Trump and Julian

/31 Comments/in /by

Julian the Apostate

To what extent might Trump be compared to Julian the Apostate? In case you haven’t yet read the Pagan, Hellenism, Gentile essay, Julian was the last Pagan emperor of Rome. He was the nephew of the first Christian emperor of Rome (if we can believe our history). He was very unhappy that Rome had succumbed to Christianity and that the aristocratic, Roman, manly virtues had been replaced by an overly-sentimentalist slave morality that valued equality over excellence and posited that all things Roman were bad, while they celebrated values that denigrated life and their own people. In Julian’s time, Rome was increasingly less Roman. The Senate, and the government as a whole, had long since become nearly completely dysfunctional. The military was led, or at least directed, by men who used it more for their own personal gain than for the good of the people. Julian’s most personal fight was perhaps against those in his own family who had adopted and “married into” the foreign religion for pragmatic reasons — to advance their own cause. And even though Julian fought against the encroachments of the Rome-hating ideology, he himself was far more Christian than he realized. Or, more precisely, he had secretly converted from Christianity during his youth, but he was unwittingly steeped in the mystical-philosophical mush (Neoplatonism) whose intercourse with Judaism birthed Christianity.

There are clear differences between Julian and Trump. Although both the Apostate and Trump came from wealthy, powerful families, Julian began as a philosopher and scholar, then became a successful general and administrator. Trump inherited a family business.

Julian came to power in what had by that point become the traditional Roman way — something of a civil war between relatives. Part of the cause of this war was that Julian was working in Gaul to clean up the corrupt bureaucracy, beat back invaders, and lower taxes on the local population. His relatives back east understood that he was becoming a populist leader and a threat to the establishment. In time, this led to a civil war in which forces loyal to Julian won fairly quickly.

After taking power, Julian remained something of a nativist-populist. He claimed that all citizens were equal under law and that he himself was merely the first among equals. Twitter did not exist, of course, but, like Trump, Julian entered the fray of politics directly, and he openly debated with Senators. He tried to clear the swamp by dismissing thousands of servants and idle bureaucrats. He cut the taxes on the people. This angered the corrupt imperial government, which was fed by these taxes. And not only the establishment, but also many of his allies and subjects were very uncomfortable with Julian’s Marcus Aurelius-inspired simple dress and lifestyle and with the familiar way he interacted with and spoke directly to the masses, as if they were his equal.

Julian’s rule did not last very long. To placate and woo those who supported his political rivals, he decided to wage a poorly planned and poorly executed war against Persia. There, he died in battle, under suspicious circumstances, possibly killed by one of his own troops, a man who was deemed a saint by the new religion for his treacherous murder.

The death of Julian marked the last gasp for a revival of Roman, pagan values. Christians increasingly occupied the now-splintered Roman government, and Europe would slowly adopt and adapt the new religion and make it its own. With the Jews having secured power in the US, the same thing is occurring once again. Like the Romans, Americans will change — and are already doing so. At this point, the progressive, non-Jewish, White Americans are just drinking the poison that creates the sensation that to be non-Jewish and White is bad.

Perhaps, like the late-antiquity Europeans, we will find a way to adapt and remain ourselves, and the non-Jewish White people will not go extinct. But there is an important difference between today’s poison and that which was ingested 2000 years ago.  Actually, there are many, but the one that interests me at the moment is that The Jews never really took power in Rome as they have in the US. The situation here is more like the one in ancient Egypt — as told in the Bible and by Josephus — whereby the Jews, represented by Joseph, became tax farmers for the pharaoh. One familiar with history can deduce that the Hebrew intermediaries administered the government while the pharaoh tended to his concubine and to hunting gazelle. This went on well for the Hebrews until a new pharaoh, representing a faction hostile to the Jews, took the throne.

The new pharaoh was a populist. He knew that the Jews were fleecing the people while enriching the corrupt king. Josephus says that prior to this change of fate, the “the nation of the Israelites flourished (2.9.1),” suggesting that either the Jews had created their own ethnic state within Egypt, or that the dual citizens had successfully siphoned enough money from the Egyptian people to enrich the parent country.  Josephus then laments how the hostile new rulers [native Egyptians who had just overthrown the Hyksos ruler] were to the Jews. The oppressed Jews were now forced to participate in the corvee forced-labor economic system that they themselves formerly oversaw and through which the nation of the Israelites became wealthy. According to Josephus, the Jews and the pharaoh continued to fight for power “for 400 years.” In reality, it was probably less than 100 years before the Jews were finally driven out; or, according to the Jewish telling, they were allowed to leave, being led by Moses. Though the connection is based in conjecture, the exodus story coincides with Ahmose’s capture of Avaris from the Hyksos and the subsequent capture of Gaza. This interpretation would also explain why the Israelites no longer had a place in the “promised land.” Since Jacob’s time, it too had been conquered by Hyksos, and now by the Egyptians.

To return to contemporary times, then, in the present election, the two leading Democratic candidates were Biden and Sanders. Sanders, of course, is Jewish. Not everyone knows that all three of Biden’s children married Jews. Biden won the election. He decided to choose a running mate who openly and repeatedly called him a racist; but her husband is Jewish. Trump, as we all know, has a converted Jewish daughter and a Jewish son-in-law, who had an outsized influence on the president’s policy. Many Americans looked for an alternative and turned to the libertarian party. This year their vice-presidential candidate was Jewish. When it comes to contemporary American politics, rather than turtles, it is Jews (Jewish White people) all the way down.

If one were so inclined to merge Hegel with Foucault, and view history as dialectical, but multiple and local rather than teleological, he might see in the Trump phenomenon a synthesis between Julian and an Egyptian provincial governor: one who unwittingly threw in his lot with the oppressors, only to realize, too late, why the Tribe found his growing nativist populism a real threat. Rather than speculate how the Trump saga unfolds, I will defer to the readers to suggest how this plays out.

“Who will guard the guards?”; Emperor Marcus Aurelius, Mail-in Voter Fraud, and Repercussions for Europe

/33 Comments/in /by

In analyzing the ballot fraud surrounding the latest US presidential election the name of the Roman poet and politician Juvenal comes to mind. His Satire VI, raises a fundamental political question surrounding political repression in the contemporary liberal System: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? “Who will guard the guards?” In contemporary bidenesque English this rhetorical question, coined by Juvenal, in the first century, can be transliterated into: “Who will observe the ballot observers?” “Who will count the ballot counters?”

