War, Children...

Is there any other response to King Donald's middle east excellent adventure other than just wait and see?

I said I’d get around to writing about this unbelievable sea change in US foreign policy related to Trump & Co.’s caravan camel trip to various hans in the greater middle east (does Constantinople count?), and so this, Memorial Day, is the day. Inspired mainly by Jeremy Scahill’s reporting on Hamas and the ethno-frat brother, Jared’s version of co-ethnic Steve Witkoff and part of the cabal of Trumpian Jews who have spun 180 degrees on the ethno-state over its genocidal tendencies. Yeah right, I’ve also got a commercial fixer-upper on 125th street in Manhattan that I can let go at a bargain price…

Cultural Marxism??

But first, sticking with culture war before going to actual shooting war, a followup on my last piece - a moment on TMR when they just couldn’t let go of their conversation with Quinn Slobodian that was a part of my last piece, on the 1990s GOP civil war and the resulting Ron Paul faction of American libertarianism:

Starting with off-camera Matt, the issue the church had with Gio Bruno was that he was, among other things, a supporter of Copernicus and a cosmic pluralist, and not just a curved-earther. I should point out as an example that E. Michael Jones is a terra-centrist, with earth, like God, being the unmoving mover. The church has always had serious problems/failings with cosmology, which must be a core source of the extreme right’s characteristic phobia about science.

Then Emma, after going full Nazi, goes off on the use of the term “globalist” as a euphemism for “Jew”, based on how it’s used, and Matt adds the infamous outgroup thing, otherizing, as an outlet for blind hate, one assumes without any reason or justification at all. Then “cultural Marxist“ is thrown in as another euphemism, as if that term is regularly used in the course of otherwise-normal discourse.

They never actually make the connection from the things they mention to the Jews, you in your mind have to make that connection - why is globalism Jewish, why is Marxism Jewish, cultural or otherwise? Because Marx just happened to be a Jew? Because of the Judeo-Bolshevik Myth? Because Jews were the backbone of the radical left in the US a century ago, and its epicenter was in Brooklyn? Does their audience even know that? Does Emma?

Sam then suggests there was a sort of legit origin and use of the term, another indirect way of selling political Marxism that got misinterpreted by “ding-dongs on the right”. I know little about the term’s actual origins, but I started using it because it was the best term I knew to describe something that had little to do with political Marxism beyond its origins in a cultural group of people who had previously so significantly embraced political Marxism. I suppose the tie is regarding egalitarianism, creating a cultural equality for oppressed groups that is philosophically equivalent to the financial and power equality in Marxism.

Here is the beginning of the term’s wiki, which highlights its antisemitic nature and therefore its illegitimacy:

What perhaps matters to me as much as where it came from and the expressed history of its intentions, is who was involved before getting to why. Look at the role of Jews like Betty Friedan, Bella Abzug and Gloria Steinem in 2nd-wave feminism, Dr. Robert Spitzer in homosexual normalization, Brooklyn Dem Rep. Emanuel Celler and New York GOP Sen. Jacob Javits in opening immigration, the Spingarn brothers and Stanley Levison in civil rights. And, hell, even earlier with Wilhelm Reich on the sexual revolution, and Louis Wirth in urban social engineering. These are not minor figures in those movements/projects, these are real influencers and leaders. And they’re not the only ones.

The guru of the New Left, its intellectual darling, unquestionably was Herbert Marcuse of the Frankfurt School; he is the one of six leading figures in this cartoon who has nothing to say, all six having been Jews.

The connection of their work to Marxism is stated; Freud goes unnamed but his psycho-analysis doesn’t. Reich was a protege of Freud, and he took a parallel trip to the Frankfurt Schoolers, leaving Nazi Germany in 1934 for Norway, and landing in NYC in 1939 to teach at the New School for Social Research. One of the founding figures in the New School was Harold Laski, detailed in my last piece.

From the New School’s wiki:

The Graduate Faculty of Political and Social Science was founded in 1933 as the University in Exile. It was largely for Jewish scholars purged from teaching positions due to antisemitic laws passed in 1933 Nazi Germany. By 1938, the matter became an issue of life or death for these scholars. The University in Exile, one of a number of similar program being established nationally, was initially founded by the director of the New School, Alvin Johnson, through the financial contributions of Hiram Halle and the Rockefeller Foundation. The University in Exile and its subsequent incarnations have been the intellectual heart of the New School. Notable scholars associated with the University in Exile include psychologists Erich Fromm, Max Wertheimer and Aron Gurwitsch, political theorists Hannah Arendt and Leo Strauss, philosopher Hans Jonas, and composer Hanns Eisler.

