel and its actions. The only thing that’s clear there is that being anti-Israel isn’t necessarily being antisemitic, although it could be some of the time.

In the third cut he does a bit on victimhood that has interesting parallels considering subsequent events involving Greenwald. Then he reiterates that the male victim Lischinsky wasn’t Jewish because his mother was Christian, which to him makes her not Jewish, unless Glenn had found something I haven’t about her actual ethnicity, and/or has confirmed that she’s not actually a practitioner of Messianic Judaism, which like other forms of Judaism seems mostly reserved for ethnic Jews.

In the last cut note that he does not identify Weiss as a Zionist Jew, and why not? He made a real and repeated effort to make sure we know that victim Lischinsky was an American Christian Zionist and not a Jew, even though that description is more than half wrong - he was an Israeli, the son of Israeli parents one of whom is Jewish (which he does say, but that’s the one that doesn’t count) and the other of unknown ethnicity (to me anyway; she is simply identified as being Christian), and his family’s religion is Messianic Judaism, which its practitioners consider to be a form of Judaism even if the state and religion don’t - elevating Christ is like elevating Hitler I guess.

But Weiss, who is an American Jewish Zionist with obvious dual loyalty issues, goes unidentified. Why? Does Glenn just assume we all know that? Is it unimportant in her case? Is it antisemitic to point that out? A constraint that doesn’t apply to goy Christians, even if they’re not actually goy or Christians?

Then he claims Zionism is a new ideology, existing for “maybe 120 years”, which I guess gets us back to Herzl and 1896/97 but maybe not. Just to clarify this, here is the wiki on the timeline of Zionism, which goes back to the 16th century. What he really seems to be doing is to disconnect Zionism and the faith of Judaism, which in American terms is disconnecting Zionism and Jewry, because over here a Jew is someone who practices that faith, and not a blood member of an ethnic group.

Glenn continues to drag the IHRA definition of antisemitism into the matter:

First, I have never found any evidence that “Israel created” this definition, but plenty of evidence that it was created by Jews, and non-Israeli Jews. Glenn isn’t guilty of conflating there, he’s apparently guilty of lying. Sorry, I forgot that he’s an award-winning journalist - he’s apparently guilty of unknowingly being misinformed…

He doubles down on the “not all Jews” language here, which is rather shiftily worded with its “single Jewish person” inclusion - what matters is “group”, the upper limit on which in terms of numbers of course is undefined. So to say neoconservatism is and always has been a Jewish political movement, which I have repeatedly said, would likely fall under the category of antisemitic speech. And yet it indisputably is exactly that, a Jewish movement.

He then criticizes the contradiction he’s found, and he says you can’t hold Jews responsible for the acts of Israel - who’s responsible then, the two million Israeli Palestinian minority? The US government supposedly run by Euro-Christians? Of course Jews are responsible for the actions of Israel, it’s idiotic to say otherwise. What he is implying, one assumes, is that you can’t hold ALL Jews responsible for the actions of Israel, “collectively” presumed to mean “universally”. Where this gets us to is eMike’s distinction between “the Jews”, which is a political entity engaging in certain actions, and “all Jews”, which literally means every goddamned Jew and is an absurd notion to apply to anything political when there are 15 or 20 million such people.

Think of the logic of it this way: you can’t blame the American electorate as being collectively responsible for the election of Donald Trump, because some people voted for, say, Jill Stein. I guess we don’t have a democracy after all, because democracy requires unanimity?

Here is the IHRA definition edited to strike the Israel-specific stuff:

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).

Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.

Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.

There’s a lot of stuff there which is either typical discrimination concepts or criminal in the sense of causing bodily injury or property damage, which is framed as arising out of anti-Jewish bigotry. Okay, fine, I don’t have a big problem with that, if true.