A century after the death of the poet Juvenal the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius, who combined the virtues of philosopher and soldier, faced the same dilemma. How to treat the defeated foe? By preaching tolerance and magnanimity, or by wielding the sword?  Despite his stoic awareness about the transience of all life on Earth, Aurelius knew that when fighting the barbarians, a free man cannot live by books alone — he also needs a solid sword, or in the case of the USA he needs the Second Amendment. Unlike many of his predecessors Marcus Aurelius did not contemplate self-isolation in debauchery; nor did he hang around the hookers in ritzy parlors on the Quirinal Hill in Rome. He preferred the company of his soldiers who protected the northern and eastern borders of the empire in the turbulent second — borders that stretched in the north along the limes of the Drava river which now separate modern Hungary from Croatia. The Pannonian basin during the Aurelian times was under the constant onslaught of military intruders coming from the North and the East. Today this area has become anew a major route for new illegal intruders, i.e., Afro-Asian migrants heading toward the heart of Europe: Germany.

Aurelius’ grandfather, the emperor Hadrian, a couple of decades earlier, waged also devastating wars in the shaky southern part of the empire — against revolutionary Jews in the Roman province of Judea. His legions killed and displaced more than half a million of them, thus leaving an indelible anti-European grudge in the Jewish collective memory. Worse, out of his resentment for rebellious Jews, Marcus Aurelius, in 130, changed the name of the city of Jerusalem into the city name of Aelia Capitolina. The morale of history? Each victor changes the toponomies of conquered lands and along with it he imposes his own political narrative.

Can we draw the parallel between Aurelius and Trump? Both the USA and Europe are facing today similar turbulent scenarios where peoples of European ancestry will soon have to make a choice: how to preserve their racial and cultural identity in the face of the coming migrant storms. The present turmoil in the USA is just a natural follow-up to the great racial replacement that has been going on over the last 70 years, both in the United States and Europe.

The present Covid virus is only a small part of a “narrative history” – or “history of the event”—which the French call l’histoire évènementielle, i.e., a slice of history solely focusing on one single and separate event. Such an isolated historical event, e.g., the Covid shutdown, is relatively unimportant unless it becomes a factor speeding up a larger flow of history. The Covid scare is already going viral, forcing all EU/US politicians to reexamine a larger stretch of their historical memory, going back to 1945.  Undoubtedly, four years of President Trump’s slamming the mainstream media for spreading fake news has significantly undermined the intellectual and diplomatic narrative of the post-WWII Order. Many myths and mendacities imposed upon Europe and Whites in the aftermath of 1945, thanks to Trump’s presidency, have now fallen apart. Trump’s foes in Europe and the US do not like this.

After WWII, and especially after the end of the Cold War, the politics of Europe turned into a carbon copy of US policies. Whatever was going on in high politics in Washington DC had to be either copied or mimicked the next day by the political class in Berlin, Paris and Vienna, and the day after, all over eastern Europe. President Trump was the first US president in the last 75 years who seriously shook the foundations of the transatlantic liberal consensus. This is the reason why the Deep State in the EU and in the US resent him very, very much.  If America goes bust and starts breaking up tomorrow, the breakup of the EU will immediately follow suit.

Changes in America have always had an impact on European politics. This is especially true of the German political class, which, over the last 75 years, has been grotesquely doubling down on US-inspired liberal globalist agenda for fear of being for fear of being accused of harboring revisionist and paleo-fascist sentiments. The insulting label of “fascism,” “racism” or “colonialism” keeps haunting paranoid politicians in Germany and in the rest of Europe, making them embrace the safe strategy of self-denial and forcing them to be more papal than the pope, i.e., more Americanized than Americans themselves. At the moment of this writing, it means that the entire political class in Germany and the EU must endorse president-elect Biden and his running mate Harris, irrespective of their likely own hidden pro-Trump sentiments.

Just as America is being balkanized at its extreme now between the supporters of Trump and supporters of the Deep State, so is Europe being polarized at its extreme between proponents of state sovereignty and proponents of globalism. The wartime years of 1941–1945 haven’t resolved anything. We are back again in the weimaresque and balkanesque  epoch, both in the USA and the EU. The winner-takes-all will soon change the political language and define thereafter his version of historical truth. If the American left gains the hegemony they so ardently desire — hegemony that is entirely within their reach, if not now, then certainly in the near future as demographics become even more decisive — it will be the end not just of the people and culture of traditional America, but of the entire West.

A Putative Biden Victory: Very Depressing

/98 Comments/in /by

It was always obvious that each side would rejoice over a victory and gloat over others’ unhappiness, especially given the perceived stakes (absolute good vs absolute evil; cult-like behavior on both sides). The gloaters should realize that it’s human nature. What’s obvious is that the people who are rejoicing now—whether major celebrities or garden variety Twitterers—are still spewing hatred and longing for revenge as they have for four solid years. They won’t stop. Their hatred defines them. I certainly don’t envy Trump if he has to leave office with prosecutors and others poised to attack.

Biden’s speech on Saturday evening and the celebration, in the context of consensus support of liberal-left media and even foreign leaders despite recounts and court cases looming is an attempt to make it a fait accompli, a done deal that can’t be reversed. Imagine the intensity of hatred if things start to go Trump’s way.

There are still a lot of legal battles before Trump or his supporters give up. But realize that if it is certified and given that the Senate could flip depending on the results in Georgia, all the consequences of a Biden presidency noted in my “Why It’s Important for Trump to Win” might happen. The Democrat Party has become the party of corporatocracy, billionaires, and their allies in the media who lavishly funded his campaign and did all they could to promote Biden and suppress negative stories on Biden or focus on issues that favored Trump. It will mean that the power of information monopolies in the information age—multi-billion-dollar monopolies like Google and Twitter—will go unchecked so they will be able to continue slanting searches (e.g., Google searches for Biden don’t turn up anything from Breitbart) and censoring unwelcome information (everything from Twitter to the NYTimes on Biden’s obvious corruption) in our so-called democracy. Of course, if there’s one thing Trump should have done it’s rein in the media monopolies. It’s been discussed quite a bit but Trump did nothing more than complain about it and say he was monitoring the situation. Too late now.

Democrat victories in Georgia would mean Dem control of the Senate and all that that implies in terms of statehood for Puerto Rico and DC (likely permanent Democrat majority), packing the Supreme Court with justices that would be happy to impose criminal penalties for “hate speech” and restrict gun ownership.

Today’s gloaters are endorsing continued importing of cheap labor on behalf of the billionaire class and Dem strategists, undercutting those on the lowest steps of the economic ladder. 70 million unhappy Trump voters who firmly and reasonably believe that the election was stolen (such allegations are all over mainstream conservative media) are going to be a serious force in the years ahead if not in the very near future.