The journal of the New Left was Ramparts, and who were its leading figures? How many of the hands in the below image burning their draft cards were Jewish hands? I can barely read two of them, they are Sol Stern and I think Bob Sheer, and is David Horowitz a third? Maybe Adam Hochschild? It was a fucking Jewfest up in there, at least after they ran Warren Hinkle and his residual Catholic shit out.

These cultural revolutionary movements exploded at the same time, it what is generally referred to as just “the ‘60s“, youth-based movements attributed to the baby boomers without much further explanation, other than perhaps affluence and education and… drugs? I’m mostly not a fan of the more conspiratorial or neo-Bircher histories of this period, which largely shift blame from the Birchers’ communism to the CIA as a big intelligence op. Steinem wasn’t a Jewess activist, she’s a closet CIA agent. And the Rockefellers, always the Rockefellers.

What I see is a whole lot of activist Jews involved at the forefront of these movements and ask why, and look at the contemporary legacy of these movements and ask how that plays a major role in politics and culture, and not really for the better. These people at TMR are critics of the centrist Democratic Party and its identity politics, but where did that come from, who is responsible, why did that become such a fixation? You can’t coherently argue that its roots aren’t in “the ‘60s”, and it’s inadequate to say the party is unfortunately run by aging boomers.

Let’s give their savior, old school Marxist-lite Bernie, a chance to address cultural Marxism, while hangin’ wit da B-bros:

This of course is a reflection of Old Left Marxist class warfare, as opposed to New Left race and gender warfare, one assumes because Bernie’s left roots go back to the 1950s when the ethno-flip was still in its earliest days. He had pre-abandoned Soviet communism and, even though his earliest activism involved civil rights at the Univ of Chicago, he wasn’t raised on the teat of cultural Marxism during its revolutionary heyday from the March on Washington in 1963 (when he was age 22) to the defeat of the ERA ~15 years later, when America was turning away from social revolutions.

Had he been born even five years later, like Trump, his politics would likely have been significantly different, in my estimation. Of course moving to the hinterland of Vermont probably had a serious impact - not exactly the center of the culture wars over the last half century, rather more the center of the development of gourmet ice cream for the masses… 🍨

The RP show discussion, led by the libertarianish righty, is about the oppositional vs establishment factions of both parties, and the left’s problem is that their oppositional wing, the Berniecrats, lost while the right’s, the Trumptards, won. So the entrepreneurial business on the right can feed off that, including former center-left Rogan, while the post-progressives on the left are left finding creative ways to kind of be attached to the establishment left while staying in opposition to that. And there isn’t enough of a critical mass there, so they resort to the Progressive-Libertarian Alliance, and RP and its version of the Fox News blondie is a prime case in point.

Dave Smith’s appearance this past week to chat with Krystal about Ben Shapiro's Zio-wokeness (uttering the word “Jew” only once during a 23-minute clip, a display of PLA wokeness) is another:

So Dave uses the term in question and even attaches it to the all-Jewish Frankfurt School, speaking with someone who has appeared on TMR for friendly conversations and is very much aligned with them politically, people who consider use of that term to simply be antisemitic. So is Krystal antisemite-adjacent for not pushing back on that with Smith, in a conversation about right-wing wokeness? Or is Dave just a “ding-dong on the right”? Shit gets complicated.

Instead Dave goes to the rise in wokeness being a consequence of Obama’s Clintonite sellout to neoconservatism and neoliberalism, doing nothing about the endless wars and nothing to Wall Street for triggering the Great Recession, and we’re right back to this as always:

He also downplays the origins, preferring the Dem-blaming for DEI in the last 12-15 years, and throws in the CIA and the Fed, a kind of neo-Bircher conspiracy blend that also includes the adjacent Paulite libertards. Later in this conversation he calls Paul “the greatest living hero and the greatest person to ever run for president”, which is simply a laughable overstatement. End the Fed, goddammit! You know Krystal absolutely disagrees, of course, but says nothing - they attend different churches and you don’t argue religion, especially when it’s politics, and Dave is her guest.

Then Krystal swings it back to the evil Killary, her beloved greatest hero Bernie and the Bro allegations, as misdirection away from the consequences of that same sellout - sellout to whom, exactly?

