What Happens When a Spoilt and Not Very Bright Man Has the Wrong Position in Society? The Answer? Prince Andrew

 

The new book Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York is so much more than a biography of Prince Andrew (the Queen’s second, and favourite, son) and his ex-wife (and current girlfriend) Sarah Ferguson. Especially considering all of the publicity surrounding it, and its serialisation in The Mail Online, I am surprised its psychological revelations haven’t received more attention. The fact that Prince Andrew and “Fergie” have had every aspect of the lives scrutinised to the extent that they have is almost akin to child cruelty.

This may seem like hyperbole, so let me explain why. These two people are extremely famous, one since birth and the other upon marrying a senior royal. As I’ve discussed in my new book, Genius Under House Arrest: The Cancelation of James Watson, in general, high status is predicted by a combination of intelligence and a pro-social personality, and this is what marks out the middle class. Extremely high status appears to be associated with very high intelligence (although this is much less the cases, as here, when status is inherited rather than earned) combined with optimally anti-social traits which render you an original thinker or optimally Narcissistic and Machiavellian. Intelligence is about 80% genetic, personality is around 50% genetic and people tend to marry those who are genetically similar. The result is that, across time, social classes are like castes; socioeconomic status is about 80% heritable across time. Intelligence, for example, is associated with the social class into which you are born, not merely the one you achieve.

Now, just as a scientific genius, such as James Watson, can be born to normal range intelligent people due to unlikely genetic combinations, an unintelligent person can be born to intelligent parents. However, we also have an environmental leeway of 20% which includes factors such as luck and nepotism. It takes far less intelligence to protect the fortune with which you’re born that to build up that fortune. Your successful ancestor, like the genius, may reflect unlikely genetic and environmental combinations, meaning there is bound to be “regression to the mean” in his offspring and the offspring will sexually select for mediocre people like themselves. It is via this means that two people of relatively low intelligence and of relatively anti-social personality – in other words, people who are rather like children – find themselves in the upper class and associating with the kinds of people who have made their way into that class due to very high intelligence and optimally anti-social personality.

The obvious case in point, as set out in Entitled, is their relationship with the convicted under-age girl trafficker, paedophile and financier Jeffrey Epstein. The book proves beyond doubt that the photo of Prince Andrew with the 17-year-old Virginia Roberts (Guiffre), who Epstein employed as a “masseuse,” is genuine and that Prince Andrew’s supporters were lying when they said it was a forgery, and that Andrew was lying when he claimed he had no memory of it and that he doesn’t put his arm round members of the public. The photo had a serial number on it, Roberts had the other photos in the sequence, and the serial number allowed the photo to be dated to year 2000, when one of the meetings between Andrew and this trafficked girl (with whom Andrew had sex three times, according to her) occurred. Andrew rebuffed Virginia’s allegation that they danced together in a London club and that he was sweating by telling a notorious BBC interviewer that he cannot sweat due to a medical condition. But as the book points out:

Experts said there was no known medical condition that made humans unable to sweat and pictures were produced from 2001 showing Andrew perspiring. After he  said the picture with Giuffre must have been doctored because he always wore a suit and tie in London, pictures were produced of him photographed at events in casual clothes.

What emerges is a man who was very impressed by Epstein’s wealth and connections and who, by all accounts, is a sex addict who had allowed his ego to be massaged by Epstein. Andrew is not intelligent enough to foresee the possible damage his behaviour might do and he is so Narcissistic – so “entitled” – that this overwhelms any intelligence he does have. Like a child in the early stages of development, Andrew tells lies, lacking the wits to realise that other people are likely to investigate him in depth and, so, prove them to be lies.

From a very young age, the book reports, Prince Andrew, in contrast to his siblings, was a spoilt brat who would behave appallingly and was indulged in so-doing. At school, he was a bully and a braggart, and, unlike his siblings, his royal status was especially important to him; to his self-esteem. The book reports numerous examples of his insisting on being addressed properly, failing to turn up to roll call at school (and this being tolerated because of who he was), breaking military protocol (with this, only on occasion, not being tolerated), his rudeness to his staff and his assorted tantrums and outrageous, childish acts, such as spraying journalists with paint in Los Angeles or ramming his car into palace gates when they were too slow to open.

Despite the best education money could buy, Andrew performed so poorly at school that there was no question of his going to university, as did his two brothers, albeit with lower grades than would usually be acceptable. This is a Narcissistic man of, possibly, slightly below average intelligence having to live the kind of exposed life that a high-status person lives when usually armed, at the very least, with high intelligence. That it would be a disaster, especially in the media age, is no surprise at all. Andrew’s hereditary wealth allowed him to be spoilt and of high status with low intelligence. Genetics or childhood environmental insults may have done the rest in terms of distinguishing him from his brothers.

Sarah Ferguson comes across as tragically similar, though, perhaps, less unpleasant than Andrew. Her father was so dull that he failed his leaving exams at Eton and she inherited this lack of intelligence, leaving her prestigious school with very few qualifications and becoming a secretary. Though socially skilled, fun and ebullient, we find her to be fantastically wasteful of other people’s money, lazy when it comes to royal duties, utterly indiscrete, and sexually incontinent. Infamously, photographs were published in the UK press of her having her toes sucked by her paramour.

Children, compared to adults, are entitled (selfish) and of low intelligence (as opposed to IQ which compares children of the same age; intelligence increases with age). This is one of the many reasons why we tend to protect children from themselves, why we guide them. Prince Andrew and Fergie, compared to normal adults of their age, are like children and yet they are world-famous and subject to intense scrutiny by virtue of being senior royals who are paid for out of the public purse. With Prince Harry, whom the book reveals had a physical fight with Andrew over Andrew’s cutting remarks about Meghan, we see the same phenomenon: a low-IQ person made to live his life in the public gaze.

As a Brit, this book made me realise that there can be something especially cruel about our system of royalty. Some of these people would be best fitted to an average job, sitting in an office or, maybe, working in a supermarket. But they live their lives in public meaning that their stupidity, and their other flaws, are on display, leaving them humiliated and wounded in a way that would never be so if their position in society was consistent with their abilities.

They Really Think They’ll Be Able To Propagandize the World Into Liking Israel Again

They Really Think They’ll Be Able To Propagandize the World Into Liking Israel Again

Propaganda is an effective tool of mass-scale psychological manipulation, but it isn’t magic. It isn’t going to miraculously erase what people know in their bones to be true.

It’s cute how the Zionists think they’ll be able to manipulate and propagandize the world into liking Israel again.

Yeah, saturate all online platforms with weird-faced influencers telling us Israel is awesome. That’ll make us forget those years of genocidal atrocities.

Sure, buy up the social media platforms that young people are using so you can censor criticism of Israel. That’ll convince them that Zionism is cool.

Go on, take control of CBS and make Bari Weiss the boss. That’ll make us forget all those videos of mutilated Palestinian children.

Right, use Zionist oligarchs and influence operations to manipulate governments and institutions into crushing free speech which opposes a genocidal apartheid state. That’ll get everyone supporting the genocidal apartheid state.

Propaganda is an effective tool of mass-scale psychological manipulation, but it isn’t magic. It isn’t going to miraculously erase what people know in their bones to be true.

In order to successfully propagandize people you need to first get them to trust you, and then you need to feed them narratives which appeal to the cognitive biases they already hold. Nobody trusts Israel apologia anymore, and people’s biases are now stacked squarely against the Zionist entity. They’ve got nothing to work with and nowhere to start from.

If a coworker you hate came up to you and started stealing stuff off your desk while telling you he’s your friend and that he would never steal from you, you’re not going to believe him no matter how many words he says to you. No matter how skillful a manipulator he is, no matter how eloquent his words are, nothing he says will trump your first hand observations of your material reality.

That’s what it’s like at this point. They’re trying to throw a bunch of language at us in order to convince us that we haven’t seen what we’ve seen, haven’t experienced what we’ve experienced, and don’t know what we know. And they assume it will work because the language they’re throwing at us is being circulated in high volumes and costs a lot of money.

It won’t work, though. Even if propaganda could convince us that we haven’t seen what we’ve seen and don’t know what we know, propaganda only works if you don’t know it’s happening to you. These past two years have made even relatively apolitical members of the public acutely aware that there is an aggressive campaign to manipulate their perception of the state of Israel, and that anyone pushing them to support that state is untrustworthy. Nobody’s going to buy into the propaganda if they don’t trust the source.

Now that everyone’s aware that Israel is paying influencers $7,000 per post to churn out propaganda on its behalf, whenever you see a video online of some young social media-savvy personality promoting pro-Israel narratives you see their replies flooded with memes and jokes about their $7k jackpot. From now on whenever some sunglasses-wearing zillennial shows up going “Israel is surrounded on all sides by Islamofascists and you think JEWS are the problem? Uhh, no babe. Walk with me,” everyone’s going to go “Found one of those posts. It just doesn’t work. Psychological manipulation only goes so far. There’s only so much that clever language can do to decouple someone’s mind from their direct experience of material reality.

It just doesn’t work. Psychological manipulation only goes so far. There’s only so much that clever language can do to decouple someone’s mind from their direct experience of material reality.

This is where Israel went wrong in alienating the liberal Zionists. They needed people at the table who understood how normal human beings think, who could help the Israel project walk the delicate line between apartheid abuses papered over with propaganda and full-scale atrocities which would alienate the world. Instead they decided to go all in with the Smotriches and Ben-Gvirs, trusting that the propaganda machine which had served them so well all those decades would continue to carry them through any international upset they might cause.

It hasn’t turned out that way. The world’s eyes are open to what Israel is, and they are never going to close again. You can’t take off the Mickey Mouse mask, show the kids the snarling Freddy Krueger face underneath it, and then put the mask on and hope they start calling you Mickey again. Nobody’s going to forget what you showed them.

________________

The best way to make sure you see everything I write is to get on my free mailing list. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece here are some options where you can toss some money into my tip jar if you want to. Click here for links for my social media, books, merch, and audio/video versions of each article. All my work is free to bootleg and use in any way, shape or form; republish it, translate it, use it on merchandise; whatever you want. All works co-authored with my husband Tim Foley.

Melvin Lasky: How a Bronx-Born Jew Engineered America’s Soft Power in Postwar Europe

Melvin Lasky (1920–2004)

​​If you’ve ever wondered why American ideas travel farther and faster than American armies, the answer isn’t just Hollywood or Harvard. You can thank Melvin Lasky for that. From Berlin’s lecture halls to London’s literary circles, he perfected the art of wrapping geopolitics in glossy prose, making soft power feel like common sense while keeping the funding streams in the dark.

In battered postwar Berlin, the short, stocky New Yorker of Jewish extraction with the pointed beard made a career of seizing microphones—literally and figuratively—and turning literature into a weapon. He looked, as British historian and journalist Frances Stonor Saunders memorably put it in her book The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters, “a young American with a pointed beard and looking strangely like Lenin stormed the platform and grabbed the microphone” at the 1947 Berlin Writers’ Conference. This scene, according to some accounts, earned him the title “Father of the Cold War in Berlin.” That tableau captures the man: a militant anti-Stalinist operator who could switch tactics on a dime and function as a cultural arm of U.S. power.

From the Bronx Trotskyist to Cultural Cold Warrior

Melvin Jonah Lasky, born in 1920 to Polish Jewish immigrants in the Bronx, moved through the vibrant world of mid-century New York intellectual life. He studied at City College alongside figures like Irving Kristol and Seymour Martin Lipset, earned a history degree from the University of Michigan, and later served as literary editor at The New Leader.