But it’s the stuff in bold that troubles me more, starting with the disproportionate power of Jews in certain areas of American life. Start with economics and the power of Jews on Wall Street and in banking generally, and the number of influential Jews in academic economics, both including historically. Talking about that is simply antisemitic, and it doesn’t matter how true it is. The media, same thing. Ditto government, via campaign contributions, think tanks, etc., even if somebody like uber-donor, think-tank founder and media mogul oligarch dualie Haim Saban openly talked about all this as ways to influence the US government for the benefit of Israel (which has been erased from his wiki).

Next is the individual vs group thing, as if groups and their actions aren’t compiled of individuals and their individual actions. The logic of this also eventually gets us to the “not all Jews!” thing, which I already touched on.

Possible example: the Jerusalem Post article in 2016 that reported on a university-based study which concluded among other things that half of all contributions to the Democratic Party came from American Jews. To my knowledge that wasn’t reported on by any US newspaper, one assumes because it would be seen as antisemitic to do so. The logic behind that using this definition is that these are unique individual donations and not every Jew donated money to a political party, so you can’t accuse “the Jews” of attempting to buy the American political system. And yet we see ways in which that political system has been bought off every day, but we cannot talk about it, not really.

Then comes the Big H and denial, which I don’t need to get into, other than that it is a foundational element of the whole thing. And it’s not actually full-on “denial”, rather it includes exaggerations, which is the slippery slope. So saying “five million” is antisemitic, and it gets worse from there on down. Even though the Jew Raul Hilberg, the dean of Holocaust scholars, had a best estimate of 5.1 million within a range that fell below 5 million.

Then that is underlined by confirming that such things are criminal in certain countries, which really has nothing to do with defining antisemitism, rather it’s all about the threat to one’s individual freedom based on the work of the people who do define antisemitism. The Sword of Damocles hanging over your head.

All of that is the heart of the matter, but the only matter of open discussion and criticism is the Israel stuff. The assumption one could make is that if Israel was deleted all these people would be fine with the definition and the official use of it.

Before leaving this unholy definition matter, let’s hear further what Greenwald had to say about it on Tucker last week:

At the beginning he pretends to address the non-Israel part of the definition, using as his example Ben Shapiro’s dual loyalty, which isn’t exactly getting away from the Israel question, is it? So again, the only problem with the antisemitism definition is that it frames as antisemites all us anti-Zionists, which Jews like Greenwald also at least kinda is - pure self-interest on his part.

I assumed the movement he’s talking about there at the end is the MAGA movement, which he so admires, at least as he chooses to define it, which is selectively. But he may be talking about Jews, in which case his admiration shifts to his co-ethnics.

Enough of “journalist” Greenwald, let’s get to sexual pervert Greenwald - not the sordid details, but rather the conspiratorial cause of the outing:

Sabby been doin’ a lot of “negro!” lately - watch out, Jason, she comin’ fo yo black ass!

What she’s pushing here is an interesting twist on Jewish victimhood, these Jewish talking heads having been assigned a special place in hell by the Jewish state of Israel. But the fundamental nature of her theorem is that he’s being targeted by Israel and not that he’s being targeted by Zionist Jews (who have the same tech capabilities, btw), Israeli, American or otherwise. So is that in part because the “journalism” of these people so determinedly tries to separate Jews from Israel, it makes the case that conflating Jews and the Jewish state is essentially antisemitic? Or does Sabby not need their work to know that blaming Jews for anything is antisemitism?

The other thing that we see here is the dismissal of Greenie’s debauchery as irrelevant, he’s a grown-ass man and can do whatever he wants behind closed doors, including smoking off a crack/meth pipe or whatever. That bears no relationship to his work. This seems to be the standard left line coming from his supporters, which she gets to here:

So after clearly implying if not outright saying it’s Israel that did this, does she kinda imply Greenwald was attacked because he promoted black voices? If not, it at least explains part of the reason why she jumped to his defense, the BJA thing.