In that she blames “neoliberals”, people who believe in free-market capitalism as a cure-all, for creating wokeism, the source of it, instead of former political Marxists who were repurposing themselves in the culture wars, an example of the problem with misusing language. It gets even more interesting from there:

So finally we get to the word “Jewish” for the one and only time, and I’m pretty sure I had no idea that Smith is a Jew from Brooklyn (and a grandchild of a Holocaust “survivor”, according to his wiki) - the only time I’ve ever really paid any attention to him was his debate with the IDW crypto-Jew Douglas Murray on Gaza, when my focus was really on Dougie. That on his buddy Rogan’s pod, which again gets to Joe’s Judification that goes back at least to his membership in that IDW cabal.

Perhaps his self-declaration helps to explain the guardrails on this conversation, not that they wouldn't have been there anyway. He refers to “globalist”, another TMR indication that he’s really an antisemite, from the people who just went after libertarians like Dave without addressing the huge Jewish role in that political philosophy, at least regarding economics, the core of it. Dave being Jewish and being libertarian isn’t any sort of contradiction, certainly not in 2025 if it ever was - think Ayn Rand pre-cultural Marxism.

He refers to a “neoliberal takeover of the left” which is absolutely what happened, with regard to the Dems at minimum, but he’s using that term incorrectly just as Krystal did, as the opposite, left equivalent to the generic use of right-wing neoconservative. One assumes as a libertard he’s a hardcore Austrian School guy (his wiki says he’s a member of the Mises Caucus and an admirer of Rothbard) and so neoliberal-adjacent (Friedman being the pied piper of neoliberalism).

But he gets to the core matter, that cultural Marxism as a divide-and-conquer strategy, which it absolutely always has been. He identifies wokeism as just a sliver of the left, which equates to my reference to it as sadly all that’s left of the left in the post-Clinton 21st century, egalitarian economics and anti-war isolationism having been abandoned. Dave’s doing just great.

But then he spins to worship of co-ethnic and kinda-fellow anarcho-libertarian Chomsky as the indispensable star of contemporary oppositional intellectualism, no matter what your politics are. I’m not saying Chomsky isn’t useful, but take it all with a huge grain of Dead Sea salt. Gnome is a more Marxist “liberal Zionist” who did his kibbutz time in the ‘50s, and basically opposes BDS, similar to Bernie who also did his kibbutz time back then. Whatever Israel was then that it isn’t now, or vice versa, it was still a state created by terrorism and political intrigue that had executed the Nakba. Own it, fellas, you don't get a pass because you hung out at socialist kibbutzes.

Then going home to Brooklyn, the statement that said it all:

“Those people are my people… and they find a way to play on your weaknesses.”

I stood up and applauded, and especially because Dave is one of those people, apparently in every sense. It was enlightening to listen to this discussion more broadly, to understand not just that he’s a Jew but how truly Judeo-centric Smith actually is. But hey, a guy raised by his Jewish mother in Brooklyn? That’s fucking hardcore. It’s like a kid growing up in an Israeli settlement and shooting at Palestinians from his rooftop with his pellet gun for fun.

Then inevitably Krystal, who is eating all this up like Thanksgiving turkey, brings us back to antisemitism, citing the face of that in the alternative media space, Nick “the Nazi” Fuentes. In any discussion of this sort the number of times “Jewish” is used, if at all, has to be exceeded by the number of times “antisemite” is used, that’s just a hard rule of public discourse. The Jew never comes out on the winning end on that scoreboard.

What they, these progressive leftists, do is to posture condemnation of identity politics, an aspect of 21st century cultural Marxism, while absolutely embracing political correctness and social justice warfare, other aspects of cultural Marxism. The classic example is attacking the right for being fixated on trans folks, while fixating on transsexual normalization themselves, a nothingburger in the grand scheme of things. Set aside the trans matter for things that really matter to the masses and you will earn my respect.

My point here is that cultural Marxism, from civil rights to wokeism, is a genuine thing and not just the right-wing bullshit that Seder described, however you choose to label it. But the one thing that is prohibited from entering any conversation about it is the absolutely massive role of the Jews in it, and that in part a consequence of the very thing being discussed. A vicious circle you might say - they do find a way to play on your weaknesses.

You can see the fear of those gang-bangeress proxywarriors on Bernie’s face, while he’s thinking, “fuck Soros and all his shekels…”

Neocontards Do Hamas?

Speaking of things that matter, time to get into the Qatar Grand Prix, Monaco on the Persian… er, Arabian Gulf. I’ll start with the smiling happy people of Rising Points again, the internal Friday discussion from a week ago, on reporting done by Drop Site News and Jeremy Scahill:

So no peace in Palestine, and Trump's Jewish secret weapon who became so glorified by stomping in so rudely on Jewish Sunday and demanding the first fake ceasefire timeout, is guilty of job abandonment. The last best hope is that Israeli Jews will become exhausted by all their mass murder, like Ted Bundy at the end.