As a young man he flirted with Trotskyism before, by his own account, turning decisively against Stalinism at age 22. The move from Communist dogma to the anti-Communist Left signaled more than a change in ideology. It revealed how Jewish intellectuals, once deeply embedded in revolutionary movements, could recalibrate their politics as global realities shifted. In doing so, they helped fuse anti-Stalinist ideals with the emerging priorities of American power.

World War II placed Lasky inside the U.S. 7th Army as a combat historian. His diaries from Germany, only published posthumously, revealed his shock at the Allies’ devastation of German cities and captured the moral ambiguities that would haunt postwar reconstruction. When the guns fell silent, Lasky stayed in Germany as a correspondent and subsequently as a builder of institutions.

Germany: Lasky’s New Home Base

If Lasky had a stage, it was Berlin. Saunders’ portrait is vivid, describing him as “short, stocky man” who was “given to drawing his shoulder blades back and pushing out his chest, as if primed for a fight,” using “his oriental-shaped eyes to produce deadly squints.” He brought the brusque City College manner to a city split by ideologies and armies. Saunders viewed him as “a staunch anti-Stalinist with a taste for intellectual — and occasionally physical — confrontation,” “as unmovable as the rock of Gibraltar.” Extraverted, self-confident, and aggressive — a type not at all uncommon among Jews.

Saunders highlighted some of Lasky’s flaws too, observing that he was “headstrong,” marred by “wilful deafness” and “failure to imagine the consequences of his words and actions.” In Berlin those traits cut both ways: they made him effective, and they made him dangerous.

The 1947 Writers’ Conference confrontation led directly to what became known as “The Melvin Lasky Proposal.” Addressed to General Lucius D. Clay on December 7, 1947, it dispensed with sentimental American assumptions about “shedding light” and trusting Europe to find its way:

The time-honored U.S. formula of ‘shed light and the people will find their own way’ exaggerates the possibilities in Germany (and in Europe) for an easy conversion. . . . It would be foolish to expect to wean a primitive savage away from his conviction in mysterious jungle-herbs simply by the dissemination of modern scientific and medical information . . . We have not succeeded in combatting the variety of factors—political, psychological, cultural—which work against U.S. foreign policy, and in particular against the success of the Marshall Plan in Europe.

The solution, Lasky argued, was a high-grade cultural offensive. With Marshall Plan backing, he founded Der Monat in 1948, airlifted into Berlin during the Soviet blockade. It was a German-language “bridge” journal intended to cultivate the educated classes, who tended to be socially progressive but anti-communist, on terms that would, in his words, “support the general objectives of U.S. policy in Germany and Europe by illustrating the background of ideas, spiritual activity, literary and intellectual achievement, from which the American democracy takes its inspiration.”

Der Monat quickly turned into a hub for leading intellectuals such as Hannah Arendt, T. S. Eliot, Saul Bellow, Theodor Adorno, Arthur Koestler, Ignazio Silone, and Heinrich Böll. Bundles were smuggled past East German censors. But the glossy cosmopolitan surface sat atop the murkier hydraulics of the early Cold War.

As CIA official Ray S. Cline later conceded, Der Monat “would not have been able to survive financially without CIA funds.” Ford Foundation money also flowed. Frank Wisner, the CIA’s operations chief, even rebuked Lasky for making American sponsorship of the 1950 West Berlin conference too obvious, briefly expelling him from the newly formed Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) before rehabilitating him in 1953 to shape editorial policy across Der Monat, Preuves, and Encounter.

Encounter: Liberal Anti-Communism With Teeth

In 1958 Lasky moved to London to co-edit Encounter, inheriting a masthead built by Irving Kristol and Stephen Spender and turning it into the flagship of “liberal anti-communism.” It was, as Ferdinand Mount later said, “amazingly catholic,” open to almost any writer “with the exception of ‘Soviet hacks’.” Thomas Mann, Albert Camus, W. H. Auden, Bertrand Russell, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, and William Faulkner all passed through its pages. The magazine attacked totalitarianism, criticized U.S. missteps when it chose, and functioned as a prestige amplifier for a particular Atlanticist common sense.

Then came the controversy. In 1966–67 Ramparts magazine and The New York Times exposed the CIA’s covert financing of the CCF and its publications, including Encounter, with annual sums reportedly approaching the high six figures. A lot of money in those days.

Lasky’s reputation would be sullied by these revelations.  Soon contributors to his magazines would flee, circulation dipped before recovering, and many on the New Left would treat him as a tool of U.S. imperialism. Historian Christopher Lasch argued that “the very men [such as Lasky in this case] who were most active in spreading this gospel were themselves the servants… of the secret police.”

The Architect’s Mind: Program, Network, Doctrine

Saunders’ research found that Lasky was not merely an editor, but also a systems builder. She noted that Lasky “worked at giving the Congress for Cultural Freedom a permanent footing,” drew the organizational charts, and anchored the German affiliate in Der Monat’s office. François Bondy called him “the editorial adviser of our time par excellence.” That judgment fits what we now recognize about the early Cold War. At that point in history, the decisive contest was not just armies and tanks, but syllabi, reading lists, salons, and prizes—cultural capital marshaled to ensure the primacy of the liberal capitalist order.

This is also where Lasky’s biography meets a longer arc of political adaptation. Many Jewish intellectuals moved from the radical Left to the anti-Communist Left without losing the moral fervor that had energized their youth. Lasky’s switch was not a retreat from politics; it was a redeployment. He had no illusion about the stakes. As he told General Clay, “whilst the Soviet lie was travelling round the globe at lightning speed, the truth had yet to get its boots on.” If the United States wanted to win, it needed institutions that could run just as fast as the lie.

From CCF to NED: The Template That Wouldn’t Die

The CCF collapsed in scandal, but its playbook lived on. During the Reagan era, Washington’s neocon-staffed National Endowment for Democracy (NED) (founded by Allen Weinstein and Carl Gershman who was president from 1983 to 2021) and its satellite institutes were widely understood—even by supporters—as a way to do in the open what the CIA once paid for in the shadows, such as funding parties, unions, media, conferences, and “civil society” to shape political outcomes abroad. As one critical account put it, NED and the broader democratization push sought to revive the post-WWII international networks of congresses and publications that the CIA had quietly underwritten—networks in which Irving Kristol and Melvin Lasky were leading figures.

The line from Der Monat and Encounter to color revolutions and NGO-sponsored regime change may be neither straight nor singular, but the family resemblance is impossible to miss. Put bluntly, the CCF taught Washington how to launder persuasion as culture, and subsequent institutions perfected the method.

That is why Encounter is often called the intellectual forefather of both modern neoconservatism and large swaths of mainstream liberalism. From 1953 onward, backed by covert American and British funds, it forged a cosmopolitan sensibility that treated Atlantic alignment as common sense and nationalism or neutralism as atavism. Even admirers who stood outside those camps have conceded its power; political writer Michael Lind once called it “the best magazine of ideas ever, full stop.” Influence on that scale is not accidental. It is engineered.

The Man and the Method

What, then, is the fairest verdict on Lasky? He could be generous; he could be ruthless. He also accepted, and at times helped structure, covert state funding that compromised the very independence he professed to advance.

Saunders captured Lasky’s true nature, observing he was “lupine, grittily determined” and had “an irritating habit of grinning ‘like a Cheshire cat’ every time he scored a rhetorical point.” He relished the fight. But his “willful deafness” to the downstream consequences of secrecy helped hand his enemies a cudgel. In the end, his magazines did more than critique totalitarianism; they naturalized a pro-American worldview inside Europe’s thinking classes. That outcome served U.S. imperial interests exquisitely—exactly the effect a consummate asset is supposed to deliver.

Lasky died in Berlin in 2004, having edited Encounter until the Cold War’s dusk and received civic honors from the city he once tried to rewire. His legacy is not simple, and it shouldn’t be sanitized. He shows how swiftly Jewish political operators can pivot when circumstances change — interests, not principles. Moreover, Lasky demonstrated how, in the crucible of the Cold War, a cohort of Jewish intellectuals who once trafficked in radical critique repurposed that same energy for an anti-Communist project inseparable from American power. That agility was not hypocrisy; it was strategy. It built the infrastructure—journals, congresses, fellowships—that later reappeared, more openly branded, in institutions like NED.

In Berlin, Lasky learned that ideas win when they come wrapped in glamour and when the check clears. He also learned that the public will forgive many things—except discovering, years later, who signed the check. The lesson for our era is not to moralize after the fact, but to recognize the method when we see it. Culture is never neutral. And in the long war of ideas, Melvin J. Lasky was less a bystander than a field officer, calibrating tone and talent to keep Europe inside the American orbit.

The record shows a man who blurred every line between journalist, propagandist, and agent of influence. Call him editor if you like; in practice, Lasky did the work of a Jewish operator—constantly at odds with gentile society.

Tucker Carlson’s most forthright statement yet on Israel

Video here.

Carlson says some good things here. His main blind spot is castigating the American political class f0r their support of Israel (toward the beginning), but very little on how Jewish activism, Jewish media and Jewish money shape the attitudes of political elites. He notes well into his comments that AIPAC should register under the FARA as a foreign lobby but nothing on all the money, pressure and media support Israel gets from the American Jewish community or how politicians (whose only goal really is to get elected) are in fear of them.  (Jeffrey Sachs doesn’t help when he says in the second part of the persentation that the American Jewish community is hopelessly divided on Israel—without any attempt to discuss where the power lies. Clearly it’s not with Jewish Voice for Peace or Mondoweiss.) He also notes Netanyahu’s comment that Isreal dominates American politics:

I think the good news is that the government of Israel, in particular, the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has pushed it too far. And he did that in part by running around telling people what he thought was true, apparently, I control Donald Trump. I control the United States Congress. I control the United States. He said that to political allies. And opponents in his country said it to foreign heads of state. Fact. I control these people. Don’t you worry. And by the way, if you kick me out of office, the next guy probably won’t have the level of control that I have. He’s made that case. Openly, verbally, he said it out loud. And that was too much for our president [who then said that he “would not allow” Israel to annex the West Bank].

We’ll see what happens when push comes to shove on West Bank annexation. Trump changes his mind all the time.

Amazingly, he states that IDF officers were at the Pentagon during the 12-day June war with Iran making loud demands: they “enraged American Pentagon staff by just barging into meetings, giving orders, making demands, and nobody did anything about it.” Aggression doesn’t even  begin to describe it. And he states (correctly) that Israel roped the U.S. into wars in Iraq and Syria, noting the “Clean Break” manifesto by Richard Perle, David Wurmser, Douglas Feith, and other neocons that advocated for regime change throughout the Middle East. (See Karen Kwiatkowski’s similar comments [beginning at around 15:00] on Israelis “barging through” into the Pentagon to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s office and not having to sign in during the Iraq war.”)

He talks about Netanyahu’s term, the “woke Reich,” as if anyone who criticizes Israel is a Nazi. He notes the 1967 USS Liberty outrage where Israel bombed and strafed a U.S. naval ship, killing 34 and wounding 171, and he mentions Israel spying on America and selling military secrets and technology to China. He uses Nikki Haley, Mike Johnson, and Lindsey Graham as paradigmatic examples of slavish fealty to Israel.