Despite Biden’s high-flown rhetoric about all coming together and healing the divisions, things will be worse than ever. They should be careful what they wish for.

But still. I have to say that today I am very depressed.

First Thoughts on the Election

/67 Comments/in /by

There’s huge uncertainty about how the election will turn out. What looked like a certain Trump victory when I went to bed on Tuesday night suddenly turned in Biden’s favor in Democrat-run swing states where there appears to have been massive fraud—unprecedented stopping of vote counting on Tuesday night, vote-dumps in the middle of the night in Wisconsin and Michigan in which 100% of the votes went to Biden, preventing poll watchers from actually seeing what was going on in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Nevada, and I am sure much more. The folks who firmly believe that Putin rigged the 2016 election and studiously ignore how supposedly neutral platforms like Google, Twitter, and Facebook have tilted their coverage in favor of the Democrats, now would have us believe that Democrats would not do anything to cheat. Given the long history of corruption in Chicago politics, it wouldn’t be at all surprising if Chicago Mayor Richard Daley swung the 1960 election to JFK. So it seems reasonable to suppose such things could happen in 2020 Philadelphia, Detroit, Milwaukee, and Atlanta. And there’s no question that at least some of the people in charge are activists for the Dems. Jocelyn Benson, Michigan Secretary of State in charge of elections, was a board member of the SPLC. Unprincipled pursuit of power is utterly characteristic of the Democrats and their media allies in recent years, and it would not be at all surprising to learn that there was a Plan B already decided on before the election.

The good news is that I was wrong in supposing that a Trump defeat would necessarily be a total disaster. It looks like the GOP will control the Senate, so that the radical program envisioned by the left will not happen any time soon.

If the left wins they will go into end-game mode. They will establish a more-or-less permanent hegemony (via massive surge in legal and illegal immigration, amnesty to illegals and Dreamers, adding Puerto Rico and D.C. as states, and packing the Supreme Court). A Democrat victory would mark the end of the First and Second Amendments and likely lead to eventually locking up dissidents, as is already the case in Europe. (“Why it’s important for Trump to win“)

But most of this won’t happen, at least until after the 2022 elections, so I won’t be forced to shut down TOO any time soon. As noted in the above article, Trump had considerable success in lowering legal and illegal immigration and refugee settlement by simply enforcing the law and changing some policies at the executive level. One can easily imagine that a Biden presidency would mean a return of catch and release at the border, ending border wall construction, and basically issuing an open invitation for the rest of the world to come here. Then states like California would take care of the rest, allowing them de facto citizenship (issuing driver’s licenses and likely looking the other way in voting) and free health care. So that would speed up the permanent hegemony of the left. Winning this election is still important.

But the expected Democrat landslide didn’t happen, and that has cause a great deal of angst. CNN posted an article titled “Millions of White voters are once again showing who they are.” And of course, what they are can only be “White nationalists” who are happy to have Trump negligently allow 230,000 Americans to die of Covid.

Despite four years of President Donald Trump — that is, of a man who has made White nationalism a central part of his administration and whose abject negligence in the face of a pandemic has contributed to more than 230,000 dead — millions of voters are turning out for him. … Indeed, one thing that this week has clarified is the lengths to which many White Americans are willing to go in order to protect their Whiteness, to centralize it, even after a summer that saw unprecedented support for the Black Lives Matter movement.

The article includes a video of a CNN racial activist/commentator, Van Johnson, calling it a moral, if not a political, defeat. “There’s a lot of hurt out there.” Other examples:

“Racism is Trump’s brand,” declared New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.

“If Trump wins re-election, it’s on white people,” insisted Atlantic writer Jemele Hill.

“Trump’s racist messaging seems to have held its strong appeal,” FiveThirtyEight’s Clare Malone offered as analysis on election night.

Voters “accepted — embraced — his unveiled racism and ­misogyny,” agreed Mother Jones’ David Corn.

Of course, what this really indicates is that the nonstop media campaign to vilify Trump and Trump voters was largely a failure. We have had four years of intense hatred and charges of traitorous behavior spewed out by most of the media against Trump and his supporters, as well as the suppression of negative information about Biden. And, despite all that, millions of evil White people came out and voted Republican. This is good news to say the least. In fact, in the face of all this propaganda and hate, Trump got 6 million more votes this time than in 2016 (“A Large Portion of the Electorate Chose the Sociopath,” The Atlantic).

As noted many times here, the US has become polarized to an unprecedented extent, and part of that means that in general people on each side read media that confirms their worldview. Essentially, this comes down to the idea that people start forming cult-like attitudes on both sides, and in the case of the liberal-left, that came down to confidence that this election would result in a landslide win in which they would be able to end evil White America forever. When the election did not turn out anywhere near the way the liberal-left media said it would, one must suppose that there are many people on the left who experienced a great deal of cognitive dissonance —a contradiction between their innermost beliefs and what actually happened right before their eyes. Cognitive dissonance often results in simply doubling down on your beliefs, as in the case of the CNN article noted above. They have no problem thinking that around half of the American population are hopeless fascists or self-hating minorities (see below).

But I suspect there are others, likely the more intelligent and a bit less prone to cult-like dogmatism, who are undergoing a bit of self-examination. Maybe these are people who cut themselves off from family and friends because of their support for Trump—almost all of this cutting-off was initiated by Trump haters. They may start thinking that it’s ridiculous to suppose that around half the voting population are morally corrupt. And there may be lingering attachments and some fond memories of the people they cut off. Maybe at least some of these people are reasonably rational and reasonably nice Okay, I’m a dreamer.

It was an election that saw increases in the numbers of non-Whites voting for Trump from 2016, up four points nationally with Black men and Black women and three points among Latino men and Latino women, and much higher in some areas, such as Florida and parts of Texas. Of course the only possible reason for this is that White supremacy struck again. These voters were self-haters, much like the knee-jerk Jewish reaction to Jews who criticize other Jews or don’t go along with mainstream Jewish agendas. Like other activist reasoning, no evidence is ever needed for such beliefs. As in the case of Whites, there are no real data on this, although it’s reasonable to think that the surge in Latino GOP voting in Florida was due to concerns about impending socialism among the areas many refugees from socialist utopias, and polls have often found that Latinos do not favor high levels of immigration because the are aware of its effects on the job market. For Blacks, it could be that there were more high-profile Blacks who rebelled against the Democrat mindset (HipHopWired lists 15.) If it’s one thing about Blacks, they look up to Black role models.

