The New Bolshevik Branches of the United States of America: Chief of Staff (Klain), State (Blinken, Sherman, Nuland), Treasury (Yellen), CDC (Walensky), DHS (Mayorkas), Cybersecurity (Neuberger), CIA (Cohen), Council of Economic Advisors (Bernstein), FCC (Rosenworcel), SEC (Gensler), Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism (Lipstadt), NSC Border Czar (Jacobson), Council on Gender Policy (Klein), Covid Response (Zients), U. S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (Kleinbaum), U.S. Ambassador to the E.U. (Gitenstein), SGOTUS (Emhoff), Senate (Schumer).
And Meet the New Head of the US Department of Justice: Attorney General Merrick Garfinkle.
The American government is established under both ideological and constructive federalism: most broadly, that means that it has separate branches of government; that those branches are relatively independent; and that a set of rules, laws, or a constitution, establish and maintain such a structure. Some observers believe, however, that this federalism construct is “imploding” toward its center, into a monolithic, centralized unit. The classical liberal principles that informed the crafting of the U.S. Constitution, and the form of limited government, with limited, circumscribed powers held at bay in order to leave men and women unburdened, have been eroded, weakened and even explicitly attacked. This development has become especially pronounced in the last 12 months, but has been creeping toward this arrangement since the Second World War when government, industry, the intelligence sector and finance pushed toward an effective creation of a unified trust.
The exact same phenomenon, animated by additional factors but sharing a common cultural causation, exists in the greater Middle East, as, like the gravity of a black hole, the country of Israel seeks to centralize regional power, resources and command, under its authority: a single, unified “Pan Israel” operated by a permanent Zionist, effectively theocratic authoritarianism. Like the US, its dominant political trust seeks to deceive, distort, divide and destroy. It functions from the effort of continuous destabilization, created through routines of deception. The current Afghanistan operation is another, perhaps near-term final stage in the Global War on Terror (“GWOT”) that has as its underlying purpose a “Middle East transformation” that is centered on the conquest of Iran, the control of regional resources, and the effective control of Russia in a neo-Bolshevik fantasy currently led by the U.S. State Department.
Both the US, and the Pan Israel project, also share a common network of special interests, embedded largely in US institutions. Their outward ideological posture is that of liberty, freedom, and a fight against terror: it is, in fact, the use of terror to suppress liberty, and centralize authority. Consolidating authority in the U.S. is central to the ability to carry out the final phases of the GWOT. Capturing the Department of Justice is central to breaking down the checks and balances that would otherwise retard or inhibit such overt consolidation, and where any remnants of federalism must be collapsed. Merrick Garland is the right man for that job.
Jewish organized interests—like all interests that organize for specific objectives—form their network, assets, influence and authority, in institutions. And quite clearly, it’s much more difficult for a relatively small group of activists to influence policy when the government is dedicated to federalism, with its 50 states and thousands of local jurisdictions such as police departments, than it is to have power centralized in Washington DC. Top-down institutional control at the federal level is key to the special interest interface with, and influence over, American society. In Garland’s case, nearly his entire career has been within government. While this is not necessarily unusual in the legal field, it creates a perspective that favors central government—a perspective that sees problems primarily as challenges to governmental authority and that reinforces a culture of government expansion especially through the sprawling administrative state that has characterized U.S. government since the New Deal era of the 1930’s.
While Jewish and other special interest institutional infiltrations of American civil, military and government departments are not new, what is new is a radical shift and even transformation, in the relationship between the President and the branches, departments and agencies, resulting from the installation of a cognitively impaired chief executive in the White House as Commander in Chief. By eroding and dismantling what firewall or even notional separation and independence of authority, judgment, and operations, that the office of the president has historically provided, it has been subject to what is in effect a complete takeover. When the current acting president is replaced with his Vice President—an individual with more overtly clinical psychological characteristics—the takeover and strategic plans will be consolidated (until it is successfully disbanded by direct election or constitutional removal—which would be challenged under Garland, and another reason the current administration seeks a packed, “super-majority” in the Supreme Court, in order to consolidate judiciary branch power, and reinforce judicial review. It is important to appreciate that the current administration and its larger network, are almost exclusively from the law sector and law academy. In their methods and assumptions, it is Justice, the judiciary and the Supreme Court that are the objects of their designs for power and control. They are not by instinct aligned with congressional, legislative and representative processes, but rather with the use of “lawfare” in a top-down authoritarian construct of centralized federal control).
U.S. presidents have always been dependent to some extent on advisors, staff and inter-branch administrative cooperation. But now that pretense has been completely dissolved: rather than having to negotiate through the barriers of offices and officials, the White House chief executive is now, not merely influenced or guided, but completely controlled by direct command. And given that the bureaucrats running the U.S. government are overwhelmingly on the left and thus are sympathetic to the centralization of power (this includes the FBI, the national security apparatus, and the military), the result is the ultimate realization of control of the United States itself. Indeed, Biden is not merely reliant on his aides and “note cards” for his every function and act, but deeply, desperately dependent on them for his basic daily functions and routines, like an invalid or patient in assisted care. The White House is now a medical nursing home—or biosecurity prison.
But an additional ring of control surrounds the president and White House, consisting of a syndicate of Foundations that have effective control over the “military-industrial-university” complex, and now, the health agency establishment of the CDC, NHS and UN-related organizations. Those primary strategic foundations are largely controlled by Jewish interests, but at a heightened level of direct operational and governance authority, largely by financial leverage. They include the Rockefeller Foundation, the Gates Foundation, the Soros Foundation, and by penetration and control, the Obama Foundation, the Clinton Foundation, and with ties to the UK bio-research Wellcome Trust, among others.