And he disputes the theology of Christian Zionism, still important for many American idiots. The chosen people are those who choose Christ. Here Tucker seems to be latching on what he terms a Christian revival (fueled at least partly by Charlie Kirk) to get his message out. I believe that he thinks that there is a Christian community in the United States that can ultimately be mobilized to take their own interests in  ending foreign interventions and rolling back immigration and multiculturalism.

He also claims that in the last two years the U.S. has given Israel $30 billion (i.e., not the $3.8 billion/year as usually noted) and that U.S. largesse to Egypt is also the result of Israeli influence.

And he notes Netanyahu’s comment that social media is the big problem in the U.S. and suggests that the real reason there was so much concern about China owning Tik Tok was the desire for censorship on behalf of Israel, especially on Tik Tok and X. But he doesn’t mention that censorship on behalf of Israel is exactly what will happen when Larry Ellison gets control of Tik Tok’s algorithm after the deal is consummated; nor does he mention Ellison’s neocon credentials.  Or the fact that Ellison’s protégé, pro-Israel fanatic Bari Weiss, will run CBS. after Ellison’s Paramount bought it. Netanyahu also implied that pressure should be brought on Elon Musk to censor X. Very important that Musk not cave in to such demands.

All this should infuriate Americans, and that is his purpose. It’s great to see a major mainstream conservative with a huge audience talking like this. We are definitely seeing more and more of this (e.g., from podcasts by people like Candace Owens and Judge Napolitano), and that is a good sign indeed. One can only hope that Americans come to be infuriated by Jewish activism and influence on destructive domestic policies like immigration and multiculturalism born ultimately by Jewish hatred toward the people and culture of the West.

Tucker [00:00:00] There’s a lot going on in the world right now, but if you’re on social media, and of course you are, because it’s really America’s only remaining news source, you know there’s only one story going on, and it’s Israel. Everyone online is arguing about Israel. And really they fall into one of two camps, generally speaking. So probably the more aggressive side are the deranged Taliban-level ethno-narcissists who are telling you that any criticism of the secular government of Israel is tantamount to blood libel against the Jewish people. And if you think that maybe it was not a great idea to arm Joseph Stalin, the greatest murder in history, then you’re a Holocaust denier! Shut up! And then on the other side, a group every bit as obsessed with Jews are the people who hate Jews, who are telling you that anyone who’s Jewish is bad by virtue of being Jewish. It’s a blood thing. Two things are interesting. One, there are very few kind of conventional Christian voices saying, wait a second, This is a secular government, another country. And it has probably nothing to do with my religion or anybody’s religion. And we should never judge people on the basis of their immutable qualities because guilt and virtue are not passed down genetically. But almost no one is saying that. So you really have the ethno-narcissists and the anti-Semites. And they’re at war with each other. That’s the online picture. What’s even more interesting and maybe even more distressing is that in the U.S. Government… The conversation, while much more muted, is a mirror of this in that a lot of the conversation is about Israel. Israel, a tiny country in the Middle East. Not critical to our national security, by the way. But the conversation, the bandwidth, is consumed by questions of Israel. So wherever you stand on Israel, whether you’re on one of the two sides just described or neither one of them, you know in your gut that this is bad. If a country like ours, supposedly the most powerful in the world, is devoting all of its time internally to conversations about Israel, it’s probably not going in a good direction. There’s probably a lot being neglected in favor of this very specific boutique conversation about this tiny little country. It’s just not good for anybody, including Israel, by the way. So what’s the antidote to this? How do you fix it? Here are four things you can do. The conversation about Israel and the relationship with Israel a lot healthier than it currently is. Here are the four. The first is get some global perspective on what we’re talking about. The United States is a nation of 350 million people. It has some of the deepest natural resources in the world. That would include energy and water, agricultural products. The United States, however it’s managed… Is a powerhouse globally and always will be because its strength is inherent. It’s a huge decisive country in the scope of world history. The United States makes things happen. Israel is not an insult, merely an observation. By contrast is a tiny and inherently insignificant country, at least geopolitically, in that it has only 9 million people and no natural resources, no meaningful natural resources. So it is insignificant. It is also physically tiny. It’s about the size of New Jersey, famously, but it has a much smaller GDP than New Jersey. It is a much small economy than the state of New Jerseys, it has an economy about the size the state Arizona and almost one half the economy of the state Massachusetts or Illinois. It just doesn’t really matter, actually. If you’re looking at a map and thinking through, you know, where does power politics go? Israel’s not even on the list, again. It’s tiny. It’s got The population of Burundi, it’s got a smaller population than Belgium. What is this anyway? And yet, despite its objective insignificance, it is the focus of the conversation, but it’s also the focus the spending. So right now, as we speak tonight, there are two THAAD missile batteries in Israel. That’s one quarter of the world’s total supply of THAAd missile batteries. THAAD missile batteries are American made, very high tech. Missile battery that takes incoming missiles out of the sky. And one quarter of the world’s entire supply of these is in Israel right now manned by U.S. Troops, by Americans. In uniform or not, they are American military personnel and they are manning these batteries to protect Israel. And that shouldn’t surprise you because since October 7, 2023, which is a little less than two years ago, the United States has spent at minimum $30 billion defending Israel. Huge. And for some perspective, the entire Israeli military budget before October 7th was about $25 billion. So the United States has put at least $30 billion into defending Israel in less than two years. Over the course of its existence, a little less than 80 years, the United States has put $300 billion, at least those are just the on books numbers, into supporting Israel, $300 billion. Israel is by far, no one comes close, the largest recipient of U.S. Aid over time and currently. So anyone who says, oh, it’s just a drop in the bucket. It’s totally insignificant, is lying or doesn’t know the numbers. By the way, number two is Egypt. So why are we spending so much money in Egypt? Well, we’re doing it at the request of Israel. So you could probably add that to the tally. It’s not an attack. It’s merely perspective. We are spending our time, our money. And we’re taking enormous risks on behalf of a country that geopolitically is not significant. The interesting thing is, most Americans have no idea that this is true. They don’t know how disproportionate our attention to Israel and our spending on Israel is relative to the rest of the world. And if you want some sense of how disproportion it, India and China combined, neither of which is a strong ally at the moment, combined represent more than a third of the entire world’s population, both arrivals economically, both arrivals militarily, at least potentially. And our relationship with them has gotten worse or is at the very least languished because of our relationship with Israel, because of the bandwidth consumed by tending to it. And also because of some of the inevitable conflicts that have arisen because of support for Israel, which is engaged in an extremely controversial, which is to say hated war in Gaza, which it’s not even really a war. It’s a massive displacement of people and killing on a grand scale of unarmed people, of unarm combatants. Of civilians, of women and children. And the world sees this and the world rejects it and the world hates it. And so Israel’s really last remaining ally of size other than the UK is the United States. And so there’s a huge cost to this. But again, most Americans have no perspective on just how disproportionate our commitment is because they marinate in lies about this relationship, mostly from our political class, also from the media, but really if you were to lay the blame on one group in the United States, it’s our elected leaders who continuously lie to us about the nature of this relationship, its significance. And they do it generationally. They’ve been doing it for many decades here. And this is just one example, but the most fun to watch. This is Nikki Haley at the Republican presidential primary debate, 2023 describing the United State’s relationship with the state of Israel. Watch.

Nikki Haley[00:07:44] The last thing we need to do is to tell Israel what to do. The only thing we should be doing is supporting them and eliminating Hamas. It is not that Israel needs America. America needs Israel.

Tucker [00:07:59] It is not that Israel needs the United States. The United States needs Israel. How could that possibly be true? It is in no sense true. In fact, it’s one of those lies that’s not three degrees off the truth. It is a complete inversion of the truth and the truth, which is obvious to anyone who looks at the numbers or is paying any attention at all is that Israel could not survive without the United states. That’s not an argument for. Pulling all aid to Israel. It’s just an acknowledgement of the physical reality. Israel fights its wars with American backing, with the guarantee, the implied defense guarantee that we have provided for so many years since at least 1973, 50 years. And its social services are made possible, which are quite generous, made possible by American subsidies. In other words, every dollar that goes to the Israeli military from the United States is a dollar that. The nation of Israel can spend on its own people. And so there is no world in which America needs Israel more than Israel needs the United States. And of course, Nikki was, Haley was never asked to explain how exactly that could be true. What are you talking about? Governor Haley, not one person asked her that question. And no one asked her the question because anyone in whose mind that question appeared. Would have paused for fear of being attacked as an anti-Semite for asking a question about geopolitics. That has been the state of play in the United States for my entire life over 50 years. Politicians make nonsensical statements. Nobody wants to even ask a follow-up question for fear of being intact. It is a state of perpetual intimidation. Everybody’s afraid of Israel, afraid of the topic, afraid in some cases of the state itself. We have not had an honest conversation about this ever. Certainly not in my lifetime. And that suits the Israelis just fine. And if you’re wondering why there’s an awful lot of lunatic anti-Semitic comment about Israel online, you have to wonder how much of that is organic. Some of it, of course, there are always haters, but how much of it is not organic at all? How much of is of that the lunatic, all Jews are evil. How much of that is being ginned up on purpose to make legitimate questions about the US government’s relationship with the government of Israel seem like crackpot stuff, like hate, like David Duke level lunacy, probably some because it serves their interests. Now that is a criticism of the state of Israel and it’s incredibly sophisticated propaganda campaign, which again, the rest of us been marinating in for a long time. But the true villain here, I would argue is not the state of Israel, the Jews, it’s the United States. It’s our leaders who are putting up with this. Israel is a small country with very limited resources and it is doing its best to serve its own interests. You’d think every country would act that way and most do, but there are some that don’t and ours would top that list. And so the true shame here, the actual villain in the story is the leadership of the United States that is putting up with serial humiliation for decades. And for what reason? So if there’s someone to be mad at, it’s our leaders. And that leads to the second thing that we can do to fix this truly unhealthy relationship, this poisonous relationship, which is getting worse by the way, it is breaking our society into pieces. It’s. Truly hurting the Trump administration. The second thing we can do after getting global perspective on what we’re actually talking about here, a tiny country that is in the deepest sense, insignificant to the United States. The second day we can, do is get some freaking self-respect and stop being ordered around by a client state. That’s not good for us. It’s not for them. It’s good for anybody. It’s like being screamed at by your children. No normal parent would allow that because it’s totally destructive. It’s not good for you. And it’s not good for the child. And that is exactly the relationship that we have with the state of Israel, in fact, not in theory. In fact, it is a huge country and a tiny country. The huge country supports the tiny country and that’s a pretty nice thing to do and whether it’s wise or not as a whole separate conversation, but if you’re going to have that relationship apparent to a child, you cannot be yelled at, humiliated, spied upon, bossed around by the child by the person in the inherently subordinate position. You can’t do that. You can be shamed into ignoring things that are quite clearly not the behavior of a subordinate ally to a big brother ally. For example, spying on the country that makes your economy and your defense possible, which the Israelis have been doing for generations. That’s a fact. One of them very famously was caught, Jonathan Pollard, who’s an American citizen, taking real secrets, like actual military secrets. And sending them to Israel, which promptly sent a bunch of them to the Soviet Union, which was our arch rival, our foe at the time. And that happened. And he went to prison and then somebody got out of prison and went to Israel where he continues to denounce the United States and anyone who says anything about it is attacked. Oh, you’re an anti-Semite. There’s nothing to do with anti-semitism. That’s insulting. Why would we ever put up with that? Well, we put up, with the attack on the USS Liberty that everyone’s so afraid to talk about clearly targeted on purpose. By a country we’re supporting, Israel, and it’s somehow shameful to say that. Why? Why is it shameful to see that? Who knows why it’s shameful to say that, but it shouldn’t be. And until we have some self-respect, not anger or hate, but just dignity, it will continue in June. For example, during the 12 day war, such as it was with Iran, the US and Israel versus Iran, bombing on all sides, during that short conflict. IDF officers in the Pentagon, foreign military officers in the Pentagon. And by the way, they’re not the only foreign military officers in The Pentagon, to be clear. There are NATO officers there from other countries, British, but there are a bunch of Israeli Defense Force officers in The Pentagon that week. And during that week, ask anyone who works at the Pentagon, they enraged American Pentagon staff by just barging into meetings, giving orders, making demands, and nobody did anything about it. How can a foreign military officer barge into military headquarters, even if invited to barge, into a meeting and start demanding, we want this, we want that. You need to get on this. The more you allow that kind of deeply unhealthy behavior, the more you’re going to get. And that’s exactly what has happened. Because of the weakness of our leaders, we have incited predators in a foreign country to take advantage of us. Oh, that’s such an anti-Israel thing. It’s not anti-israel at all. It’s a demand that the people whose job it is, whose sacred duty it is to defend and represent us, our leaders both at The Pentagon and all throughout the US government. That they do that, that they stand up and defend us against. Potential threats against all foreign countries to the extent they need to, and that they do not prostrate themselves before a foreign nation. That’s just basic. Why have a government, especially a strong government, if it’s taking orders from another weaker government, and that is the state of play. And it has been for a very long time. They’re not even pretending to such an extent that the Prime Minister of Israel goes on television to openly participate in, meddle in internal American politics, taking sides, attacking people, Americans. You wouldn’t think it would be his business. He’s not an American leader. He’s, not even an American citizen going on television to attack Americans because they’re not fully on board with sending. Billions more to a country of 9 million people. And in case you think that’s an overstatement, here is the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, commenting on American politics.