Regarding his other defenders, note that everyone mentioned is part of the post-progressive world, including Cigaar via his oppositional role on Rising Points. Interestingly, Bri (BJ Gray) filled in for Glenn on his show last week - as did Aaron Mate, which I found rather disappointing. But hey, he’s co-ethnic, so…

After that she goes on to praise Greenwald as a journalist, but the Sam Harris of 2015 had a different view of his journalism. I find the general tone of that old Kulinski interview rather nostalgic, as it reflects the nature of Twitterworld in its earlier days when it was still on the rise as a platform for political discussion. Or unsubstantial public pissing matches, which is how I saw it then as someone who rejected it from the start.

I don’t take Harris’ side in that debate, then or now, but he’s generally right about Greenie, I don’t think he’s a journalist or at least isn’t now, rather he’s a talking-head influencer, and a deceptively dishonest one at that. His reputation is hugely based on Snowden, and Sam is right about that, he was handed a shit-ton of stuff and then decided what to publish and what not to publish (which was most of it, something he’s been criticized for).

That established his chops as an oppositional figure regarding the national security state, which is the core reason he’s admired by a lot of oppositional folks today (that and the wars of course, which is more of a case of simple commonality), including progressives who should condemn his shadowy politics overall. It also gave him a voice of authority on that matter, having seen it from the inside, and so among other things gave him the ability to sell his Jew-free narrative on the censorship-industrial complex. Instead it’s always the CIA and the Clintonite Dems.

I should update Sam and point out that Greenwald is no longer a regressive leftist - his regression is now fully complete and today he lies entirely on the neo-libertarian right, from his soup to his nuts. 😁

I did check out other talking heads addressing the Greenie undressing, btw, making a quick search on YouTube, and everything I saw was right-wing, apparently the only ‘heads who want to make a mountain out of Greenie’s molehill (as it were). I didn’t know of many of the shows listed, so I picked out two guys I knew, Sargon of Akkad and Tim Pool (featuring Matt Walsh); I also listened to a pod discussion from Jason “Negro” Whitlock, to give him equal time.

Sargon started out praising Greenie’s journalism without qualification, he characterizes it as honest, and his criticism was based on the idea that these kind of private matters do speak to someone’s character, which in turn calls into question that journalistic judgment, but in the end he failed to connect the dots, saying this shouldn’t disqualify Glenn’s fine work. He said Greenwald was driven from the left, the Russiagate thing, which I don’t really quite believe - he jumped without that much of a shove.

The most interesting thing he said was this: “This has made him a thorn in the side of many of the great and powerful. They don’t like him because he actually does what a journalist ought to do, and investigates into their malfeasance. And then reports it apparently honestly, which is probably true. Personally I’ve never been disappointed in his reporting, and I’ve been following politics for quite a long time now.”

Maybe there’s a reason why I don’t follow Sargon. 😉 He did say he wasn’t surprised by Greenwald’s extra-curricular activities given that he’s gay, which is saying something that you will never hear from the leftist defenders. They just talk about it like it was garden-variety homosexual activity between loving, consenting adults, and let’s just not think about all the sordid details.

What Pool and his Walsh usage focuses on is the paid-for perversity and apparent associated drug use, that related to Greenwald’s adopted children and how they could be affected. I certainly have pondered for a long time what might be going on in his Rio compound, with the kids, various twisty hangers-on, the army of stray dogs, and his husband the beachboy who was 19 when they met, then half Glenn’s age, and having perhaps died of anal sex gastrointestinal complications of some sort. I really don’t have a beef with what was said generally on that, but again there was nothing critical about his journalism.

Whitlock and company’s take was unsurprising, although Jason was more detailed on the right-wing nature of some of Greenwald’s opinions. It was all more focused on morality and debauchery, as one might expect. What was most interesting here was a question posed to Jason about his inconsistency in views of Greenwald and ML King regarding that debauchery, and Jay’s response was that there isn't any inconsistency. He said he and one of his guests were going to be releasing a long discussion on King shortly, which interests me greatly - it will be right-wing Christian criticism, of course, but it would be interesting to hear how much of a role the homosexual Bayard Rustin and the Jew Stanley Levison play in it, if any at all. I’m pretty sure Rustin will at least be mentioned - a black homo-commie with lifetime Jewish ties (including neoconservatism at the end) is just too much to resist.