The plot thickens when the Drop Shit boys get to FOJew (co-ethnic Friend of Jared) Adam Boehler entering the story, negotiating with terrorists in Palestein because ethnically he is one himself. This from TMR:

What Jeremy should have said is, “I don’t ask that question because I’m not a Jew”, but in the establishment left mediasphere ethnic-cleansing is an absolute requirement. Tapper asked that question because he is a Jew (American has nothing to do with it), end of story, and let’s not even pretend otherwise.

So why was Boehler surprised by what he heard in that meeting? He’s an American, he’s a Jew, but he’s not a Jewish foreign policy professional, which basically means a neocon. Blinken is of course very much a Jewish foreign policy professional, which means he is a neocon. And Blinken didn’t fail, he succeeded, because neocon intentions do not include developing an understanding of Hamas and its intentions and then negotiating in good faith, rather include defining them in a certain manner and then preceding against them without prejudice for the benefit of Israel the Jewish state. What, you forgot that ol’ Tony went to Israel “as a Jew”?

This sounds like an important moment, but it only is one if this is truly a moment of clarity, that clarity gets extended to Witkoff and ultimately Trump, and they move forward based on that clarity. But that seems to me like a big ask, a very naive understanding of how US foreign policy actually works in this century. What is interesting to me in this is that Boehler is a Jew and a long-standing FOJ, which means he’s right at the heart of what has functionally driven Trump middle east policy since the first administration, the Abraham accords, that lame-ass two-state proposal, etc.

That means the fate of Gaza lies in the hands of this Trumpian Blue Triangle of Witkoff, Boelher and the shadowy presence of Kushner behind the blue curtain. Which gives me no comfort whatsoever. Well, maybe some cold comfort…

For more Scahill let’s move on to Dump Site itself and a discussion between co-founders Jeremy and Ryan:

What they are saying is that the situation in Gaza has reached a level of horror never seen before, and this is the case under Trump’s watch, he is absolutely complicit in this. Scahill calls it mass murder, the term I’ve been using forever, not really wanting to use the term genocide, which to me is both inaccurate and too Jewish, too Holocausty.

What he says here is pretty fucking basic: Trump is the only one who can end this assault outside of Israel, because the US is overwhelmingly the prime enabler of Israeli actions and in the end Trump at minimum signs off on what the US does internationally. And so Hamas wants Trump to sign any deal effectively in his own blood, to make it embarrassingly apparent when he or rather his beloved Israelis eventually back out of it. Apparent to the whole world, including Americans, supporters of Trump and opponents of US involvement in this crime, some of whom are definitely the same people.

More:

There Scahill lays out the complexity of the situation in the entire middle east and the random chaos going on inside Trump’s brain sitting on top of his divided administration. There is Israel and the power of the Jews in America and neocons inside his White House. There is the powerful attraction of the Arab corporate oil states and their authoritarian sheiks negotiating in a language consisting almost entirely of money. And there is Iran, in different ways the enemy of both, where Trump can end a nuclear deal one day and start one on the next, perhaps based on who he spoke with last. Which is not actually the case - again, it all comes back to who gives the Don his cut, it all comes down to the skim.

But he can’t really do anything alone, he has to rely on the executors in his administration, and they have the ability to manipulate the outcome. Overall, that’s a very bleak picture Jeremy paints, but one without certainties, because Trump is himself the quintessential loose canon. What we have to always remember is that there is no one in that administration who isn’t all in on the ethnostate, and that even at this moment the polls still show only a minority of Republicans have turned on Israel, unlike the Democrats. And there is a world of difference between a Dem boomer and a GOP boomer in the reaction to mass murder - and the latter are Trump’s demographic.

For a more optimistic outlook let’s turn to EMJ with Kevin Barrett on False Flag Somethingorother:

Let me point out that RFK Jr used “neocon” repeatedly in his presidential campaign announcement speech, he said he’d end the war in Ukraine on day one just like Trump did, then he started sucking his Shmuley and now where are we? Jeffrey Sachs blamed that war on neoconservatism openly and completely in 2022, and what has he been saying since then? Saying “neocon” and meaning “Jew” are two entirely different things. Do you remember the story about Bush the Lesser asking Poppy what a neocon was after invading Iraq? And the one-word answer being “Israel”?