Benjamin Netanyahu[00:16:30] They talked about the woke right. He said, I call it the woke, reich. That’s a brilliant, the woke right. Because these people, you know, they’re not any different from the woke left. I mean, they are insane. They’re the reason, but they’re actually meeting on some of the things we have to fight back. How do we fight back our influencers? I think you should also talk to them. If you have a chance to that, that community, they are very important. And secondly, we’re going to have to use the tools of battle. And the most important ones are the social media and the most important purchase that is going on right now is class. Tik Tok, Tik Tok number one, number one. And I hope it goes through because it’s a, it can be consequential and the other one, what’s the other one that’s most important. X, very good. And you know, so we have to talk to Elon. He’s not an enemy. He’s a friend. We should talk to him. Now, if we can get those two things, we get a lot and I could go on on other things, but that’s not the point right now. We have to fight the fight.

Tucker [00:17:45] It’s almost unbelievable that he said that on camera. Imagine this is a foreign leader bragging about how he’s censoring Americans. Again, this guy runs a country of 9 million people. That’s totally dependent on our tax dollars to exist. And here he is on camera and he’s a sophisticated guy. He, of course, he knows that he’s being filmed saying. Anyone who opposes me in the United States, who opposes more aid to Israel or opposes getting sucked into war with Iran, which does not serve American interests, that person is not simply mistaken or wrong. I’m not going to bother to explain why that person is wrong. That person is a Nazi part of the woke Reich, a Nazi. And the only way to fix it is by preventing Americans in the last country on earth with guaranteed freedom of speech. Prevent Americans from hearing the other side. And so we push Congress to force a TikTok sale, which is true, by the way. And when that happened and various members of Congress like, no, really, it’s about China. There were people online and said, no. I think it’s really about Israel. You kind of wish it was about China here. He is just admitting no, no we push the US Congress to censor. In the United States to commit censorship in the United States, because we think it’s bad for us. And we need to talk to Elon. The only reason we have free speech in the United States right now is because of Elon Musk. By the way, a naturalized American, a foreigner who looked at the United states and said, what’s great about that country? People can say what they believe because they’re not slaves. They’re not subjects of the state. They’re citizens of a nation that they own. Free speech is central to the entire idea of America. In fact, it’s really the only thing that sets us apart from any other country on earth. It’s not our market economy. It’s freedom of speech. And here’s this guy, a foreign head of state, who let me restate, is totally dependent on our tax dollars to exist, is saying Americans don’t have that right. And he’s going to do some kind of secret pressure campaign on Elon Musk to censor X because it bothers Israel. You know, that’s the point at which you just say, no, absolutely not. That is not allowed. But since no one has said that, it has continued. And that’s why when you go on social media, you see person after person taking that guy’s line, that guy line, repeating foreign government talking points on social media as Americans. Oh, you’re you can’t say that. It’s true. It’s 100 percent true. And it’s also totally counterproductive, by the way. This is not a sophisticated propaganda campaign. This is a brutal and brutish propaganda campaign where anyone who disagrees with anything is immediately slandered and smeared. Megyn Kelly, who’s got to be the single most moderate person on the question of Israel, said a hundred times and means it, by the way, I like Israel. I’m not against Israel, you know, but maybe it’s not a great idea to get sucked into one of their wars. We’ve done that. Let’s not do it again. Nazi immediately called her an anti-Semite and won’t stop. Meanwhile, the actual anti-semites, and there certainly are some online, never get criticized by Bibi or anyone else in his orbit. That’s kind of interesting, isn’t it? I wonder why that is when you have actual anti Semites doing videos, making fun of Auschwitz, but they get a pass. Hmm. Maybe things are not quite as they seem. But normal people who harbor no hate toward anyone or try not to are immediately slandered in a way that makes it, in some cases, hard for them to have jobs if they deviate even a little bit. So what’s the effect of this? Not that it’s up to me to tell Israel how to run its propaganda campaigns, but the effect just noticing is that it turns allies into enemies. You can agree on 98% of things, but if you think maybe it was a bad idea to bomb Doha. Qatar, the site of the largest military base in the Middle East, which exists to protect Israel, if you think it was a bad idea for the Israeli government to bomb Doha, then you’re a what? A Nazi? Just in point of fact, by the way, Hamas was originally in Qatar because the Israeli Government asked them to accept Hamas. That air base exists to protect Israel, by way. That was such a reckless and demented move that Mossad in Israel opposed it and wouldn’t participate in it because they thought it was too reckless. So to say that there is quite a bit of latitude for debate in Israel is an understatement. Mossad refused to participate in that, but as an American on social media, if you’re like, I think it’s a little crazy that our ally is bombing another one of our allies without even telling us and then lying and pretending that they had permission from the president to do this, which they did not. If you say that you’re a Nazi, you’re part of the woke Reich. This can’t continue. It’s too crazy. It’s counterproductive for them and it’s deeply destructive of our political conversation and of our country itself. And the good news is that the humiliation, which has gone, I mean, give you one more example of the humiliation which is almost beyond belief. So Israel’s our greatest ally. We should never ask anything of them. Of course, you heard Nikki Haley. You hear all of them say exactly the same thing. Protecting Israel is the most important thing. They’re our only real ally. If they’re only real ally, why does Israel have a long history of transferring military technology, including American military technology, to China, to China? Most people have no idea that’s true. It is true. Why is China running the port of Haifa, Israel’s biggest port? Really? If they are such a close ally. And of course the answer is because from Israel’s perspective, we’re not a close ally, we are a country that has been willing to help them, but when you only have nine million people and a defense budget, you know, you take help where you can get it. So the loyalty is not requited. It’s one way. And I think the good news is that the governor of Israel, in particular, the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has pushed it too far. And he did that in part by running around telling people what he thought was true, apparently, I control Donald Trump. I control the United States Congress. I control United States. He said that to political allies. And opponents in his country said it to foreign heads of state. Fact. I control these people. Don’t you worry. And by the way, if you kick me out of office, the next guy probably won’t have the level of control that I have. He’s made that case. Openly, verbally, he said it out loud. And that was too much for our president. And so in one of the great moments, it was a cool shower on a hot day. President Trump. Push back, not directly, but you can watch this clip and see that he’s had enough. Here is President Trump the other day asked about Israel’s plans to annex the West Bank. Watch.

Reporter [00:25:06] Did you promise leaders this week that you would not allow Israel to annex the West Bank? Is that something that you

Trump[00:25:11] I will not allow Israel to annex the West Bank. No, I will not allow it. It’s not going to happen.

Reporter [00:25:16] Did you speak with Netanyahu about this?

Trump [00:25:18] Yeah, but I’m not going to allow it, whether I spoke to him or not, I did. But I’m not allowing Israel to annex the West Bank. There’s been enough. It’s time to stop.

Tucker [00:25:28] I will not allow it. He’s not just talking about the West Bank there, obviously. These are political people. They understand when your poll numbers fall dramatically, particularly among the young men who helped make you president, you have to ask, why is that? And it’s about this issue because it’s too humiliating and people who don’t want to see their government bossed around by a tiny foreign power are not haters. They don’t hate any ethnic group. They just don’t want to be humiliated. And by the way, why should they be humiliated? That’s the core problem right there. That’s why Donald Trump has lost support over this Israel question. And he knows that and he’s pushing back. And there’s just no question from that clip whatsoever. So the third thing I think that would be very helpful to restore health and balance to the relationship between the United States and Israel. Is restore the concept of citizenship in the United States. If you’re an American citizen, it means something. The first thing it means is equality. You are equal to every other citizen. There’s no hierarchy of citizenship. All citizens are equal. Each gets one vote. Each gets justice before the law. That’s the promise of the United States and each gets to say exactly what he thinks. Period. Restore the value of citizenship. And the very first thing you would do if you cared about that and you should because the country can’t continue without it. After you expelled everyone who’s not a citizen from the country, which should happen immediately, they should be deported immediately for our own survival. But after doing that, the first thing you would do is not allow dual citizenship. Why would you allow that? You’re a citizen of two countries. Can you really serve two masters simultaneously? By the way, it’s not just Israelis who have dual citizenship. They’re all, every nationality has dual citizenship in this country. It’s not just Israel and it shouldn’t be allowed for a single moment. What is that? Whose side are you on? Don’t accuse me of dual loyalty. Well, you’re a dual citizen, whether it’s Argentina or Mali or Israel, not allowed. And moreover, you are not allowed to serve in a foreign military without losing your American citizenship. You’re fighting for another country. How can that be allowed? How can you retain your citizenship? By the way, why aren’t you serving in our military? Every country has a different perspective on the world and that grows from a whole bunch of different things, their history, their language, their size, their resources. But each country is different and each country is a different set of priorities. And if you’re fighting in a military for a country, you are not serving America’s priorities. You’re taking up arms on behalf of foreign power. You’re done. This would seem to be obvious. Many Americans have fought in Israel, in Gaza. Many Americans are fought in Ukraine, by the way, and a lot of other countries for foreign militaries. Lose your citizenship immediately. Of course. Obviously. It’s amazing that even exists. An APAC has to register under FARE, the Foreign Age and Registration Act of the 1930s. Of course, it’s a foreign lobby. There are a million of them, but it’s only APAC that doesn’t register. And it’s only APACT that is somehow above criticism. It’s a foreign lobby. It is acting on behalf of foreign government and its interests. Again, it is one of many, but it is the only one that doesn’t have to register. And of course, it should register immediately. You should know who is giving money to your politicians. You should know who is influencing them. There should be a record of that, as there is with any other nation, any other lobby of a foreign power, and only APAC is exempt. What is the effect of that? It makes everyone paranoid. Doesn’t make people like Israel more. When a topic cannot be spoken about, and when anyone who raises it is called a Nazi, the woke Reich, or dismissed as a Holocaust denier, anti-Semite or whatever, slandered in some way like that, it doesn’t make the problem go away. It festers and people go crazy and get angry and become resentful and all that. There’s no reason to conduct any business like that in secrecy. It doesn’t make things better at all. It doesn’ make the person doing it stronger. It makes him weaker actually in the end. The last thing that I think we need to do to restore balance between the relationship between the United States and Israel and to restore some sanity to the public conversation on this topic is to get our theology right. This is not a message aimed at Israelis or Jews. This is a message aimed at Christians who are the largest group of Israel supporters in the United States. Their view of Israel is colored not just by sentimental attachment, which is fine, or trips to Israel. Great, no problem. But by a Christian heresy, the oldest of the Christian heresies, which is that God somehow prefers some people based on their DNA. And of course the whole point of Christianity is that that is no longer true, that there is no chosen people. The chosen people are people who choose Jesus. That is the Christian message right there. It’s not an anti-Semitic message by the way. It’s the Christian message. It’s a core Christian message. And yet there are many. Many self-described representatives of the Christian faith, the world’s largest, who are daily sending a different message. And we should be very clear. Whatever this is, it’s not Christianity. It is heresy. And among the many examples we could pick, we’re going to go, because we couldn’t control ourselves, with Lindsey Graham. Watch.