The interesting thing is that the only group to show less support for Trump compared to 2016 is White men. There could be any number of explanations for this, and we await some real data. Perhaps Trump was seen as ignoring these people, constantly highlighting what he has done for Blacks and Latinos, but never saying anything explicitly about Whites, much less White men. I doubt this explanation because White women increased their support for Trump, and the marriage gap was huge.

There could be any number of explanations for this, and we await some real data. Perhaps Trump was seen as ignoring his White base, constantly highlighting what he has done for Blacks and Latinos, but never saying anything explicitly about Whites, much less White men. I doubt this explanation because White women increased their support for Trump, and the marriage gap was huge. His rallies were attended overwhelmingly by massively enthusiastic White people — enough in itself to terrify our hostile elites. And the same goes for beliefs about Trump’s handling of the virus or the GOP health care package (or lack thereof). Why should these issues make supporting Trump go down among White men but up among White women?

Another possible explanation that comes to mind is the incessant propaganda from the media hyping White guilt (e.g., the notorious “1619 Project”), the massive promotion of Critical Race theory and BLM complaints. Although White women are also included in the blame for White evils, it’s nowhere near as bad as with White men.

Speaking of cult-like behavior, we saw a lot of that among Trump supporters during his campaign stops leading up to the election. These rallies were often commented on in the media, particularly with the criticism that they were super-spreader events (although leftist protests were always exempted from this criticism). The devotion of these crowds was something to behold, and, whatever else you want to say about Trump, his rallies were incredibly entertaining—who can forget his many laugh lines and his dancing along with the 1970s anthem, “YMCA.”

But the enthusiastic receptions Trump got terrify the mainstream media, resulting in a what I suspect is a reflexive reaction where they think about another political leader in 1930s Germany who has able to hold crowds spellbound. Trump’s charisma is terrifying to our hostile elite. Anything and everything must be used to stop him.

This brings up the media’s role in creating the hatred for Trump. Given how close the election is turning out to be in the swing states, it is inconceivable that the media’s role was not decisive in preventing a huge Trump victory—suppressing obvious Biden corruption and endlessly hyping covid as the big issue rather than issues like law & order in Democrat-run cities. Sins of omission are often at least as important as sins of commission. If the detailed evidence on Biden corruption would have been headline news in the rest of the mainstream media besides FoxNews, it would have been a different outcome. I suspect that if Biden wins, the media and the rest of the Democrats will start to sour on him come March of next year and suddenly get on board with Biden corruption or his incipient dementia. They would love to have Kamala Harris as president.

Another plus from this election is that it’s obvious that Trump’s populist message still resonates strongly in the GOP. This will make it much more difficult for the neocons and establishment Republicans types to regain control. If Trump had lost in a landslide, Kristol, Kagan, Rubin, and the Lincoln Project folks would be generously offering to pick up the pieces. But in the event, an awful lot of Republican politicians and strategists will continue to pursue Trump’s populist rhetoric. No going back to Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan types. What comes next may be even far better than the mistake-prone and sometimes tone deaf Trump.

Finally, the situation created by evident election corruption by the left, in the context of cult-like fealty on both sides, is producing a very volatile situation. I was just reading some research on the “democracy premium” showing people will contribute more to the group and go along with group rules if they feel they have had a voice. In other words, even if you lost the election fair and square, you are much more likely to continue working within the system if you were able to vote on it and think the election was conducted fairly. But if 68 million Republican voters reasonably think the election was stolen—quite likely the case here, watch out. It will delegitimize the system and exacerbate an already extremely volatile situation.

This could possibly turn out well. Civil wars are messy and disastrous in many ways, but we have reached the point where compromise and discussion are impossible. Better sooner than later. When Romans in the first century BC found themselves in an empire under Augustus rather than a republic, they were grateful. The republic had shown it couldn’t work any longer. Order and stability were needed after repeated civil wars and intense factionalism. Similarly, the divisions in the contemporary U.S. are too great to heal. The only question is which side is going to establish hegemony—unless we can somehow develop a consensus that the country should fractionate into more politically homogeneous areas. It’s going to be interesting. Perhaps too interesting.

 

Labour’s Shame: How The British Labour Party Betrayed Its Founding Principles

/14 Comments/in , /by

The newly published report on anti-Semitism in the British Labour party couldn’t be more damning. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) spoke to dozens of witnesses as it investigated how Labour had repeatedly and remorselessly betrayed Britain’s Jewish community. Once the party had been their natural home; now it had become their sworn enemy.

Weeping with shame

Denis MacShane, the former Labour MP for the Yorkshire town of Rotherham, wept with shame as he stood before the EHRC and confessed that he had worked for decades on behalf of rich and powerful Christians in far-off London while ignoring the powerless working-class Jewish girls being raped, prostituted and murdered by vicious Christian gangs in his own constituency. “As a staunch socialist and life-long feminist, I was elected to defend the interests of working-class Jewish girls above all others,” Denis sobbed. “And I betrayed that sacred trust.”

Racked with remorse: Denis MacShane

Other witnesses from Rotherham revealed that the Labour council there had deliberately suppressed details of Jewish suffering at Christian hands for fear of upsetting “community relations,” while Sarah Champion, MacShane’s successor as MP for Rotherham, described how she had been thrown out of the Shadow Cabinet by Jeremy Corbyn for speaking out against the Christian rape-gangs in defence of her working-class Jewish constituents.

Labour was founded to defend Jews

Another Labour MP, Ann Cryer, said that the horrific abuse of Jewish girls by Christian gangs elsewhere in Britain had been ignored since the 1980s by Labour-controlled institutions and by Britain’s most powerful Labour-supporting newspaper. “I couldn’t get The Guardian interested,” she recalled sadly. “Its reporters seemed paralysed by political correctness.” The veteran Labourite Roy Hattersley made another shame-filled confession, revealing that, during his decades in parliament, he had always refused to act on his Jewish constituents’ clearly expressed opposition to mass immigration by bigoted and violent Christians from the Third World.

Those are only a few examples of the horrific anti-Semitism uncovered by the EHRC as it probed the foul and fetid depths of Labour’s betrayal of the Jewish community. Under Tony Blair, the Labour government had ignored the rape and murder of Jews even as it opened the borders to mass immigration that destroyed the livelihood of Jews, caused crime to flourish, and forced Jews to flee their traditional districts. The EHRC report concluded with these ringing words: “The very name of the Labour party — from the Hebrew Laab, ‘Serve,’ and Ow’r, ‘the Jews’ — proclaims its founding commitment to work tirelessly for the Jewish community. Labour has betrayed its very reason for existence by allowing the Jewish community to suffer for so long and in so many ways.”