Former Israel prime minister Ariel Sharon is reputed to have once said that “We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.” If they didn’t before, then they should now because the pretense has been removed, and the threat is no longer disguised: it is out there in plain sight, with authoritarian indifference to perception, and in defiance of opposition to the blatant capture of America’s system of government.
The installation of Chicago-born Merrick Garland as Attorney General and head of the U.S. Department of Justice is of great concern, because his bias for a powerful central government, whether constitutional or not, further widens the gap between American citizens and their own government, and between citizens and their enumerated rights; indeed, he appears committed to making government more and more our adversary, instead of our constitutionally circumscribed servant.
There are two elements of Garland’s professional profile that are instructive. One, while his judicial record appears mixed—merely conventionally liberal, a larger assessment of his opinions and administrative actions, undertaken by faculty at the University of Chicago Law school, Stanford, Harvard and other law schools, shows that he was a “safe” pick due to his Harvard bona fides and his conventional career track; but it also shows that he may be more liberal than generally assumed. The Wall Street Journal is more assertive, describing how he regularly takes sides with labor unions and government: “His many opinions…defer to administrative agencies and…are a hallmark of his jurisprudence during his nearly 20 years on the D.C. Circuit Court.” His record clearly shows an instinct for supporting the power of central government via its agencies, and he is thought “safe,” as a government insider. He is clearly not a champion of states’ rights, nor has he shown any passion for the rights of individual citizens: he will go along to get along; he is a judge who doesn’t rock the boat, and is a reliable servant to government interests. That may not be new, but it is especially troubling when the separation of powers is especially necessary, and when Justice must be called on to police the government itself. But even the New York Times expressed concerns from a liberal, human rights perspective, including his embrace of the Global War on Terror (and its infringement of civil liberties) and his position on the Guantanamo prison.
It is his core allegiance to centralized state power that is the main reason for concern regarding his influence and priorities at the Department of Justice. At a period of extreme government intrusion through the Covid program where constitutional rights are being comprehensively challenged, if not assaulted, Garland’s natural instinct has already been shown to side with government over individuals—that he will support authoritarian control by the state; indeed, his public statements confirm his readiness to do the bidding of the current White House regime concerning the January 6th prosecution as “white supremacist terror” (where he asserts its primacy in his prosecutorial priorities, but more, it is the centerpiece to his “domestic war on terror”). This is part of the full panoply of his larger ambitions directed at federal government control over the states and classes of individuals thought to be enemies of the state.
He fully embraces the biosecurity construct of comprehensive authoritarian, top-down state control, and unusual expansion of federal police powers such that the states are overrun with a federal law enforcement web that replaces state-level and local forces (hence the “defund the police” program, which is directed at idling local and state law enforcement, replaced with a unified, politically controlled federal and ultimately even international policing force). He embraces, in my view, a certain “NKVD” vision of central power, extended across key American institutions. In this, he also reflects a certain “Bolshevik-like” attitude toward weakening or even dismantling of civil liberties. Examples include DoJ “guidance” that warns states not to push their investigations into voting fraud too aggressively, and his heavy handed order that Texas not restrict entry of migrants at risk for Covid. Indeed, the White House has just expressed its intent to organize a “whole-of-government effort” to use federal powers against the recent Texas abortion law decision—a decision that will likely further motivate proposals to pack the Supreme Court.
Garland is an “organization man” and a champion of government, not individuals and the people. And by siding with the White House on voter fraud suppression and the entire Covid biosecurity program, including Covid mandates, he both weakens the checks and balances role of the DOJ, while also ignoring Constitutional law questions concerning efforts to bypass state legislatures, change voting rules in major swing states, and suppressing immigration and subsequent citizenship standards. In an era of unusual constitutional violation, one after another, he is not a defender of Americans, but rather a bureaucratic apparatchik of what regime holds power, or takes power in whatever way it can, so long as legal accountability is not brought to bear by other branches, or the judiciary.
Little in Garland’s law training or early career would suggest a legal philosophy or jurisprudence of top-down centralized diktat in law and policy, but his career was entirely formed by government service, with little if any private law experience and instincts for traditional private property. He also fully embraces the Global War on Terror program, and this especially, may be a modern marker of intent and inclination toward a tolerance for near Bolshevik-style government, if the right pretextual narratives are present. Given his unquestioning acceptance of the entire Covid program, illegal immigration, voter fraud, racial categorization and selective prosecution of American citizens by ideology, one may expect that violations of the Constitution and Constitutional law, may face little if any challenge from his office. Indeed, he appears to be among the most reliable nodal points of influence and control, in the rapid permeation of authoritarian biosecurity, and the dismantling of individual constitutional protections, and even international human rights law. This tendency fits well within the constellation of interests that seek to establish a global, transnational legal regime that replaces United States Constitutional sovereignty with a centralized UN-based order. In the same way that Jewish interests have always championed a strong central government in the U.S., those same interests favor a strong centralized authority at the international level.
Among Garland’s most threatening intellectual vulnerabilities, is his stated obsession with “White supremacy” and his confused conflation of mass media hyperbole (including his stated determination to prosecute the January 6th “insurrection”) as a racial issue, with his emotionalism over “anti-Semitism,” while the southern border of the United States has been opened, and the DOJ abstaining from prosecution of illegal immigration—all positions reflecting the views of mainstream Jewish organizations such as the ADL; indeed Garland and his Justice team are facilitating the diffusion of illegals into the interior of the country. Together, these ideologies are directing the massive machinery of the Department of Justice, and turning it inward, on the American public, against their interests, and as a direct assault on the American Constitutional order.