Lindsey Graham [00:30:45] To people in my party, I’m tired of this crap. Israel is our friend. They’re the most reliable friend we have in the Mideast. They’re a democracy surrounded by people who would cut their throats if they could. This is not a hard choice if you’re in America. It’s not a hard choice if you’re a Christian. A word of warning. If America pulls the plug on Israel, God will pull the plug on us.

Tucker [00:31:17] God will kill you if you don’t support Bibi Netanyahu. That’s what he’s saying. And there are cheers, unfortunately. Cheers when he said that God will kill you. He will pull the plug on you, like a quadriplegic in intensive care. You’re going to flatline unless you support the secular, abortion on demand government of Israel. That’s the Christian perspective, really. That God loves some people more because of their DNA. That is not the Christian message. That’s the opposite of the Christian message, the Christian message is universal. That’s the whole point of it. The chosen people in Christianity are those who choose Jesus. The entire New Testament is that story and anyone who says otherwise has not read it or is lying. God does not prefer you because of your DNA or anyone else because of their DNA. Period. So the fact that people can stand up in the United States in 2025 and say something like that. And by the way, not even make the case. Just invoke the power of God as a weapon. He will kill you. He’ll pull the plug on your country unless you go along with this. We need more war. Listen to yourself. And it’s not just Lindsey Graham. It’s the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson. It’s a lot of people, some of whom are very nice people. People have dinner with them. They seem perfectly normal. But this is a heresy and it’s deranged. And you know it’s deranged because it is a justification for killing the innocent. And in Christianity, if there’s one thing that’s crystal clear, it’s that Christians cannot abide the killing of the innocent, people who have done nothing wrong cannot be killed. That’s a sin. You are not allowed to do that. Period. And if you find anyone leveraging the message of Jesus to justify the killing of innocence, that person is committing heresy. So those are the four things I think that we probably should do right away to restore some balance and health, reduce the craziness in the relationship and the conversation about Israel. But now for an update and where exactly things are in a complex and dynamic moment globally with regard to Israel, our old friend, Mr. Sachs is here. Oh, Jeff, thank you so much.

Jeff Sachs [00:33:34] Thank you, Tucker. And thank you for really what a remarkable statement you just made and how many important things you said.

Tucker [00:33:43] Well, it’s just bad and it doesn’t need to be bad. And I just I think this is one place where I do agree with the neocons, some of whom are, you know, they are ethno-narcissists, a lot of them, but they’re right when they say if the national conversation is all about Jews and people are all met, like, that’s just not good for anybody. I don’t think that’s good. We need to deescalate and pull back. We need to deracialize this right away, right away and make it sane. And otherwise, what’s going to happen? Anyway, that’s enough lecture for me.

Jeff Sachs [00:34:13] No, no, no. But it’s it’s an important point because the whole issue about Israel is not about Jews, by the way. Exactly. The Jews in the United States completely divided on this issue as are non-Jews. This is not about Jews. This is about a state and what it’s doing right now. It’s history and American interest. And I think you said that all extremely clearly.

Tucker [00:34:40] Do you think there’s been a lot of talk today about another war with Iran? Do you think that that’s coming?

Jeff Sachs [00:34:50] I think it’s very likely because Netanyahu is absolutely intent and he has been intent for nearly 30 years. It’s nearly 30 years since he first became prime minister in 1996 in dragging the United States into a prolonged war with Iran. And he dragged the United States, and it’s a shame that the United States government went along with it. But he dragged the United States into a war with Iran just recently, and it’s extremely dangerous. And of course, he wants to do it again. It’s been part of Netanyahu’s policy to pull the United States into repeated wars. This is why this whole relationship is so completely dysfunctional. Netanyah, who back in 1996. With American political advisors, actually came up with a a document called Clean Break. Clean Break is a very strange, but very clear statement of what has trapped the United States for nearly 30 years. Clean Break says, well, Israel’s never going to compromise with its Palestinian Arab population in its midst and in the Palestinian lands. It’s going to control all of those lands, and it’s going to control or expel or kill or ethnically cleanse the Palestinian population. And that’s going to create unrest, and it is going to create a militant reaction. And then what Clean Break says is, yes, that’s going to happen and we will go to war against any other country in the region that supports opposition to greater Israel. That is Israel’s control over all of Palestine. There’s just one footnote to that. When Netanyahu said we will go to war, what he meant was the United States will go to war for us. So Netanyah, who has been the great champion of pushing America into endless wars for the last three decades. He was the big cheerleader of the Iraq War. People may remember that or they can refresh their memories. Devastatingly wrong war sold on completely phony pretenses that Netanyahu cheerlead. And one can even go online and find his testimony to Congress in October 2002 about how wonderful this war is going to be and how it’s going to lead to a breakout of freedom throughout the Middle East. He’s full of it and he’s been full of it for. Nearly 30 years, but he has had many wars in sight that he has actually dragged the United States into the war in Syria, which goes on and started with Obama in 2011 ordering the or assigning the CIA the task to overthrow the Syrian government was again at Netanyahu’s and Israel’s behest. Absolutely extraordinary. The ongoing wars in Lebanon, in Syria, in Iraq, the recent so-called 12 day war with Iran, which was a disgrace and a great danger. Even the wars in in East Africa, in Sudan, in Somalia and in Libya were pushed by Netanyahu. Needing to that, we need to overthrow regimes that support opposition to Israel’s control over the Palestinians. And in 2011, just to take another case because Obama did double duty that year, he went to war with Syria in a completely weird way of assigning the CIA the overthrow. But he also launched a war against Libya to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi. This was the Obama Hillary Clinton teamwork to drag America into more wars. This has its roots in Netanyahu’s doctrine, which is we will control all of Palestine. This will lead to unrest. It will lead to militancy. It will led to suffering of the Palestinian people. So what? But it will lead to challenges to Israel, and we will confront those by overthrowing the governments that support the militancy against Israel’s control over Palestine. And the U.S. Has played along until today. And I have to say, even though we saw just that tape of President Trump. Saying that, no, Israel will not annex the West Bank. First of all, don’t hold your breath because we’ve not yet seen an American president for 30 years that has resisted Israel. And I am still. Fearful that Trump is the same, because frankly. What we have right now, and Netanyahu said so, Israel’s involved in seven wars right now. It’s disgusting. They’re all over the Middle East in war. They’re in war in Gaza. They’re in war in the West Bank. They’re in war in Lebanon. They’re in war with Syria. They’re in war Iraq. They’re in war with Iran. They’re at war with Yemen. So far, the United States has funded, armed and diplomatically supported all of this. And the United States has absolutely not and in this government, and it’s true of the previous ones as well, not said a word about the state of Palestine, which is absolutely key to peace. There needs to be a state for the Palestinian people alongside a state for the Israelis. This is international law. It’s absolutely obvious to almost every country in the whole world. But the United States listens to Netanyahu. And by United States, I don’t mean the people, because just as you said, the American people are against all of this, by the way, by large majorities. This is not. Being driven by American public opinion, this is our American political class telling Americans what to believe, not what Americans actually believe. Americans want the United States to recognize the state of Palestine. The United States public opposes what Israel is doing by large majorities. This is the political class. But unfortunately, it includes the White House and it includes the Congress. And it hasn’t stopped yet. And the situation in the Middle East is explosive. And Netanyahu is working overtime to pull us into yet another war.

Tucker [00:43:02] May I ask you, you said a moment ago that no American president has ever constrained Israel in a meaningful way. I think George. In the modern period. Yeah, George H.W. Bush kind of tried. And there was talk of an assassination attempt against him. And he lost, of course, after one term. But why do you why do you think that is? Why is a country of nine million people able to dictate terms to a country of three hundred and fifty million people?

Jeff Sachs [00:43:32] Well, first of all, there’s no legitimate reason for that. In other words, there is no intrinsic U.S. Interest in any way, whether it’s military or security or economic for this to be the case. There is no moral reason for this to be the case, in other words. One could support Israel without supporting Israel’s. Reckless extremism and militarism and all its wars. And so there’s no reason for the United States government to have given a blank check, actually handed our military and our intelligence over to Israel to tell us what to do. There’s no legitimate reason for this. The question why this is the case is, of course, I think to all of us, even no matter how much on the inside we are or how many decades we’ve watched this, a bit of a mystery. Because I’ve seen this close up for more than 50 years. And if you ask me, am I really sure? Netanyahu, who was a absolutely disgusting warmonger, who has dragged us into terrible wars, who is committing massive war crimes. Why he gets 57 standing ovations in the U.S. Congress. If you ask me in my heart, do I really understand that? Is it the APEC lobby, the Israel lobby? Well, partly. Is it blackmail by Israel? Because there’s no doubt a lot of credible claims of Epstein and more about blackmail. Is it that? Is it direct bribes? Is it fear of American politicians? Is it the mainstream media, which, for a lot of reasons owned by a lot billionaires that tend to be rather ardent Zionists? Is it the larger Christian Zionist vote base, which is also a real thing? To tell you the truth, none of it really adds up. I agree. In full, because this is not in America’s interest. It’s not in American’s interest to be isolated in the world together with a murderous, rogue state, which is sad to say what the Israeli government has become. It is the most lawless state. The whole world right now, it’s committing massive war crimes. It is, as Netanyahu said, at war in seven fronts. If you’re at war and seven fronts, that’s pretty weird. That shows you don’t have diplomacy. You have war as a policy. And of course, Netanyah who does have war as a poli. And, you know, Tucker, I am at the UN a lot, so I. I’m in the UN Security Council a lot, listening or participating in UN sessions. And the UN, the Israeli politicians come and they yell at the whole rest of the world. And they yell at them in the most vulgar, stupid. Poor aisle. Absolutely imbalanced and irrational way. And then the U.S. Representative says, yes, yes. We we are with Israel. So if you ask me why this is fundamentally. First, it’s disgusting. Second, it is no rational basis. And third, if it is the money, the lobbying, the mass media propaganda, I’d be. Really strange beliefs of some people, whatever it is, even all of that, for my mind, doesn’t add up because a president of the United States should be able to figure this out a little bit better, that this is absolutely not in America’s interest. And we do not have a military that is to be handed out to another country to do whatever reckless things that country is doing. And right now, Israel is not only doing reckless things. It is committing a genocide. And that is not my opinion. That is the opinion pervasively of both scholars and specialists in this matter and in Israeli human rights organizations, in countless observers inside. Israel and observers all over the world. The U.S. Is actually, and I’m sorry to say it, complicit in genocide right now. A president should be able to figure this out. And they don’t. And so when you ask me this question, I can give you a list of answers, but somehow it doesn’t add up for me because this is not so hard to figure out that we are on a terribly wrong track.

