The Great Debates

It was gloves off in philosemite gay Jew-wannabe Douglas Murray versus Mexican Neo-Nazi white nationalist Nicholas Fuentes... or something like that, and more...

Okay, to get the Big Kahuna out of the way right away, I have not watched the Great Debate between libertarian comedian Dave Smith and philosemitic cultural/political neocon Douglas Murray on JoRo, nor do I intend to. But to broach that subject I’ll provide the beginning of a discussion with Smith on it at Rising Points:

High… verbal… intelligence… faked…

Israel, Holocaust, Nazi Germany, Bill Maher, Dave Rubin. All Jew all the time yet how many times in this debate was the word “Jew” spoken? Just wondering, just asking, I don’t know.

To get a more intellectually-rigorous view of this debate I’ll turn to Dougie’s IDW ally Samuel Benjamin Harris, who has what Douglas wants (a Jewish mother); it starts here with Tom Bradystein raising the topic (he’s not talking about Smith there):

Cut! Now imagine this is 1944 and Sam is in the final chamber line in Auschwitz, talking about Adolph and not his old buddy Joe - “The problem that Adolf has created for himself over there with his immense audience. Adolph has cultivated that audience, Adolph in some sense is a part of his audience…” 🤭🤫

Jeez, Sam, I thought you claimed long ago that you weren’t a Ziofuck neocon! Samuel has a long history of slipperiness on Israel, which I covered part of here in the second half of this piece, which oddly starts with an Israeli and someone surely introduced to Joe by Sam:

This of course is another bit of fallout on the fracturing of the IDW, which included Harris as a core ethno-member and Rogan as (along with Jordan Peterson) its primary goyische face to sell their subversive messaging. Murray was somewhere between a first-tier and a second-tier member, and somewhere between a Jew and a goy. (He’s denied his membership, btw.)

Samuel is right that Rogan has a conspiracy problem, which many of the post-IDW types do, most obviously fellow core ethno-members the Weinstein brothers, Bret who has completely lost his shit since covid (along with his wife), and Eric who works for Peter “I am Silicon Man” Thiel. Sammy and Dougie are two of the most consistent leading members through it all, maybe the most consistent; Sam’s mission has changed focus at various points over the last two decades but has never really changed, not really.

What’s interesting about this to me is that Sam and Joe are on opposite sides on the mass murder in Gaza (I think), and are also on opposite sides on New Hitler Trump (that’s the Sam side showing, btw). But those two things don’t match up - Trump is now the Zio-warmonger in chief, he’s not really the guy threatening to break his bestie relationship with Bibi. But of course neither side is willing to get to the heart of the matter, which is not located in the Levant but rather the NYC-DC-Miami corridor.

To look at another form of that avoidance, let’s go back to the TMR show I covered some in my last piece, and Jeet Heer of The Nation addressing US warmongering:

So this is a left picture that basically is founded on two things: there were no Jewish Marxists then, and there are no Jewish Zio-neocons now. This is what cultural Marxism will do to one’s brain. A bit later Jeet gets to the kicker, in a segment which I quoted from in that piece:

Making Jews the face on the American war machine?? In the last 25 years the US has had a huge role in essentially continuous wars/proxywars, and there have been three principle phases of the initiation of those wars, under Bush II (Afghanistan, Iraq), Obama (Libya, Syria, phase one of Russia) and Biden (phase two of Russia, Gaza). There have been basically two generations of neocons driving all that, and here are the faces on that:

The second image of the dirty dozen Bush II era neocons includes ten Jews, starting with elder neocons Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, and includes Robert Kagan, husband of Victoria Nuland, the main neocon influencer during Obama. Jeffrey Sachs listed ten key neocons in his June 2022 article in Tikkun condemning the war in Ukraine, all ten being Jews, and they included Kristol, Podhoretz, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams and Kagan, all in that collage, as well as Nuland.

Jew denial, on the left or the right, only serves to undermine the effort to end these wars. That is simply a fact, a hard, cold fact. Until we can name the Jew the blue bombs will continue to drop.

There was another debate recently, also situated somewhere on the broadly-defined right, but an odd one to even have happened, at least to me. That was between Nick Fuentes, definable as being a white nationalist or a neo-Nazi version of early smallcap Ben Shapiro of cool kids fame, and Jason Whitlock, who is a black Christian conservative of some sort and former sports guy on corporate media. Here is black post-progressive Sabby Sabs laying it all out for us:

I’m not going to spend a lot of time on that, but Nick does undermine the legitimacy of his points by the way he presents them, and Sabby plays the usual game of objecting to things even black people say all the time, because it’s a white guy saying it, and in this case kinda “Nazi-adjacent” without much subtlety. Sabby asked if Jason was there because they needed a black conservative voice, which made me think of Sab’s closet bestie Candy-O at Bengy Boy’s Daily Wire before the Big Split. Why was she there?