All of these presentations featured a little too much right vs left for my taste, but that's just what you get, on both sides.

So, on the non-judgmentalism mostly expressed as part of the left defense, but not only. Imagine if a pro-Israel nutter congressman of either party worked his kinkiness out at home by dressing up in an SS uniform and stabbing at stuffed dummies of Palestinian Arab ragheads with his “bayonet”, and a tape of that leaked. Would Glenn and his media supporters defend that in the same absolute, principled manner, would that just be his private life that shouldn’t impact the way people think about his public activism and responsibilities?

Imagine if that was Lindsey Graham in an Ilsa She-Wolf of the SS outfit…

Not that this would actually change anyone’s opinion of peculiar ‘ol Lindsey the Jewsucker… 😂

What would Sam Seder and the MR crew do to favorite whipping boy Bret Weinstein and his wife Heather Heying if a role-swapping sex video of them leaked, maybe involving unspeakable bluescreen imagery and maybe the family dog? Would they also be treated with kid gloves and fellow talking-head typical respect/disrespect? Would Sabby confidently speculate that it was evil Big Pharma coming after them for what they’ve been up to since covid?

TMR didn’t really talk about l'affaire du Vertie until forced to by a listener:

Seder is “Greenwald-aware” as some kind of charlatan, but maybe restrained himself because of the political incorrectness on the left for not doing so. At least Emma mentioned their “major disagreements”, which suggests they wouldn’t give Greenie an A on his vaunted journalism.

I did listen to Junk Wiggler’s diatribe on Greenwald after hearing this, as painful as that was (“Of coourse! OF COOOURSE!!!” 😖). He offered two theories going around at the beginning, the first that Greenwald is behind this, which he largely and quickly dismissed, and the second being that it’s the Israelis, and threw in the Epstein business, which he didn’t really latch onto either. What he did do is something like 15 minutes of theyisms, that this I guess is essentially a deep state operation conducted by “them”, and used Elliot Spitzer as an example, followed by a long retelling of his own story running for the Dem nomination last year, such a threat that the party and the media just had to quash his campaign. I nearly puked.

One of the things mention by some of these people was his interview with Tucker, which was prerecorded and then released the same day as the sex tapes, I believe. In it there was an interesting moment when discussing the AA 12-step, considering what followed:

I guess God’s savior Glenn was washing the feet of the downtrodden black poor with his tongue, while providing social welfare payments… 🤣🤣🤣

What Sabby and Sargon speculated was that the release of the sextape had something to do with the Tucker interview, that it would serve to distract from it. But what if the opposite was true, that it brought more attention to it, or at least that was the intention? And done when in fact the matter wasn’t discussed in the interview, because it hadn’t come down yet?

June is pride month, and this release couldn’t happen at a better time in terms of muting blowback on his perversions. And he’s on the road in the US currently, including to do that Tucker thing, and so hadn’t had to explain it all to his Rumble audience.

My impression of Greenwald has long been that he’s an ego-monster, raised by his Jewish mother and always proudly praised, the great debater in his youth, so smart that he’s always right about everything, and so little visible humility. Now throw in a little Jewish supremacy and a dash of homosexual narcissism and what do you have?

What I’m suggesting is that Greenwald himself may have arranged this tape release, to bring attention upon himself and as a statement on his Judeo-libertarian beliefs, that this sort of thing needs to be brought out of the closet and accepted in the same way that gay marriage has been, while creating a victimhood that can be used against those he despises. He may have misjudged that or the exact way of doing it, but an ego-monster is subject to those kinds of mistakes, because he always assumes he’s right.

The thing that jumped out at me in his post-release statement was this: “Though we do not yet know exactly who is responsible, we are close to knowing, and the motive was a maliciously political one.” It strikes me as very odd that he says “they” don’t know who it was but then says they are very close to knowing - if you don’t know who did something how can you know that you are close to finding out? Or that the motivation wasn't just political but maliciously so, whatever that means? If he said they had strong suspicions, fine, or that they have some strong leads and think they’re close to an answer, okay. But his wording does not sound like what a lawyer/journalist would say, someone who has been trained in care with selecting words. What it sounds like is someone who knows exactly what is coming next - because he controls it.