And remember when EMJ was asking with exasperation, when is someone going to say the word “Jew”? Neocon ain’t quite good enough, eMike, you’re grasping at Trumptardian straws again. But he’s right about Kevin being a pussy on neocon meaning Jew, Kev doing his retrograde version of “not all Jews”.

What Trump learned dealing with Jews in the NYC real estate business is entirely up to debate, did he learn how to assert his power over them or did he learn how to make concessions to their power? Let’s remember he let his favorite daughter marry a real estate Jew after converting to his extremist Lubavitcher Hasidic faith, and then after getting elected the first time he turned over US middle east policy to that Bibi-loving Jewboy. Was that exerting his power?

What I saw on this trip from Trump was sucking Arab dick, from the crown prince of the Corporate State of Arabia to the cleaned-up al Qaeda CIA proxywarrior in Syria. Is that what he learned dealing with Jews in Manhattan, strap on your blue kneepads and suck it up?

Also note that eMike goes to ancient Greek philosophy, with Plato and presumably Aristotle’s bad tyrant versus the good monarch, which gets us back to the subject of my last piece. But Trump is a good tyrant, because his tyranny is directed at the neocons, the Jews - is it really, eMike, really?

Further on, where eMike frames a civil war split between the neocon and the neoliberal Jews:

The civil war Jones describes goes all the way back to New York City in early 1917 and Leon Trotsky representing his radical neocons (remember the father of neoconservatism Irving Kristol was a Trotskyite), while Jacob Schiff the most powerful force on Wall Street represented his usurious financiers, and both were absolutely fixated on the revolution then happening in Russia. So is this really a civil war?

Instead Jones takes us back to the civil war on the GOP right in the early ‘90s, the same thing touched on in my last piece with the book by Slobodian. He equates that to a split among Jews today, which isn’t a left-right split but rather a split between the post-Marxist Jews who came to power on the right via the Reagan revolution. Both of those civil wars have a libertarian aspect, and today we have the rise of neo-libertarianism led by our maturing oligarchy in Silicon Valley, the product of four decades of neoliberalism. Libertarians are anti-war because that messes up the joys of pure capitalist plundering, like someone starting a food fight during an intense game of Monopoly.

So did Trump get his deal in Korea? No, he got nothing, which is what almost everyone fails to mention when they laud Trump for his amazingly-effective negotiating style and use the Little Rocketman as their example. Meanwhile, the Ukraine war drags on and the mass murder in Gaza has reached new heights of outrageousness.

Enough subtle Trump-sucking from the JQ-aware on the religious right, let’s go to a Jewish Trump-sucker of spectrum ambiguity. More for comedy’s sake than anything else, I turn to Glenn Greenwald and a compilation of bits from a recent show where he invited on a guest to evaluate Trump’s latest middle east initiatives:

Starting with this best expert kid Mills from the anti-neocon, libertarian-adjacent Buchananite paleocon American Conservative. Here is the intro to Phil Giraldi’s 2017 Unz Review piece America's Jews Are Driving America's Wars:

UPDATE: On the morning of September 21st Phil Giraldi was fired over the phone by The American Conservative, where he had been a regular contributor for fourteen years. He was told that “America’s Jews Are Driving America’s Wars” was unacceptable. The TAC management and board appear to have forgotten that the magazine was launched with an article by founder Pat Buchanan entitled “Whose War?” which largely made the same claims that Giraldi made about the Jewish push for another war, in that case with Iraq. Buchanan was vilified and denounced as an anti-Semite by many of the same people who are now similarly attacking Giraldi.

Okay, so we know why the Blue Greenie thinks this would be the best source of right-wing oppositional insight on US/GOP middle east policy, people founded on opposition to neoconservatism but now with zero JQ-tolerance.

In the second clip he goes to Bannon, who I recently referred to as one of the best of the Trumpians but now long in Donald's rearview mirror. The reality is that he lost out to Kushner very early on, and any kind of sanity related to middle east policy was parked at the curb. But Greenwald tries to keep him in the game, more than that deserves from what I know. And he associates him with favs Shady and Tulsi, and then slippery-slips in Trump himself as a non-interventionist, the guy who had Soleimani murdered in his first term and shipped Israel 1800 MOABs more recently, their reward for taking a politically-beneficial break from mass murder. The kid spins Trumpism as the good part of a shambolic administration, but one that Trump is finally coming to grips with.