So what is entirely AWOL from Sabby’s thoughtful analysis? Nick: “You’re on Blaze hosting E. Michael Jones talking about the Jews. It’s a good fucking thing you’re black, because if you weren’t you woulda been fired…” Does Sabby know who eMike is? Can she say the word “Jew” out loud? To fill in this yawning gap let’s turn to the horse’s mouth himself, recently “ranting” on this debate:

So we see what Sabby is doing here, fulfilling her role as a proxywarrior, attacking the white guy Fuentes. But she’s also attacking the black guy Whitlock, because he’s not acting like a proxywarrior, he’s not really attacking Fuentes and he’s not really identifying himself as an angry black man, rather more as a Christian cheek-turner. Which we see here further into the Sabs piece:

So Jason is a token, an Uncle Tom. And white boy Nick needs to stay on code, which really is the code of cultural Marxism that says minorities can say pretty much whatever they want about white people, but white people can’t say nuthin’ back. Which is exactly where we started with Nick here, for whatever reason he got triggered by Whitlock. The angry negress has learned well from the people who shall never be mentioned - which is the first commandment in that Judeo-code.

Let's go from dumb to dumber and one last debate, this one between conspiracy theory neophyte Kim Iversen and neotard Tim Pool. Kim is someone I basically left behind at some point not that long ago in her failed post-progressive enlightenment transition, probably related to RFK Jr and covid obsession in some way, I don’t remember exactly, and Pool is someone never more than existing somewhere on the periphery of my awareness, just some condomhead faker doing what he’s quite willing to do to secure his bag. Both are what could be called neo-rightys, I suppose, which I’m guessing they wouldn’t quite openly acknowledge - they lie outside of the political spectrum, yeah right. But people do listen to these people.

Since I’m on a roll with Sabby, here is her take on this pissing match:

What I found amusing about all of this was the Chatham House rules bit and how to pronounce Chatham. What is clear is that Kim’s neo-Bircher education hasn’t yet gotten to the all-important point of the post-WWI period, the development of the Anglo-American alliance, and the creation of the The Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) in Britain and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in the US, that all an offshoot of Versailles, and the starting point of the rise of the Rockefellerist deep state faction during the deep state’s triple melting pot phase that lasted for the rest of the 20th century. I guess she hasn’t yet read Carroll Quigley’s The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden, a book which likely would have never been published had Quigley and his Tragedy and Hope not been discovered, utilized and bastardized by the John Birch Society a half century ago.

Btw, just an fyi, I noted in the past that something like four of the five American Round Tablers listed by Quigley were Jews or likely Jews. A complicated story that Quigley only goes so far in addressing, and then that got distorted by the JBS, and further by neo-Birchers like Jay Dyer (there’s a guy who I haven’t thought about in years, the James Spader of conspiracy theory).

Me, I’m of two minds on Chatham House rules. First, I don’t think it’s an entirely bad thing for people of power to meet and not have to worry about what they say coming back to bite them, because that suppresses the urge to engage in posturing and to cut to the chase with each other. But second, I don’t think journalists should be part of that, because they should not be people of real power and should say what they think and know publicly and not hide it. This has nothing to do with anonymous sourcing.

That Pool and Shapiro and Rubin and whoever else from the talking-head influencer world agreed to this audience with the blue king under Chatham House rules is therefore condemnable. Of course anyone who meets with Netanyahu without a .357 magnum in his hand saying, “I know what you’re thinking, Bibi, did he fire six shots or only five…” is worth condemning.

Sabby later turns to co-ethnic post-progressive Niko House “doin’ the thang” on TikTok, I assume:

It’s nice to see rather mainstreamy people talking about the good ship Liberty, and the possibility of false flag events to start wars. But Tim seems like a real problem, not willing to go even that far. And I loved to see the doctored image of Pool with the SoD beanie/condom and the curly ortho-locks hanging down from his bald pate. Now that’s some healthy hardcore antisemitism right thar! 😁

It struck me as interesting, these three talking-head debates taking place around the same time, none involving any Jews, but all debating matters of Jewish making: the mass murder in Gaza and US involvement in that, right-wing alt media covertly cooperating in that with the Jewish state and how that secrecy links to the start of the real culture wars a century ago, and the Black-Jewish Alliance founded shortly before that, an important tool in those culture wars of the last century and this one.

But what this blatant Jew shit comes down to in those goyische debates are things like boots on the ground experience halfway around the world, accusations of racism, tokens and Toms, and British elite pronunciation including of obscure references from the past. When will we ever stop fucking around and get to the heart of these matters, the heart of the matter in its entirety??

It’s strange days for the right, which seems very divided by the reality of Trump 2.0 at minimum and maybe much more. I listened to Larry Wilkerson’s latest appearance on the Judge, and he seemed not only perplexed by it all but also old and worn down, as if he no longer can process it all:

In that he referred to Ha’aretz as a go-to source for him, which was interesting to me having just reread my piece I linked on Harris which starts with Renee DiResta and Israeli data scientist Gilad Lotan, who also cites Ha’aretz’ placement in the information universe. That being liberal left in Israeli terms and neo-centrist Zionist in western terms more broadly. Which gets us back to Samuel, Douglas and the post-IDW neo-centrists, still selling the mythology of the Jew as the Hero with a Thousand Faces and Israel as essential to America’s survival.

It’s a very sad time.