Tucker [00:49:36] I agree with you completely. I’ve thought about it a lot. And you don’t have to hate Israel, which I don’t, to ask like why the serial humiliation rituals and no one ever says, you know, Basta, ever. And and I do think there’s people perceive a deep threat. Well, I know that that’s true. I wonder if the attack on Doha, on Qatar and in general the kind of nonstop effort to malign Qatar, Qatar is the most important player in U.S. It’s also deranged. It’s all projection. But I wonder if bombing a close U. S. Ally, kind of critical U. S. Ally in that region, Qatar is a critical U S. Ally, just to be clear. I wonder if that was like too much. I wonder if that was the beginning of the end for Bibi.

Jeff Sachs [00:50:29] I have to say there’s been a lot that should have been the beginning of the end going back 30 years, going back to the Iraq war. And even before that, starving a population in Gaza, as Israel is doing right now, should have been enough even without the bombing of Qatar. But. Yes, Qatar was an extraordinary event. Israel says we don’t have to obey any laws anywhere. We will go anywhere. We will murder anyone. It’s a murder operation, Mossad especially. But also this was the Israeli military in this case. And interestingly, what were they trying to do? According to them in Qatar, they were trying to murder the negotiators of Hamas who were considering a ceasefire proposal. I find it pretty strange that you murder your counterpart negotiators as they’re considering a proposal. But this is actually normal behavior of the Israeli government. They have done this repeatedly now that they murder precisely those who are negotiating. And the United States has been party to this. That’s really. Awful and dangerous and absurd. What was that war in Iran about? It was a disgrace. But what it was about was Israel trying to stop a negotiated solution to the question of Iran’s nuclear program. And people should remember that the. US bombing of Iran took place a couple of days before what was supposed to be the sixth round of negotiations with Iran that were reportedly progressing productively. There were serious things to be discussed. And Israel typically went in and assassinated as many people as it could. That were involved in those negotiations that were in senior reaches of the Iranian government. And then the United States joined in by the United States, I mean, President Trump and the military joined in. In the midst of a negotiating process, Israel murdered the negotiators of Hezbollah. Israel has repeatedly murdered counterparts who would negotiate. Israel’s right murdered its own prime minister who was trying to negotiate a peace, Yitzhak Rabin. This is the mode of operation of this extremist Israeli government that our politicians support to the hilt and they do it. Knowing that what Israel is propounding is an absolutely extraordinary and deadly policy. And just to put it one more time, what Netanyahu and his coalition represent is a claim that is called Greater Israel or Eretz Yisrael Hashlema, which in Hebrew is. The Greater Israel. And the claim is that Israel will control all of the lands that were the British Palestine. Britain, after World War One, took imperial control over Palestine. As usual, Britain left a disaster. This is Britain’s way in the world. Instead of a Palestinian state for the eight million Palestinian Arabs and a Israeli state for the eight-million Israeli Jews, what Netanyahu and his coalition want is that Israel controls all of the land, including, therefore, half the population that are Palestinian Arabs. Of course, they want to expel them. They’re very clear about that. They want them out. They want an Arab-free land of Israel. It’s unbelievably violent and destructive what they’re doing. And this is what we are defending. So, again, Netanyahu came to the United Nations last week. And he was very clear for any of these defenders of Israel in the United States. Netanyahu said there will never be a state of Palestine. Now, are we really signing up to that? Because that’s signing up to mass war crimes, to genocidal actions and to perpetual war for the United states. But honestly, until today, President Trump hasn’t said anything about that. The whole vast majority of the world says, of course, there needs to be a state of Palestine. Are you kidding? There are eight million Palestinian Arabs. What else is there going to be? The International Court of Justice says this. The UN General Assembly says this, the UN Security Council says this except the United States government, which says, no, we protect Israel in this. Murderous path that they’re on.

Tucker [00:57:04] It’s remarkable. It’s nauseating to me and shocking to me that any Christian could support this, especially with the enthusiasm they do. And I, you know, God is going to have to judge them. But I just think that’s.

Jeff Sachs [00:57:19] It’s a little strange, by the way, even when when when. Yes, it is a little stranger when when Senator Cruz, when you asked him about this, he couldn’t even quote the Bible. Right. By the way. He you you asked them and he said, well, God says that I will bless those who bless Israel, which is, by the way not what Genesis says. No, it says I will bless those who bless Abraham. This is a little bit different. And he couldn’t even quote the passage properly. But it was in that name that he said, this is why we have to do it. It’s like you just heard or just we were just listening to Lindsey Graham. They can’t even quote this so-called scripture that’s telling them what to do. It’s so preposterous.

Tucker [00:58:17] Well, and it said its effect is to is to really distort American politics. I thought we agreed during the Russia hysteria of the last administration that it was wrong and illegal, actually, for a foreign government to control our politics. Like, I thought we all agreed on that. I’ve always felt that way. No matter what the government, Russia was not controlling our politics, that was the lie there. But the truth was that’s wrong. And now. It seems like our entire national conversation is about this tiny, totally irrelevant little country with one great city, Jerusalem, but geopolitically irrelevant country. And that’s at the behest of a foreign government who’s openly saying, you don’t agree with us, we’re going to censor you. How can that stand? How can a foreign leader call for censorship of American citizens and then all those little satellite groups, the ADL, APAC, all of them? All push that. And then the Congress obeys. Like, that seems to me that’s got to be a red line.

Jeff Sachs [00:59:21] There’s so many big lies in all that is said day by day. But the biggest big lie in this regard is, as you noted rightly, to say that those who are against Israel are anti-Semites.

Tucker [00:59:37] So exactly.

Jeff Sachs [00:59:38] I happen to be Jewish. I am aghast at what Israel is doing because Israel is a state. It is, first of all, not a religion. And least of all is it a reflection of 2000 years of Jewish culture, which is not what Israel Is about at all, and to say that it’s anti-Semitic to oppose a genocide or to oppose all of these wars that Israel is provoking is obviously a big lie, but that is what is propounded. And it’s really, it’s strange to hear this, especially because… When one understands the history of Israel and the history of Zionism, which is the political philosophy calling for the state of Israel, people should know it’s a little, may sound a little strange in our current context. Religious Jews were against Zionism at the start. This wasn’t even a Jewish religious movement at all. This was a group of basically secular Jews in Eastern Europe, and the rabbis of the day told them, no, don’t do this. This is a bad idea. This is not what Judaism is. This is just going to create… A tremendous amount of trouble. And so this idea that being critical of Israel is somehow being anti-Semitic, which is what is being used as a cudgel against American society right now and against American universities, but pretty much across the board, is not only wrong and absurd, but completely against the true history of these issues. There’s a lot that can be said about it, but one thing that is an illustration of this point. Israel emerged from British imperialism. Actually, the modern Zionism, so-called, which was the idea of creating a Jewish state, was a British Christian idea. In the 19th century, it did not start as a Jewish idea. It was a British Christian idea. In a Jewish tradition of 2,000 years, Jews were to live anywhere, and they were to make their faith anywhere at their local synagogue. They didn’t have to be anywhere in particular. There was no land idolatry. There was just a set of religious and ethical tenets. That was it. And there was not only no mass call to have a Jewish state, that was viewed as heretical, a term that you used earlier. In one of the guiding texts of religious Judaism, the Talmud, there is a part called the Three Oaths, which rabbis in the early centuries AD wrote and compiled, and this part, Ketubot 111, says, don’t return to Israel en masse. Don’t, because it will just create trouble. Live peacefully where you are. That’s actually a Talmudic injunction that the rabbis followed for a couple thousand years, basically. So this whole idea of the modern state of Israel was actually a Christian idea, specifically a British Christian idea. And it was an Anglican reverend. Kind of gave this idea to Theodor Herzl, who was a secular Jew in Vienna in the last years of the 19th century. Well, just without going into all of the detailed history, in 1917, Britain did a typical British imperial thing. During World War I, it promised Palestine repeatedly to different groups. Britain is nothing but deceitful in its imperial methods, so it promised the land of Palestine to the Arabs, first in what are called the McMahon Sharif letters. It promised the Middle East to be divided with the French in what’s called the Sykes-Picot Treaty, and then in 1917. Under lobbying pressure of British and American Zionists or British Zionists who said, let’s bring America into this war, thinking that it would be good, announced in what’s called the Balfour Declaration, that there should be a Jewish homeland in Palestine after World War I. Remember, this was not even British land. This was Ottoman territory, but Britain being the British Empire said, we’re going to determine the fate of this and announce in the Balfour Declaration that there should be a Jewish homeland. Now, there was one Jew in the British cabinet in 1917, Edwin Montagu. What was that one Jew’s reaction to the Balfour Declaration, which was issued by the Foreign Secretary? It was to oppose strongly, strenuously, the Belfour Declaration. What did Montagu say in a famous letter? Why are you doing this? We don’t need a Jewish homeland. Jews are a religion. They’re not a nation. They don’t a nation, and if you do this, you make me seem like I’m not British. I am first British, thank you. I happen to be Jewish, but I’m British. If you say that now, the Jews are in the state of… Palestine, that’s where their homeland is, you’re going to make it seem like I’m less British. And this is how many people have felt over time. And I, as an American, completely, totally resent when Netanyahu says, we’re the state of the Jewish people. Nonsense. That’s even, it’s revolting. I happen to be Jewish, but Israel is not my state. The United States is my state, and it’s revolting to be told otherwise. Who the heck is he to tell me this? Who the heck is the Israeli government to declare such a thing? Complete nonsense. And so the history of all of this is completely different from what is thought and the claim that it is Semitic. To be against the ghastly things that Israel is doing, stopping food shipments into Gaza to starve people, destroying all of the infrastructure to make Gaza a place of two million people unlivable, murdering more than 60 million people, the significant majority of whom are women and children. And then to be told, no, you can’t say you’re against that, that’s anti-Semitic. This is a preposterous propaganda, not a reality. It has nothing to do with this in reality and Zionism is not Judaism, it is a political ideology and the extremist Zionism of Netanyahu and his cronies, Smotrich and Ben-Gavir in particular. Who are murderous members of this government. This is an extremism that is completely disgusting and has nothing whatsoever to do with Jewish beliefs or Jewish ethics.