In the third clip Greenwald asks if a president can break with Zionist Israel policy that goes back to LBJ, even with the level of support Trump has, even though he talks about the rising opposition to Israel in the fourth clip - what support, the Fox News boomers? The kid applauds Trump’s decisiveness, and uses the Clintonite Dem insiders revisionist comments against themselves - Biden’s war policies stayed consistent because they were the admin’s policies, driven by Blinken, Sullivan & Co, the Dem ethno-neocons; they had no interest in a ceasefire, in Gaza or in Ukraine. And Biden was decisive on what they wanted, which was the destruction of Putin and Palestine. To pretend that peace was any kind of goal is hopelessly naive.

While the kid is doing a poor Trump bit, Glenn jumps in and reminds everyone that Trump was shot - shot at maybe (or maybe not), but getting winged in the ear in a way that left no visible damage is hardly getting shot. But Glenn is executing the legacy playbook, and then the kid does the same by reminding us of glorious Liberation Day. Where are my waders? It’s getting shit-deep up in here…

In the fourth clip Greenie frames the poll data as this massive change against Israel that only excludes old Fox News watchers. But, again, that data shows that Democrats 50 and older are the group that has turned against Israel the most dramatically, and Republicans 50 and older are the group that has changed the least, barely at all. That is the most important aspect of that polling, but Glenn the supposed progressive lefty completely glosses over that.

Then he quotes Trump from the NY Times tentatively acknowledging that there’s starvation happening in Gaza and incredibly vaguely saying that has to be taken care of somehow (kill them with love bombs, send them out to dinner in Libya?), but he spins it as incredibly significant, Trump aligning with human rights activists. The kid grabs Greenie’s spin and runs with it.

In the last clip Glenn starts with his broomstick anal rape fetish, before describing a gaping (😉) gulf between Trump and neocon senate proxy princess Graham, even though Graham was with Rubio in Istanbul doing his neocon thing regarding Putin and Ukraine. And the kid frames Trump as an activist neo-paleocon president executing the Buchanan paleocon agenda. One that included a serious dollop of “antisemitism”, btw, something that I’m having a very hard time finding in Trump 2.0.

This is a choreographed dance between these two with only one goal, to promote Trump as America’s anti-war savior on foreign policy, taking bits of acoustic propaganda and electrifying it and then turning it up to 11 like Spinal Tap. What happened to the narrative that Trump is “the most pro-Israel president ever”?

Trump’s “Green New Deal” for the middle east brings us from Qatar right back to the Brooklyn bagel shop, where they specialize in products with holes in the middle, this time bloody Gaza joining the blue boys in essentially being excluded from the conversation.

I haven’t accessed my regular middle east politics and war sources for a while, because the Grayzone guys have been on the road and the Judge’s crew was getting kind of stale. But I dived back into the Judge while working on this piece, and will use that to finish this up on Ukraine. Transitioning to that, here is Judeo-Jeff Sachs spewing well-manicured blue bullshit on the subjects of Zionism and antisemitism, the war at home:

So Jeff tries to distance Zionism from the Jews by saying it’s against the teachings of the faith (here), without mentioning that the overwhelming majority of Jews in the world support the Zionist project Israel, above 90% in the US according to polling data. He reinforces that by saying antisemitism is bigotry toward practitioners of Judaism. What a relief, my personal “bigotry” being directed at the ethnicity of Jews instead - I’m not an antisemite after all!

He fails to mention that even the faith defines a Jew by blood and not belief, let alone the J-state. He says Zionism is a state project (which leads to a serious chicken-or-egg problem if the state is Israel) and not a religious project, but it was/is actually an ethnic project, a secular cultural belief. This reflects one of the great myths in America, that the Jew is defined by religion, like a Christian, and not ethnicity.

And he points the hairy finger at evangelical Christians more than once, stating that’s based on a literal reading of the bible. What he doesn’t say is specifically which bible, which gets us to the Scofield reference bible, and that gets us to one Samuel Untermeyer; read about it here if you don’t know the story. There’s always a Jew stirring the stew.

But he claims that Christians started Zionism 100 years before that, in the early 19th century, a claim that I’d never heard before. The wiki on the history of Zionism does include something on that, starting with this:

The Reformation led to the emergence of the belief of a return of the Jews to Palestine due to a specific theological biblical interpretation, among some Protestant Christian thinkers, and originally as an anti-Catholic and anti-Muslim movement. It has been argued [by whom?] that the first modern Zionists were Christian, and that the contribution of Christian Zionism had been ignored by traditional Zionist historiography.