Back to reality

Well, that isn’t what the EHRC report into anti-Semitism really said, of course. Jews in Britain haven’t been suffering any of the things I described above. No rape, murder, beatings, impoverishment and ethnic cleansing for them. Instead, the Labour party inflicted all those things on the White working-class. In reality, the MP Denis MacShane worked for Jews in far-off London while ignoring the rape and murder of White girls by Muslim gangs in his Yorkshire constituency. Mass immigration has impoverished and ethnically cleansed the White working-class, not Jews. The Jewish peer Lord Glasman served in Blair’s government and witnessed what he called “a terrible situation where a Labour government was hostile to the English working-class.”

The rich Jewish lawyer Rebecca Hilsenrath

The rich (and homosexual) Jewish lawyer David Isaac

The Labour party is still hostile. And the Equality and Human Rights Commission doesn’t care in the slightest. After all, the EHRC is headed by two rich Jewish lawyers, Rebecca Hilsenrath and David Isaac. The EHRC works against White interests, not for them. That’s why it ignored the genuine crimes committed by Labour against the White working-class and focused on threats to Jewish interests. Inter alia, the real EHRC report exposed and attacked Labour anti-Semites who “referenced conspiracies about … Jewish power and control” or “accused British Jews of greater loyalty to Israel than Britain.”

Friends of Israel in very high places

What are rape and murder compared to horrific truth-crimes like those? For example, it should be utterly unacceptable that a national newspaper in Britain could openly proclaim that Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) is “the biggest lobbying group in Westminster, holding lunches for 700 guests, making countless Downing Street visits, and developing contacts throughout Israel and the Middle East.” That’s shamelessly feeding conspiracy theories about “Jewish power and control” and about how Jews have “greater loyalty to Israel than Britain.”

Lord Polack at Conservative Friends of Israel

Which national newspaper said that about Conservative Friends of Israel? It was the Jewish Chronicle, the same newspaper that has just issued a special edition in celebration of the EHRC report into Labour’s anti-Semitism. The Chronicle described CFI like that during a scandal about how the CFI’s shadiest and most powerful official, the Jewish Lord Polack, had guided the Conservative politician Priti Patel to secret and unminuted meetings with Israeli politicians on Israeli, British and American soil.

The most pro-Israel war-criminal in British history

If a shady lobbyist called Mahmoud Rafsanjani or Dmitri Bogdanov had guided Priti Patel to secret and unminuted meetings with Iranian or Russian politicians, the Jewish Chronicle would have been thundering about conspiracies and demanding Patel’s resignation. But it’s fine when Jews do the same underhanded things for Israel’s benefit. And it was also fine when Tony Blair’s Labour government, funded and controlled by Jews like Lord Levy, betrayed the White working-class whom Labour was founded to serve. Blair is a war-criminal who has always worked for Israel, bankers, big business and the military-industrial complex, not for the working-class. That’s why he’s now worth more than £100m and why the Israeli newspaper Haaretz said that Blair is “generally regarded as the most pro-Israel prime minister in British history.” Marie van der Zyl, head of the Jewish Board of Deputies, has recently “praised Mr Blair as a ‘true friend’ of the Jewish community.” In other words, Blair followed Jewish orders, so it didn’t matter that he was a dedicated enemy of Labour’s traditional supporters in the White working-class.

Then the dim narcissist Blair left office and in time the dim Marxist Jeremy Corbyn became Labour leader. Corbyn opposed Blair’s mass-killing in the Middle East and has never wanted to be a millionaire. In other words, he wasn’t prepared to follow Jewish orders for financial reward. And that’s why he was relentlessly demonized as an anti-Semite and has now been suspended from the Labour party. He refused to grovel in contrition when the EHCR report was published. I think he was right not to grovel. But Jeremy Corbyn wouldn’t be ashamed if the EHRC published a truthful report into Labour’s genuine and decades-old crimes against the White working-class. As I’ve said before, Labour is better regarded as a criminal conspiracy than as a political party. Under pro-war, pro-plutocracy Blair, it conspired against the White working-class on behalf of Jews. Under anti-war, anti-plutocracy Corbyn, it conspired against the White working-class on behalf of Muslims, Blacks and other alien invaders.

Pro-Black bureaucrats and anti-White Jews

George Orwell wrote the following in Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949): “Even the names of the four Ministries [in his fictional dystopia] exhibit a sort of impudence in their deliberate reversal of the facts. The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation.”

In real 21st-century Britain, the Labour party concerns itself with attacking the working-class. And the Civil Service, overseen by a so-called Conservative government, concerns itself with working against civilization and for barbarism, as a recent article by a pseudonymous journalist has revealed:

On 3 June [2020], Jonathan Slater, Permanent Secretary of the Department for Education, responded to the DEFRA [Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs] Permanent Secretary Tamara Finkelstein’s call to “fight racism” by tweeting the Black Lives Matter hashtag and declaring his quest to “tackle the whiteness of Senior Whitehall” (both these Whitehall heads are white, incidentally). …

Our supposedly impartial civil service is institutionalising far-left identity politics. It has fallen prey to networks of entryist activists like Project Race who, like BLM [Black Lives Matter], are adept at disguising neo-Marxist ideas as kind-hearted truisms. The influence that senior civil servants have granted these activists stops junior civil servants speaking against them, which in turn allows senior civil servants to broadcast patently absurd or partisan views with total impunity. One junior civil servant has described to me a non-stop, daily bombardment of “anti-racist” activism at work since the BLM protests began. Because no-one questions it openly, the woke browbeating continues as if it were no more controversial than a stationery audit. The evidence above is only the tip of the iceberg, but it’s already wedged deep into the ship’s hull. It remains a mystery why Captain Boris [Johnson] [and] First Officer [Michael] Gove … haven’t sounded a vigorous alarm about any of this. (The BLM takeover of Whitehall: Why don’t ministers care about the politics of their civil servants?, The Critic, 18th August 2020)

That article should be read by all intelligent Whites in Britain, before they begin fighting back against the hostile elite that intends to destroy them. Alas, it won’t be. It was written under the pseudonym of “Justin Elderman” by someone (possibly Jewish) who rightly fears that using his real name would harm his career and perhaps even his physical well-being. And look again at the question raised by Mr Elderman: “Why don’t ministers care about the politics of their civil servants?” He didn’t answer the question, but he had given his readers a big clue here:

On 3 June [2020], Jonathan Slater, Permanent Secretary of the Department for Education, responded to the DEFRA [Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs] Permanent Secretary Tamara Finkelstein’s call to “fight racism” by tweeting the Black Lives Matter hashtag and declaring his quest to “tackle the whiteness of Senior Whitehall” (both these Whitehall heads are white, incidentally). (The BLM takeover of Whitehall)

Tamara Finkelstein works for Jews

I don’t think Tamara Finkelstein regards herself as “white” any more than her brother Daniel Finkelstein does. No, both of them regard themselves as Jewish, not as White. The powerful bureaucrat Tamara Finkelstein proudly states that she is “Joint Senior Sponsor of the Civil Service Jewish Network” in her Twitter profile, while the powerful politician Daniel Finkelstein is a Vice President of the Jewish Leadership Council and has waxed lyrical in the Jewish Chronicle about “That mysterious sense of Jewish connection,” which ensures that “most of my best friends are Jewish.”