Tucker [01:08:51] I think one of the reasons that religious authorities in Europe at the time of the Balfour Declaration, some of them thought this was a bad idea, is because the point of being in the land of Israel biblically was because the temple was in Jerusalem on the Temple Mount, right? Where Abraham brought Isaac. And that was the center of the religion until 70 AD when the Romans destroyed the city and the temple. Now, so, and then subsequently, of course, the rise of Islam, Al-Aqsa Mosque, third holiest place in Islam was built on that site and the foundation is called the Western Wall, the Wailing Wall, all of our politicians go to. The question of rebuilding the temple is almost never discussed publicly in the United States, but there is a huge effort, by the way, bankrolled by a lot of Christians, just to be completely clear. In the state of Texas, for example, there’s a whole foundation, a number of foundations designed to abet this. But there is this kind of behind the scenes push to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, which would require destroying the third holiest place in Islam, the mosque, the Al-Aqsa Mosque. I’ve talked to a bunch of people about this who think that it’s imminent, that it is not crazy to think that that mosque would be blown up in order to make way for the third temple. Do you fear that? If that happens, what happens next?

Jeff Sachs [01:10:13] Well, the extremism on display in Israel is, as I said, the most lawless in the world today. Israel is the rogue state of the whole world. Israel flagrantly violates every limit. Israel goes to war where it wants to. It murders foreign leaders where and when it wants too. It acts with complete impunity and disdain. And Netanyahu thinks that he controls, and maybe he does, the U.S. Government so that whatever he does he thinks he can get away with. So there’s no doubt that there is a third temple movement that is part of this coalition. No doubt that they’re are people in this government who have absolutely no limit, who talk openly about, well, they’ve already said, to make Gaza completely uninhabitable and unlivable. That is ethnic cleansing or genocide or a combination of the two. Well, such people do not have limits. Would this go well? For Israel, no, this would be suicidal. But zealotry can be suicidal, and there’s a lot of zealoty.

Tucker [01:11:47] By the way, the word comes from the region, zealots were suicidal religion extremists.

Jeff Sachs [01:11:53] And it comes from, unfortunately, even the ancient history of Israel. Many people then and today did not think it was the greatest idea to rebel against the Roman Empire. The Jews ended up destroying themselves. Champion a mass suicide in a place called Masada. But to have a belief system where you’re championing mass suicide is a little weird. Maybe the behavior wasn’t so prudent. Maybe it wasn’t so wise to be as completely extremist as you thought. And it’s not so wise for Israel to be completely extremist and disdainful of every other place in the world, thinking that the United States has your back, so to speak. When in fact, as we said, it’s a little strange that the U.S. Politicians do every order of Israel up until now. But the American people are fed up with this. They’re disgusted with this. And eventually in our political system, that tends to move the politics a bit when you have 70% of Americans saying, stop, this is hellish. What Israel is doing is completely terrible. That will eventually even enter the consciousness of our political class. And so if you ask me, are there forces in Israel that could do this? Absolutely. And there are those who would do it tomorrow. This is a coalition government that. Caused Trump to say that annexation is impossible because they were on the verge of essentially annexing the Palestinian lands of the so-called West Bank, the West Bank of Jordan, completely against international law, completely against UN Security Council resolutions, completely against the International Court of Justice, completely against reality because it’s millions of people. Living there that they would have to murder or ethnically cleanse or completely suppress, which apparently they’re ready to do for all of them because they say these are all hateful people and they don’t even count how many people they’re killing in fact. So yes, of course they’re ready to what you said.

Tucker [01:14:55] One of the costs apart from the cost to the American social fabric, which is profound, the cost to the US Treasury, also profound. It does seem like we’re in a moment when the world is completely realigning. I know that you are right in the middle of that and have been your whole life. And so I think you see it a lot more clearly since you’re out of the country so often, but the huge population centers and the economic centers of the world, which would be India, China, to some extent Russia, but. Indonesia, like huge countries, bigger than the United States, economies growing much faster. They all seem to be kind of aligning against the United states and Israel. Or am I imagining that?

Jeff Sachs [01:15:37] Well, let me just say with regard to this Israeli genocide and extremism, almost the entire world knows what’s happening, sees what’s happened and is against what’s happen. In this regard, the only significant state that supports Israel is the United States. So it’s essentially two against the world. As I said, I. Go to the UN a lot and I watch vote after vote and there have been several votes in the last couple of years showing that this is the overwhelming view of the world that Israel needs to end its rogue behavior. It needs to stop the mass murder. It needs stop the starvation. It needs. To return to its borders, stop the wars all around it and enable the state of Palestine to exist and to function. And just to give you a few points on this, in several resolutions calling for a state of Palestine or Palestinian political self-determination, there have typically been out of the 193 UN member states around 180 saying, of course Palestine has the right of political self-determination. And there have typically been eight or at most 10 opposed to that. So around 180 against 10. Who are the 10? The 10 of course are Israel and the United States. And then Micronesia. Nauru. Micro, yeah. Yes, Micronesia, Naur, Vanuatu, Polau, Papua New Guinea. If people wanna follow them on a map, these are tiny dots in the Pacific Ocean. These are states where the U.S. Simply buys the vote because there may be 10,000 people, 12,000 people in Naur or some. Count like that. So the U.S. Just pays for the vote. Or in the case of Micronesia, they’re bound by compact to vote with the United States. And the only countries of any size that have voted any size at all other than these tiny, tiny dots with the U S and Israel have been Argentina, Paraguay, and once in a while a country or two in Europe, that’s it. The whole rest of the world is clear about all of this. And when you add up the populations in the countries on these two sides of the vote, and I’ve done that each time, of course, it’s about 95% of the World population saying, get on with it. Two states, a state of Palestine, a State of Israel. Israel needs to stop its mass murder. It needs to return to the borders of the 4th of June, 1967, according to international law. It needs stop killing or ethnically cleansing or suppressing the Palestinian population. That’s about 95%. And 5% is the U S and Israel. The U S by itself is 4.1% of the World population. Israel’s tiny, like you said, those islands are tiny. You add in Argentina and Paraguay and a couple of others and you get maybe to 5% of The World population, we’re completely isolated in this. And people should also understand there are so many lies that are told, especially as in our own. Zionists dominated mass media that has been recklessly pro Netanyahu and this extremism for a long time. But one of the repeated lies is there’s no one to talk to. There’s no way that there could be a peaceful Palestinian state. There’s not way that the Arabs could ever be a partner in this. Completely ridiculously the opposite. Since 2002, there has been what is called the Arab Peace Initiative, which has said that based on two states, there would be normal relations between the Arab countries and Israel. In other words, normalization and peace based on a state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel. And that has been propounded by Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab countries nonstop. It has been supported nonstop by what’s called the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which is the 57 Muslim majority countries of the world. They say, yes, normalization, two states. Israel stops its rampage. Israel stops it’s delusions of greater Israel. Israel stops, it’s ethnic cleansing and murder of the Palestinian people. Then there can be peace. It’s not even hard. This is what the whole world says. Now the United States has used its muscle, its dollars, its threats. Even giving visas, it denied visas to the Palestine Authority to come to the United Nations last week to be part of the debate about this issue. It wouldn’t even grant visas because the US has been so in lockstep protecting this extremism up until now that we just are stuck. And everything that said that this is anti-Semitic, that there’s no one to talk to, that there is no possibility of peace, it’s all lies. And now about 155 countries formally recognize Palestine, including despite the ardent US pressure of recent months, Britain and France and Australia. And a number of other European countries just last week said there has to be a state of Palestine. But until this moment, the Trump administration won’t say the obvious truth because to this moment we’re still trapped in this hold of this extraordinary giveaway of American foreign policy and the whole American military and intelligence operations to an extremist rogue government.

Tucker [01:23:31] Netanyahu is despised, I think, by a lot of people in the US government bragging that you control Donald Trump. It’s hard to imagine a more self-destructive thing, but he did that a lot, including recently. So I just wonder how long, since he basically serves at the pleasure of the United States, that that country couldn’t exist without, not for a week without US backing. How long can Bibi keep his job if he’s despised by the US government and he’s got a fraction, he’s a lot of political problems within Israel and he is despised the world. How does he keep going?

Jeff Sachs [01:24:19] It is absolutely remarkable. I’m sure that he is despised, but he actually to this day continues to get his way, including in the last few days. Even when President Trump put forward a plan for Gaza, which was a kind of a half a plan, but it had, and it has certain things right. Especially stopping the fighting and disarmament of Hamas, completely right. But it leaves out the most crucial point, which is a state of Palestine to live their lives. That was, of course, Israel’s continued and Netanyahu’s continued power. And what happened was, the administration, President Trump, briefed Arab leaders at the end of last week on this plan. They said, well, there are a number of things that are good with this. And then Trump met with Netanyahu and Ron Dermer, who is one of these forces of right-wing extremism in Israel. And he’s an American born. Advisor to Netanyahu, who was Israel’s ambassador to the United States for a long time. He knows how to pull strings of American politicians wherever those strings and however they arise. And they changed the plan as they met and basically rewrote key parts of what Trump had told the Arabs to say, oh, oh yes, yes, and we should remember that Israel will remain. Control over Gaza. They changed what they had actually briefed the leaders and then unilaterally announced something different. And this is just now being disclosed in recent hours. This is so typical. To this day, there has not been an independent US foreign policy. It doesn’t exist. And so when you ask how long can Netanyahu last, well, we’re still waiting. For the US government to declare its independence, but it hasn’t done so yet. It hasn’t taken the most basic measures to do so. Could it do so? In a blink of an eye. And when President Trump said in the clip that you showed, I won’t allow Israel to annex the West Bank, of course he can determine that. So he’s completely right to say that. It’s both a completely accurate statement. It is the right thing to say what President Trump said, and it’s completely 100%. Within his power to say it, because Israel can’t take one step without the US backing. But President Trump should say along with that that there will be a state of Palestine so there can be peace. And that he hasn’t said because of all of the forces of Israeli control over the White House and Congress. He hasn’t. Virtually all the rest of the world has said. If he says it, there will be peace. He can make peace. He’s right when he says, I won’t allow it. It sounds like bombast. How can the United States say it won’t allowed Israel to do something? Well, the fact is the United states can say it because Israel can’t take one step without the US protection. And just as a very practical matter, Palestine, which is recognized by more than 150 countries, applied 14 years ago for membership in the United Nations. And in that process, you make an application to the secretary general of the UN, then the secretary-general refers it to a membership committee, which is the UN Security Council acting as a membership Committee based on the recommendation of that membership committee than the UN security council. Consider this. So 11 years ago, 14 years ago in 2011, Palestine made its application and the committee of membership said, yes, Palestine has all of the attributes of statehood. It has a permanent population. That’s the Palestinian Arabs. It has boundaries, which are the legal boundaries of the 4th of June, 1967, but not the. Boundaries of Israeli illegal occupation, but the legal boundaries, 4th of June, 1967. And it wants to enter the UN as a UN charter abiding country. Those are the criteria. So the membership committee said, yes, of course Palestine qualifies. At the time. What did the US government do under Obama? Well, Obama was under complete Israel control like all of American presidents are. And so he said to the Palestinians, no, no, don’t push so hard. You’ll get it. You’ll it very soon, but right now just ask to be an observer. You don’t have to be a member. So the Palestinians listened to the. Wonderful president of the United States and they took observer status. Of course, there was no follow-up. This is the endless charade of Israel and American politics. Israel dead set against the state of Palestine, the US doing whatever Israel says. And so it didn’t come up again until last year, 2024. And then. Waiting 13 years and suffering a genocide. Thank you. The Palestinians reapplied. Since they already had the decision of the membership committee, it went straight to the UN Security Council. What happened in the UN security council? This is under Biden. Of course, they vetoed statehood. It was the one veto. So there was a unanimous vote 12 to nothing against. Two abstentions and the US veto. And then it went to the general assembly where I already explained you had an overwhelming vote of the whole world community for Palestinian statehood. But in the UN, you need a membership, a vote of the UN Security Council where the US has a veto. So just to say, not only can president Trump stop. Annexation of the West Bank, as he said he intends to do, bravo. He could also make a state of Palestine within about 10 minutes. He would convene the 15 members of the UN Security Council and lift the US veto. And there would be a unanimous vote of the U.N. Security Council. And Palestine would enter as the 194th UN member state. And on that basis, Israel would have to withdraw because Israel. Would then be in a fight with the whole world, which it can’t be in. So this is quite straightforward. If we wanna make peace, it’s absolutely possible. If we want to follow Israel, we are following the path of perpetual war.