Ideas of the restoration of the Jews in the Land of Israel entered British public discourse in the early 19th century, at about the same time as the British Protestant Revival. Not all such attitudes were favorable towards the Jews; they were shaped in part by a variety of Protestant beliefs, or by a streak of philo-Semitism among the classically educated British elite, or by hopes to extend the Empire. (See The Great Game)

I like that “by whom?” bracketed notation in that first part. 😁 It suggests the highly-politicized nature of this subject and the possible historical revisionism heavily involved today. 😱

Back to the 20th century, America and Scofield bible, ol’ Jeff is a smart, educated guy and surely he knows this, but he doesn’t tell that story, because the goyim are listening. He may be opposed to mass murder in Gaza, but not enough so to place the blame squarely where it belongs. In the end his core motivation is exactly the same one as the Israeli exterminationists, to save his fellow Jews from the next Holocaust.

And he does the same deceptive thing on Ukraine, telling us it was the deep state, the CIA and the “foreign policy establishment” and their 30-year project related to NATO expansion. What he doesn’t say is what he did say three years ago, that it was a war fomented by the neocons, just as all American wars have been over the last 30 years. And he then named ten major neocons, all ten of them Jews. That was the last time he did that.

Later on in this Ukraine discussion he points at the British for their Russophobia, which he claims has no real basis. He dates that back to the period 1815 to 1840, related to a book he cites, which is an interesting segment of history. That starts with the British-Russian alliance against Napoleon’s France, and let’s recall the story about Natty Rothschild playing the market based on the outcome of Waterloo, thereby firmly establishing their financial power in Britain and also across western Europe. This is also only two decades after the completion of the partitioning of Poland and the establishment of the Pale of Settlement in westerly-expanded Russia.

And 1840 was the year that British Lord Palmerston officially acknowledged the Jewish movement of Zionism in Palestine. Most of those Jews lived in Russia.

Sachs never mentions the Great Game and the genuine colonial competition between the British and Russian empires over central Asia, rather he only talks about Britain’s desire to kick Russia off the (Ukrainian) shores of the Black Sea, which gets him to the Crimean War in 1853. And of course he never mentions the Rothschildean bankers’ desire to support Ashkenazi Jewry being oppressed in the Pale (that including most of Ukraine), which eventually led to their vital role in the Russian loss in the 1904-05 war with Japan, in particular Jacob Schiff and his Kuhn Loeb bank.

Conclusion: Jeffrey Sachs is a habitual ethno-deceiver. At least since June of 2022 when he told some real truth:

The war in Ukraine is the culmination of a 30-year project of the American neoconservative movement. The Biden Administration is packed with the same neocons who championed the US wars of choice in Serbia (1999), Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003), Syria (2011), Libya (2011), and who did so much to provoke Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The neocon track record is one of unmitigated disaster, yet Biden has staffed his team with neocons. As a result, Biden is steering Ukraine, the US, and the European Union towards yet another geopolitical debacle. If Europe has any insight, it will separate itself from these US foreign policy debacles.

But today, among the anti-war community, with friends like Jeff, who needs enemies? Oh, and like co-ethnic friend Greenwald, to him Trump is genuinely a man of peace. Talk about evidence-free conclusions…

Never Forget… the Pale, say the Ashkies

So with that now we’re on Ukraine, and Aaron Mate had some things to say about that:

Aaron thinks Trump is just going to walk away from this war, which in my view is in denial of the issue that stopped Trump from walking away on day one as he promised. He does not want his legacy to be Chamberlain’s legacy, that he turned tail like a weakling and let Russia crush Ukraine. When he protests that it’s not his war it’s out of his frustration that he inherited this conflict that he played a part in bringing to a head, and now that he owns it he has to own it completely. Man up, Donald, you’re the prez now, and the shekel stops there.

Of course Trump will sell arms to Europe, it would be ridiculous to think otherwise - what motivation would he have for denying business to the US arms industry and aiding Putin in accomplishing his war aims, whatever they actually are? Trump doesn’t care if this war ends or not, what he cares about are the tax dollars that go to Ukraine instead of back into the pockets of his wealthy brethren via his top-heavy tax cuts, and one assumes also his legacy. He is not a man of peace, he is a business tycoon and an egomaniac.

What the Jew Mate does here is the post-progressive thing, he spins this back to the hated Clintonite centrist Dem Biden, and dumps as much as he can on the guy now dying of cancer. But we all know it’s not Biden that’s directly to blame, we know it wasn’t his failing brain that concocted the Ukraine/Russia war strategy, don’t we? Is Biden’s minyan already being cleansed from history?