Anti-White activists Tamara and Daniel Finkelstein

Daniel Finkelstein is a senior figure in the so-called Conservative government that is ignoring the anti-White activism of senior bureaucrats like his sister Tamara Finkelstein, a BLM-supporting “Race Champion” in the Civil Service. Finkelstein himself belonged to the leftist Social Democratic Party in his youth. Then he joined the Tories in 1990 and began campaigning to “modernize” the party — that is, to turn it into something that worked solely for Jewish interests, having abandoned its conservative principles and the historic White Christian nation of Britain.

White Lives Don’t Matter

In 2020, the “modernization” is complete. The not-at-all Conservative party is thoroughly Finkelsteined. It has a Jewish treasurer, Ehud Sheleg, an Israeli plutocrat who openly admits that he makes “my homeland” of Israel his first concern. And all the most important posts in the government are held by kosher-certified Friends of Israel: the part-Jewish, part-Turkish prime minister Boris Johnson; the fully Jewish foreign secretary Dominic Raab; the Indian-Hindu chancellor Rishi Sunak; and the Indian-Hindu home secretary Priti Patel. These not-at-all Conservatives have done nothing as anti-White activism sweeps the Civil Service. But can you imagine what they would do if senior bureaucrats began a campaign against Israel in support of Palestinians? They would respond instantly, banning the anti-Israel campaign and sternly rebuking bureaucrats for breaking their strict code of political impartiality.

As it is, the Tories are doing nothing, because Jewish interests are not being challenged by anti-White activism and Black Lives Matter. On the contrary, Jewish interests are being strengthened. As Kevin MacDonald has described, BLM and Antifa are footsoldiers in what can be called a “Jewish coup” against the historic White nation of America. The same applies in Britain. But don’t expect the Equality and Human Rights Commission to take any action when Whites and their interests are harmed. In Brave New Britain, White Lives Don’t Matter.

Chris Hedges and Matt Taibbi: Media as propaganda and censorship bureau: The Jewish angle

/15 Comments/in , /by

The podcast, which you can view at the bottom of this article, is interesting for several reasons. Chris Hedges and Matt Taibbi are both what would, until very recently, be considered mainstream journalists. Now they see themselves on the outside of a monolithic system where information has been completely politicized to the point of it being, in Taibbi’s words, “a one-party media environment.” I rather doubt that either of them are Trump supporters, but they realize that if Trump loses, things will get even worse. Self-censorship, which is undoubtedly already high, will increase as lines that cannot be crossed without ending one’s career touch on ever more subjects. They compare the situation to the Soviet Union where everyone knew that the official media could not be trusted, but underground Samizdat documents were treasured. I can’t help thinking we are already there in the sense that people like me are forced to turn to podcasts and websites that are well outside the mainstream, in a situation of constant deplatforming by financial companies and media companies like YouTube.

Taibbi notes that there was a sea change after the 2016 election where basically organizations like the NYTimes had a “come to Jesus” moment” when they asked themselves how could we let this happen and decided to become overtly political, throwing a sop to conservatives by hiring someone like neocon Bret Stephens to appease conservatives while at the same time promoting the Trump-Russia collusion hoax and ginning up the White guilt narrative with the 1619 Project, while completely suppressing the Hunter Biden-Joe Biden scandal, the evidence for which, in my opinion, is overwhelming. At the same time they ignored the real reasons why Trump won—Taibbi mentions neoliberal economics (implying replacement-level immigration and outsourcing American jobs) and economically struggling and poor Americans. But left unmentioned is the feeling of unease by a broad swathe of White Americans that their country is being taken away from them and that it’s increasingly unrecognizable from the country they grew up in. Unmentioned also is that a great many Whites are feeling racially dispossessed by the replacement-level immigration that has occurred, and they are increasingly aware that they are hated by our liberal-left hostile elite.

As they note, the problem is that when you suppress what is really going on and the reasons for it, you are left with increasingly unconvincing narratives—as happened in the USSR. And in the US, where there is still a large segment of the White population that has not trusted the liberal media for decades, mainly because of mainstream conservative media figures like Rush Limbaugh, what is happening before our eyes is radical polarization. The possibility of civil war is discussed—a possibility mentioned several times on this site. Civil war seems reasonably  likely if Trump wins. One can imagine antifa-BLM violence far beyond anything seen thus far breaking out in all major urban areas, and it would inevitably require a major military force to bring it under control. And if he loses, there will deep anger among Trump supporters. Unlike the left, the right has not shown much of an appetite for violence lately, but that could change. We have already seen armed White men standing up against antifa-BLM protesters who were bussed in to their communities. For many such White men, free speech may not be their #1 priority, but having guns is very important and would loom large in the context of a far left government influenced by the likes of Kamala Harris (who has already said she would issue an executive order on gun ownership if Congress fails to act). It seems likely that Biden would be similarly prone to such actions.

Undiscussed by Hedges and Taibbi is the very prominent role of Jews in all this. Throughout the 2016 campaign and beyond there have been intense denunciations in the Jewish media and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself) comparing Trump to Hitler, promoting impeachment, etc. The apocalyptic response to Trump’s election went far beyond the New York Times. And, while acknowledging that a minority of Jews supported Trump and still do, Jewish power in terms of media ownership and production is also a critical aspect. Journalism is like the academic world in that it is a top-down system where the elite media play an outsized role. In academia, Harvard professors train graduate students who get positions at UC-Berkeley, who then get graduate students who staff lower-level state colleges, who then train K-12 teachers. In the media, the New York Times, Jewish-owned for over a century, is the Harvard of the media food chain, and other outlets, from WaPo, the LATimes and NPR to CNN and MSNBC—all with large Jewish ownership and/or staffing, take the Times’ lead. In effect this media behemoth ends up speaking with one voice. And in the internet age, this one voice has been amplified considerably by the dominant social media companies—again with large Jewish ownership and staffing, and all of which have slanted searches or censored posts that they view as contrary to their liberal-left political agenda. The suppression of the New York Post story by Twitter is Exhibit A. And again, we on the dissident right have been dealing with this for years. It’s obvious that another Trump victory would be seen in apocalyptic terms by the liberal-left media.