The “no dinger” comment in the TMR clip is just another piece of evidence to me (I have not seen the video and will not be seeing it) - it’s one thing to act out in a PG-13 video and it’s another to hang your schlong out in front of the whole world.

Btw, I came to this conclusion before I knew anyone else was thinking along the same lines, which I learned from Junk’s comment - I’m not specifically aware of anyone else who has suggested this.

So “they” did it, according to Junk. My best guess if I’m right and if Greenwald is “close to knowing who did it”, is that it won’t be Israel, in any form. Rather I think it’ll be either the Democratic establishment or the CIA, or both in cahoots. Because that better serves his real purposes, politically, reputationally, commercially and ethnically.

To close this part out and since I used Sam Harris to make my case, I’ll let TMR also have equal time to take their shot at the essential Harris this week, admittedly without the J-word:

Actually, there was a problem with two religions - remember that his first book was Letter to a Christian Nation. But these guys aren’t going to attack ol’ Samuel attacking Christianity, because remember Christianity is what created Zionism in the first place. Gotta keep the story straight and simple. 🤭

Odds and Ends

Marginally related to all this, I watched an interesting video from Rising Points with Greenwald’s Intercept co-founder Jeremy Scahill, bashing the MSM Jew Jake “the Snake” Tapper for what he said to the Jewish scumbag Harris-adjacent neo-atheist Bill Maher on his show (the subject of that last TRM clip):

The oppressor-oppressed paradigm is of course a product of cultural Marxism, which is all about oppressed victim groups, and the ultimate oppressor always comes back to whites, more specifically Euro-Christian straight males. Tapper’s gay protestors being viewed as oppressors based on so many of them being white is shifted to Palestein by making Israeli Jews white, the crypsis thing, even though both sides are micro-racially Semitic.

Scahill goes down the road of America’s clear-thinking youth not polluted by corporate media ops like Tapper’s CNN and instead listening to independent media like RP, a barely-modified offshoot of corporate media. But who has been polluted by that? The older Dem left crowd, who as I just discussed in my last piece have flipped on Israel more than any group and are (or were in March) only five points behind the more youthful Dem left crowd watching RP, the typical margin of error in polling. Huh - how did that happen? Maybe this media generational warfare narrative is bullshit.

Scahill ends this by saying Tapper’s era is done, which is clearly an appraisal of the traditional corporate media and its influence, but his era of oppressive Jewish Zionist activism is hardly over, and in a very real part because people like Scahill simply cannot bring themselves to say the quiet part out loud. Let me remind you that before co-founding the Intercept with Greenwald he worked for Amy Goodman at Ashkenocracy Now, where his journalism got its start. Lotta blue stain on young Jeremy.

After righty Emily reiterates the obvious, Scahill goes to the Progressive-Libertarian Alliance:

I think Scahill is wrong when he says the test of a commitment to free speech is when someone says something you disagree with - at least for me, the test is when someone is knowingly saying something that isn’t true, is lying, and for reasons that they won't admit to either. If you simply disagree with something someone says philosophically you can openly debate them, but if you believe that someone is engaging in deception, simply lying, that gets a lot more messy, the rules become blurred. Lying is a sin and it’s a crime, at least in a court of law where it constitutes perjury, but for some reason in talking head circles it seems to be a lesser offense to being on the wrong side of the political divide.

Go back and listen to Harris eviscerating Greenwald again - he’s essentially just calling Glenn a liar, even though he himself constantly practices deception. Our real speech problem isn’t the oppression of that, it’s the overabundance of fools and liars speaking, the Disinformation-Industrial Complex. Greenwald certainly has some good politics, but he’s also a fucking habitual liar trying to manipulate the body politic.