The only way that Trump ends US involvement in the war with an agreement is if he accepts that Putin will push his advantage as far as he can, given the cost to Russia over the last three years. That means territory in Ukrainian possession today will have to be conceded, territory Russia will take tomorrow with no deal, which Zelensky and the Europeans will be loath to do. Or he’ll just have to essentially surrender as the string-puller, and history will be very unkind to him, I think. Somehow changing the narrative might be his only answer, but there’s no sign that he’s come up with that answer yet.

Another Judge guest arrived ready to talk about Ukraine, and that was the libertard Scott Horton, who wrote the book which (mostly, I’d guess) erased the neocons, let alone the MIA Ashkenazim - Jewish wife, you know. But he had some interesting things to say anyway:

I have no idea why he said he thinks Trump could have solved this problem in his first term, considering the people around him and the pressure of Russiagate.

He gets into the change in Ukrainian politics as a result in losing the eastern oblasts, and he’s absolutely right to raise that issue. The political balance of the country that ended up dividing the country shifts significantly with the removal of the five oblasts (including Crimea). One of the elections he speaks of was 2010 when Yanukovych defeated Tymoshenko, and you can see who would have won easily without those five oblasts:

Now imagine that election with the five oblasts in the west making up Galicia and Volhynia being excluded instead, the five that went to Tymo by more than 50 points. This is a war/post-war issue that I’ve discussed a lot over the last three years.

Continuing:

So Trump says exactly what the Dems were saying under Biden but more stridently, and they kinda want to come up with more generous framing regarding Trump because he leads the oppositional right, and fail to manage that. But what is all of Ukraine? Is Crimea part of Ukraine? The Donbass? I don’t know that it’s clear, to anyone.

Horton then frames Putin’s problem, but what this is instead of what Horton says about a national socialist rump Ukraine is what I’ve been saying would get resolved for Putin (and Zelensky) by being creative in framing an outcome. And that is to push for a western Ukrainian state that is made up of the seven oblasts of Galicia, Volhynia, Transcarpathia and Bukavina, separate from Ukraine proper. And you can see why on all these maps.

Regarding the murderous Nazis, this map shows the percentages taken by the nationalist party Svoboda in the 2012 off-cycle election by oblast, and even it’s highest concentrations in Galicia were less than 40%. So there is clearly political thinking in western Ukraine that is anti-Russian but isn’t Nazi-adjacent, and that tends to get ignored by people who like to frame this war as some kind of replay of the eastern front in WWII.

Language also shows a Ukraine which is made up of three distinct zones - Russian in the southeast, Ukrainian in the center, and a west heavily influenced by central European nations, principally Poland. What is also clear is how Russian the entire Black Sea coast is, which isn’t exactly the way Horton frames it, as if taking Odessa is a real stretch. The 2004 and 2010 elections show the same thing.

Remember eMike recently saying the most important part of culture is language? Do you see three predominant cultures, imperial Russian, frontier Ukrainian and post-Austro-Hungarian/Polish?

What is much harder to see on these contemporary maps are the Ashkenazi of history. But in general, the farther west one goes, the more Jews there were. Scotty doesn’t talk about that, one assumes because it plays no role. Right, he must have read Plokhy. Or maybe the wife did the book editing.

But Scotty does get kind of close to the real problems Trump has with inheriting what is now his war, and the potential problems for Putin in winning it, related to the goal of “de-Nazifying” the country. Trump may be frozen in inaction exactly because he has nowhere to go, he can’t ramp it up again without consequences and he can’t quietly withdraw without consequences. So he whines on about how it’s not his war.

Man up and deal with it or turn the Oval over to Shady V and let him take the fall for just cutting and running, which doesn’t end the war, rather it would just determine the eventual outcome. Trump is the Jew Mellish in Saving Pvt. Ryan, trying to call a timeout when the game is almost over.

So what’s going to happen on these wars, where is Trump going with them? Your guess is as good as mine, because he’s such a loose cannon on the deck of statecraft. What I don’t believe is that he’s fundamentally and ideologically opposed to war as a feature of the global game of Monopoly. And I don’t believe that he’s opposed to neoconservatism as a Jewish takeover of US foreign policy, I don’t think he really understands that and I do think he’d consider that to be virulently antisemitic.

What I do think he’ll do is to continue to let Bibi do whatever he wants in Gaza, and to put off any hard decision on Ukraine as long as he can. That has been the policy for the last four months, since the day he said that war would end and since the point where he declared Bibi could “finish the job”, and I don’t see anything that suggests to me that it’s really changed. The chess piece that’s really in play now is Iran, and his first-term history on that isn’t good at all, beyond the good fortune not to stumble into a hot war. But this time? Again, who knows?

War, it’s a bitch…