Also unmentioned is the role of the ADL in pressuring media companies to censor speech they don’t like. This has been going on for decades but quite obviously is reaching fruition now. I wrote this in 2002 (Preface to the paperback edition of Culture of Critique, lvii:

In CofC (Ch. 8) I wrote, ‘one may expect that as ethnic conflict continues to escalate in the United States, increasingly desperate attempts will be made to prop up the ideology of multiculturalism … with the erection of police state controls on nonconforming thought and behavior.’ As noted above, there has been a shift from ‘the culture of critique’ to what one might term ‘the culture of the Holocaust’ as Jews have moved from outsiders to the consummate insiders in American life. Coinciding with their status as an established elite, Jewish organizations are now in the forefront of movements to censor thought crimes.40

The Internet is a major gap in control of the major media, but Jewish organizations have taken the lead in attempting to censor the Internet. The Simon Wiesenthal Center (SWC) distributes a compact disc titled ‘Digital Hate 2001‘ that lists over 3000 ‘hate sites on the Internet.’ Both the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the ADL have attempted to pressure Internet service providers (ISP’s) like AOL and popular websites like Yahoo into restricting subscriber access to disapproved websites. Recently Yahoo removed 39 Internet clubs originally identified as ‘hate sites’ by the SWC.41 Internet auction sites have been subjected to protests for selling Nazi memorabilia.42 Amazon.com and Barnesandnoble.com have come under fire for selling Hitler’s Mein Kampf. The ADL also published a report, Poisoning the Web: Hatred Online, and has urged the U.S. Congress to initiate a ‘comprehensive study of the magnitude and impact of hate on the Internet.’43

Online services in the U.S. are also under pressure from foreign governments, including France, Germany, Austria, and Canada, where there are no constitutional guarantees of free speech. For example, a judge in France ruled that Yahoo was violating French law by delivering Nazi memorabilia to people in France via the company’s online auctions, even though the service is based in the United States. Yahoo was acting illegally, the judge said, even though the company has created a separate French site that, unlike the broader Yahoo service, follows French law. The company was ordered to use filtering technology to block politically sensitive material from appearing on computers in France or face fines equivalent to $13,000 a day. In Germany, a court found that German law applies even to foreigners who post content on the Web in other countries — so long as that content can be accessed by people inside Germany. In this case, the court ruled that an Australian citizen who posted Holocaust revisionist material on his Australian website could be jailed in Germany. Theoretically it would be possible for Germany to demand that this person be extradited from Australia so that he could stand trial for his crime.

Jewish organizations have been strong advocates of laws in European countries that criminalize the distribution of anti-Jewish material. For example, the ADL pressured the German government to arrest a U.S. citizen who distributed anti-Jewish materials. Gary Lauck was arrested in Denmark and extradited to Germany on the warrant of a Hamburg prosecutor. He was sentenced to four years in jail, served his sentence, and was deported.

This sort of government-imposed censorship is effective in countries like France and Germany, but is not likely to succeed in the United States with its strong tradition of constitutionally protected free speech. As a result, the major focus of the Jewish effort to censor the Internet in the United States has been to pressure private companies like AOL and Yahoo to use software that blocks access to sites that are disapproved by Jewish organizations. The ADL developed voluntary filter software (ADL HateFilter) that allows users to screen out certain websites. However, while AOL — the largest ISP by far — has proved to be compliant in setting standards in line with ADL guidelines, the ADL notes that other ISP’s, such as Earthlink, have not cooperated with the ADL, and independent web hosting sites have sprung up to serve websites rejected by AOL.

The ADL and the SWC have an uphill road because the Internet has long been touted as a haven for free speech by the high-tech community. One senses a certain frustration in the conclusion of a recent ADL report on the Internet:

Combating online extremism presents enormous technological and legal difficulties …. Even if it were electronically feasible to keep sites off the Internet, the international nature of the medium makes legal regulation virtually impossible. And in the United States, the First Amendment guarantees the right of freedom of speech regardless of what form that speech takes. As a result, governments, corporations and people of goodwill continue to look for alternative ways to address the problem.

Clearly Jewish organizations are making every effort to censor anti-Jewish writing on the Internet. They are far from reaching their goal of removing anti-Jewish material from the Internet, but in the long run the very high political stakes involved ensure that great effort will be expended. I suspect that in the U.S., if pressuring existing ISP’s by organizations like the ADL and the SWC fails, these companies may become targets of buyouts by Jewish-owned media companies who will then quietly remove access to anti-Jewish websites. AOL has just recently merged with Time Warner, a Jewish-controlled media company, and it had already merged with Compuserve, a large, nationwide ISP. As indicated above, AOL-Time Warner has complied with pressures exerted by Jewish activist organizations to restrict expressions of political opinion on the Internet.

I suppose that the only option for prohibited websites will be to develop their own Internet service providers. These providers — perhaps subsidized or relatively expensive — would then fill the niche of serving people who are already committed to ethnic activism among non-Jewish Europeans and other forms of politically incorrect expression. The situation would be similar to the current situation in the broadcast and print media. All of the mainstream media are effectively censored, but small publications that essentially preach to the converted can exist if not flourish.

But such publications reach a miniscule percentage of the population. They are basically ignored by the mainstream media, and they mainly preach to the choir. The same will likely happen to the Internet: The sites will still be there [Update: or maybe not if the left gets rid of the First Amendment], but they will be out of sight and out of mind for the vast majority of Internet users. The effective censorship of the Internet by large corporations does not violate the First Amendment because the government is not involved and any policy can be justified as a business decision not to offend existing or potential customers.

This was updated and expanded in 2009, and I note there that free speech was never a value of traditional Jewish communities. This then ties in with the discussion of Hedges and Taibbi on the parallels between the current situation in the U.S (and the rest of the West) with communism which definitely does not support free speech. Until communism in the USSR conflicted with Jewish interests (i.e., after World War II and especially in the 1970s due to Soviet support for Arab countries as well as discrimination against Jews in employment), Jews were quite comfortable with communism and indeed, were the backbone of communism in the United States through the 1960s. For example, Jews were the primary targets of Joe McCarthy simply because so many communists were Jews. (McCarthy did all he could to deflect charges of anti-Semitism by, e.g., hiring Roy Cohn.) The result was that Jewish organizations reluctantly and with substantial pushback ridded the mainstream Jewish community of communist-affiliated organizations.