What is really happening there is that lefty Jeremy and righty Emily are uniting because the Jew Tapper is lying - but they won’t call that out as a lie, not exactly, and exactly because he’s a Jew. They will not say, they will never say, that these two Zionist Jews Tapper and Maher are getting together to deceive and propagandize the American people, as dual-loyalist motherfuckers. Just as Maher and Harris got together so long ago to trigger Ben Affleck into saying “shifty Jew” on national TV. The closest they would ever come is calling them Zionists, which of course we all know means Christians…

Then Krystal drags the Holocaust into the discussion kicking and screaming. 🙄 She starts out fairly close to the truthful reality when she talks about “people like Tapper and Israelis and defenders of Israel” abusing the oppressed narrative when they talk about H-victimhood. But then she goes totally sideways with the conflation thing, saying linking Jews and Israel is completely untrue - if, say, 5% or 10% of the world’s Jews don’t instinctively side with Israel generally, which is what polling suggests, does that constitute “completely”? This is classic “not all Jews” bullshit, that exceptions don't prove the rule when it comes to Jews.

Jeremy then feels compelled to underline Krystal’s flabby logic:

So we finally get the J-word from him instead of “people like Jake Tapper”, but it's about how so many Jews are openly opposed to what is happening in Gaza, and again we have the problem of polling running counter to the narrative being pushed here. It’s a little like defending Greenwald the perv because he’s ghey and it’s pride month, except that it’s J-month all year long, 24/7/52.

He also refers to European settler colonialism, imposed by the US and Europe, but Israel was created in the wake of the British abandonment of the Mandate, in large part because of the Jewish terrorism that they were being subjected to. They were also in the process of dismantling their empire and recovering from the war at home, so a startup colonial project sounds kind of dubious.

What he means of course is that a group of people came from Europe and settled there, taking as their land the land previously of the natives, a very simple concept. But is that really colonialism? Have Haitians colonized Springfield, OH? What he doesn’t mention is that land had not long before been colonial land of the Ottoman empire, which was then “the sick man of Europe”. Generalizing colonization on Palestein is a lousy way of characterizing the reality of it, unless your real goal is to avoid stepping on the Jew.

And then he mocks the idea that Israel equals Judaism, and says this war is an insult to Judaism when Bibi links them. When the math should be Israel equals Jews, and the indisputable fact that the Jewish faith has completely failed to do anything to put the breaks on the mass murder.

It’s all bullshit.

Eventually we’ll get to the point that, just as the Civil War was the war to end slavery or WWII should have been the war to save the Jews (but Christians failed that test), Gaza will historically become the culture war to save the Palestinians from the evil Christian Zionists.

Which leads me to close with this amusing moment on TMR on Monday, where they’d been talking about the Big Beautiful Bill, cuts to Medicaid and corn country senator Joni Ernst’s gutsy universal death prediction:

How did we get to Christian Zionism there? Technically it was this pathway:

1. Ernst used the citing of her lord and savior (Christ, not Trump) to weasel out of her stupid “everyone’s gonna die” response to a constituent in a town hall.

2. Off-camera Matt, the reformed Catholic, cites dick- and Jew-sucker Lindsey Graham wanting the mini-twitch puppet Greta to drown in the eastern Mediterranean, and blames that on right-wing Christianity.

3. He calls that Christian fascism but Emma corrects that to Christian Zionism, which should lead one to the “is Jewish Zionist ethno-nationalism really neo-fascism?” question. Instead she just stumbles a bit because foreign policy in the death camp of Gaza is a long way from domestic policy in the cornfields of Iowa. But she recovers by citing the Jewess Klein’s manipulative explanation of Zionism as hard-tied to Christian Zionism’s rapturous end times featuring millions of hellbound Jews. Boo.

And it crumbles on from there. But the evolved core mentality about the genocide is obvious. And who doesn’t get mentioned is also obvious to those in the know, from Samuel Untermeyer and his Scofield bible to Shelly Adelson and his billions. You know, the Jews behind the blue curtain pulling all strings. Which is antisemitic, btw, according to the official definition…