Enjoy:

Neocons flock to Biden: It’s All About Jewish Values

/24 Comments/in , /by

Probably the least surprising news you will hear in this election season, from Philip Weiss, “Neoconservatives are flocking to Biden (and let’s forget about the Iran deal.”

Neoconservatives are flocking to the Biden campaign. The DC braintrust that believes in using US military power to aid Israel in the Middle East has jumped parties before– to Clinton in ’92, and back to Bush in 2000– and now they’re hopping aisles to support Biden, with Bill Kristol leading the way.

Last night on an official Biden campaign webinar led by “Jewish Americans for Biden”, and moderated by Ann Lewis of Democratic Majority for Israel, two prominent neocon Republicans endorsed Biden, primarily because of Trump’s character posing a danger to democracy. But both neocons emphasized that Biden would be more willing to use force in the Middle East and reassured Jewish viewers that Biden will seek to depoliticize Israel support, won’t necessarily return to the Iran deal and will surround himself with advisers who support Israel and believe in American military intervention. …

Eliot Cohen, a Bush aide and academic, echoed the fear that Israel is being politicized. “A lot of Jews made a big mistake by taking something I was in favor of, moving the embassy to Jerusalem and obsessing about that,” he said. But there was huge political risk in that: if the United States is internally divided, at war with itself, and “Israel has become a partisan issue, which it should never ever be…. That’s not in Israel’s longterm security interest.”

Biden will reverse that trend by appointing strong supporters of Israel, Cohen said.

“Joe Biden has a long record as a friend of Israel. I think we’re both quite familiar with the kinds of people who will go into a Biden administration and I think we feel very comfortable that they will have a deep and abiding concern for Israel which is not going to go away.”

Edelman also said that Trump has created many “dangers” in the region by not being aggressive:

“By withdrawing or threatening to withdraw US forces, by repeatedly not replying or dealing with Iranian aggression in the Persian Gulf or against Saudi oil infrastructure, he’s created a sort of vacuum that is being filled in Libya by Russia and by Turkey…”

Biden will work with allies and be ready to use U.S. military in the region– or as Edelman said, “to play.”

“The region is a mess,” Edelman said. “And yet the president continually says he wants the U.S. to withdraw from the region. The reality is that the withdrawal of US power form the region has helped create this morass of threats.”

He cited three war zones in which the U.S. or proxies’ bombing is essential to U.S. security, Libya, Yemen and Syria.

In Syria, “The Trump administration pulled out and said, we don’t want to play here,” Edelman said.

“Other forces are going to fill the vacuum created by the absence of US leadership and they won’t be benign forces,” Edelman said. Iran, Russia, or Turkey will come in and create a “vortex of instability that can potentially come back to haunt us” — with terrorist attacks or the disruption of energy markets.

Cohen and Edelman opposed Obama’s Iran deal, and both predicted that Biden will be hawkish on Iran.

In other words, Trump has failed the Israel Lobby because he has tried to pull our US forces from the Middle East and, although he has laid down sanctions against Iran, he has not gone to war. Of course, these are the people who promoted the ongoing disaster of the Iraq war. They are probably right that Russia and Turkey would benefit from US pulling out completely (Libya??), but where are legitimate US interests in all this? Trump ran on ending Middle East wars and getting out of the region–the original reason the neocons jumped ship (in addition to fears of a nascent Orange Hitler). Despite being president he has been unable to do so. He has been strongly opposed by the foreign policy establishment and the Pentagon — a testament to the extent to which the US security establishment is Israel-occupied territory.

Lurking in the background of the attitudes of Cohen and Edelman is the idea that Biden would tame the forces on the left that have been so critical of Israel in recent years. With Biden they get it all: Strongly pro-Israel even to the point of initiating a war with Iran, taming the anti-Israel voices on the left (Kamala Harris with her Jewish husband s not among them), and perhaps a Senate led by Israel operative Chuck Schumer. Meanwhile the Republican Party would default to the Chamber of Commerce and the remaining neocons, and the hope of a nationally competitive GOP, much less a truly populist GOP, would die. Bill Kristol loves the prospect of a long-term Democrat domination.

And of course, all of these bellicose proposals are cloaked in a veneer of “Jewish values” — not so ironic if one assumes, as is certainly the case, that promoting war for specifically Jewish interests is indeed a Jewish value.

Cohen … spoke about Jewish values. He and his family belong to an orthodox synagogue and have raised four children with a religious education. “I’ve tried to live my life by Jewish values. One thing that’s very important for Jewish Republicans. Obviously the issue of Israel is important, it’s the only Jewish state, it’s important to look after it and for it to thrive, but what is our approach to politics?” Jews don’t believe that you Render unto God the things that are God and render unto Caesar the thing that are Caesar’s and therefore not take issue with a politician’s character “so long as they do what we want them to do.” He said, “That’s not the Jewish way.” In the Book of Samuel, the king engages “in despicable behavior,” and the prophet storms into his bedroom. “We believe that character matters.” And this election is about character.

Okay, Trump is not a saint. But given that Biden is up to his eyeballs in scandal doesn’t bother Cohen at all — despite overwhelming documentation. So we are not supposed to care that the Biden family raked in millions by using Biden’s influence to alter US foreign policy or that China could easily blackmail him into doing their bidding on trade and military issues. So in the end, it’s really about what Cohen, Edelman, Kristol, et al. think is good for Israel (Jennifer Rubin and Max Boot jumped the GOP ship even before Trump was elected). Again, count me unsurprised.

And of course, the other thing is that neocons have always been on the left within the Republican Party. One might say they have attempted to not only make Israel a bi-partisan issue (their first priority) but also promoting the liberal/left social agenda, such as replacement-level non-White immigration, as a bipartisan issue — both values strongly promoted by the mainstream Jewish community. They jumped ship mainly because Trump was promising to undo the liberal/left social agenda as well as disengage from foreign wars and US occupation of the Middle East. During the 2016 campaign, some of the strongest denunciations of Trump came from neocons (“Jewish Fear and Loathing of Donald Trump: Neocon Angst about a Fascist America”).

If you haven’t seen it, Carlson’s interview with Bobulinski is damning, and the documents he refers to have been thoroughly authenticated.