Tucker [01:32:30] Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University, thank you for taking all this time.

Jeff Sachs [01:32:34] Well, it’s always great to be with you, Tucker. I appreciate it.

Tucker [01:32:38] Thanks a lot. I’ll see you soon. We’ll be back next Wednesday.

China-USA, Opium Wars, Fentanyl Wars

Chine USA, Opium Wars – Fentanyl Wars

Today, with fentanyl, it is China that plays the role of the villain in the war on drugs against the Anglo-Saxons: China is the world’s leading producer of chemical precursors to this drug, much more powerful and addictive than heroin. These precursors are then exported to Mexico where drug cartels transform them into fentanyl. This synthetic opioid, very cheap, is then sold in the streets of American cities where it wreaks havoc.

Hence the current Trump war: in January 2025, Trump signed an executive order classifying several cartels (including the Tren de Aragua, the Sinaloa cartel, and the Cartel de los Soles) as foreign terrorist organizations. Now, we are witnessing the deployment of the US military to target cartels in Latin America. Strikes have already taken place, such as the attacks on Venezuelan ships in September 2025. Seven warships were deployed to the Caribbean to intercept drug trafficking, with a doctrine of direct force (air strikes, raids). Trump has demanded the death penalty against drug traffickers.

But in the 19th century, it was the English, in collaboration with a Jewish cartel led in Baghdad by David Sassoon, who imposed the opening of Chinese borders to opium.

David Sassoon, born in October 1792 in Baghdad and died on November 7, 1864, in Pune (India)

A tit for tat, so to speak. In any case, it seems that drug trafficking is part of the geopolitics of the great powers. Who knows if tomorrow Los Angeles, San Francisco or Seattle will not be Chinese concessions?

In this perspective, we give below a translation of an article by Gian Pio Mattogno on David Sassoon and the opium war. The most difficult thing to understand in this article is that during the two opium wars, one in 1839 and the other in 1856, the Anglo-Saxons were fighting not against drug trafficking, but in favor. Drug trafficking is good or evil only based on your strategic interests.

§§§§§

Gian Pio Mattogno : Portrait of a “good man”

THE JEWISH DRUG TRAFFICKER DAVID SASSOON … AND FAMILY

On Bet Magazine Mosaico (mosaic-cem.it), the official website of the Jewish community of Milan, we read that in the 19th century, the Jews of Baghdad considered themselves as the Jewish elite of the Middle East and that the Sassoon, with their trade of gold, silk, spices and wool, had become the richest merchants in Baghdad.

However, they could have their “reversal of fortune”.

”Historically, the Sassoon have been heavily affected by the ban on the opium trade, which has led them to diversify their portfolios into buying land, real estate, factories and banks.

But what precisely were these “setbacks” and what was the origin of the “fortune”?

What Bet Magazine Mosaico strives to modestly hide, the Centro Studi Malfatti unambiguously exposes.

One of the oldest Jewish families in the world. In the 16th century, the Sassoons settled in Baghdad, where, towards the end of the First World War, they were among the protagonists of the formation of the Iraqi state, whose prime minister of finance was … Eskell Sassoon, a position he held throughout seven consecutive governments.

‘In the first half of the 19th century, Sir Eskell’s grandfather, David Sassoon, founded the Bank David Sassoon & Co. in Bombay. David’s brother, Albert Abdallah David Sassoon, was made a baron by Queen Victoria for his considerable gains to the Crown of England in 1890.

On his merits, David obtained from the Bank of England a monopoly in India for the exploitation of cotton, silk, and opium. Between 1830 and 1831, David sold 18,956 cases of opium.

‘The opium monopoly was extended to China and Japan.

In 1839, the Chinese emperor Dao Guang forbade the consumption and trade of this substance; thousands of boxes of drugs just out of the laboratories of Canton of the family Sassoon are destroyed.

Immediately, the Sassoons turned to the British for help, it is the beginning of the first opium war, it will end after three years with the legalization of drugs in China, the sovereignty of England over certain coastal areas of the country, a compensation of two million pounds for the Sassoons, the full compensation of war expenses to the British, for an amount of 21 million pounds. This is what we call being cuckolded and beaten.

The drug traffickers of Sassoon having a monopoly on opium only for coastal areas, a second bloody war was waged to ensure the extension of this monopoly, it takes place from 1858 to 1860 and offers the Sassoons a monopoly on the drug trade over seven-eighths of China, while the British Crown takes advantage of it to rule over Hong Kong and other strategic areas.

The Russell & Co, founded by the brother-in-law of William Huntington, Russell, co-founder of the controversial secret society Skull & Bones, was responsible for transporting opium from India to China and returning Chinese tea for the Sassoon.

In 1887, Edward Albert Sassoon married Caroline Rothschild, thus confirming the economic alliance between the two families. ... (La famille Sassoon, centrostudimalfatti.eu. Cf. ANGLIA JUDAICA: Les Juifs et l’impérialisme britannique au XIXe siècle, andreacarancini.it).

The modesty of Bet Magazine Mosaico towards the Sassoon (but also towards other dignitaries of the international Jewish community, such as slave traders) is not new.

Thus, in the early 20th century, the authoritative Jewish Encyclopedia wrote that the firm of David Sassoon and Co. had branches in Calcutta, Shanghai, Canton, and Hong Kong, and that its affairs “included a monopoly on the opium trade”, but she did not devote a single word to the opium wars and the unspeakable sufferings endured by the Chinese people at the hands of the Sassoon.

On the contrary, we see the Encyclopedia spreading praise of the merits of the Sassoon, their “benevolence,” their promotion of education, their gifts, etc., etc., in short, of their proverbial “philanthropy” (Sassoon, in “The Jewish Encyclopedia,” vol. 11, pp. 66-68).

A few years earlier, “Il Novelliere Israelitico” (year I, n° 7, 15 July 1889, p. 38) had published the following portrait of the Sassoon family:

They write from London that the Shah of Persia, during his stay in this metropolis, had the opportunity to strain his body, as well as to develop his mind.

The highlight of the festivities was an evening given on 4 July in his honour by Sir David Sassoon.

Sir Albert Sassoon, like his brother Ruben, is vice-president of the Anglo Jewish Association which, as we know, has the same program and develops its philanthropic and charitable activity in collaboration with the Israelite Alliance. For the rental of the room where the festival was held in honor of the Shah; Sir Albert paid £500, and all the highest English aristocracy participated.

The Sassoon family must have been particularly honored by the visit of the Shah since it was in Baghdad that the founder of the house, David Sassoon, was born and his business prospered.

David Sassoon was one of the noblest figures in Judaism; as a true Israelite, he sowed good wherever he went and is entitled to the gratitude of all Israelite hearts. [in footnote: “The biography and portrait of this good man are to be found in the 1868 Israelitico Annuario compiled by the director of Corriere Israelitico].

He left two million pounds to his six children.

They then founded new banking and trading houses in Bombay, China and London, and through their scrupulous honesty, as well as the greatest enterprise spirit, they increased their already colossal fortune and achieved eminent social positions.

The Sassoon family of London belongs to the Portuguese community; it deals with unparalleled zeal in Jewish affairs and all its members faithfully perform religious practices.

One of the brothers, Mr. Arturo Sassoon, married Miss Perugia from Trieste, and a son of Sir Albert married the daughter of Baron Gustavo de Rothschild two years ago, a marriage about which our Corriere spoke at the time.

In 1873, Sir Albert Sassoon, now 72 years old, was made an honorary member of the City of London and the following year he was knighted by the Queen.

The portrait of David Sassoon, nicknamed the Israelite Romantic, had appeared on the Israelite Directory for the year of V. E. 1868. Published by A. di S. Curiel Editor of “Corriere Israelitico”, Anno Primo, Trieste, 1868, pp. 82-92, signed: B. Artom.

In the face of such praising, don’t you dare to say that this noble and innocent Jewish soul was in reality nothing more than a ruthless drug trafficker who made enormous profits at the expense of the Chinese people, you vile antisemite!

Gian Pio Mattogno : Portrait d’un « homme bon »

Gian Pio Mattogno : Portrait d’un « homme bon » – Andrea Carancini

Doom of the Dumb: Tea for Two, Bosh for Nosh and Why the Left Will Lose

Dominic Cummings: Part of the reason for the incoherent forcefulness against the white rioters last year from a regime that is in deep-surrender-mode against pro-Holocaust marchers, rape gangs and criminals generally, is a mix of a) aesthetic revulsion in SW1 at the Brexit-voting white north and b) incoherent Whitehall terror of widespread white-English mobs turning political and attracting talented political entrepreneurs. They’re already privately quaking about the growth of Muslim networks. The last thing they want to see is emerging networks that see themselves as both political and driven to consider violence.

“Everything louder than everything else.” That was the artistic ideal of the tinnitus-inducing rock band Deep Purple. It has the brain-bewildering pseudo-semantics of a Zen koan, so it’s appropriate that it was said in Japan by the guitar great Ritchie Blackmore. He was joking back in the 1970s, but there’s no joke in the 2020s when leftists follow their political ideal: “Everything dumber than everything else.”

Diff’rent strokes, folks!: Peruvian Paddington has a passion for marmalade sandwiches, Jamaican Delroy Easton Grant had a passion for raping old White women

And when I say “dumber,” I mean it. Exhibit #1: an arctocentric appeal by the Labour politician Stella Creasy (born 1977). Arctocentric means “centered on bears” and Creasy centered her appeal on Paddington Bear, a children’s character whose books describe how he made a happy life in England after arriving here as a refugee from “darkest Peru.” Paddington is short, dresses in a battered hat and child’s coat, and loves marmalade sandwiches. In a video for the Platinum Jubilee in 2022, he had tea for two with our dear departed Queen, Elizabeth the Evil. Note that Ms Creasy was 47 years old when she invoked Paddington Bear in condemning a proposal that British citizenship be denied to illegal migrants:

So if you have your very expensive application [for citizenship] rejected […] because you fled because there isn’t a safe route, because you got on a boat, because that was safer than being in the country that you [were], I don’t think the British public would think that’s right. After all, don’t forget that was Mo Farah [a British-based Somali athlete]. It’s easy to blame immigrants, it’s much harder to recognize the truth of the matter. Absolutely, there are organized criminal gangs. We should brook no call with anybody who has any sympathy for them. We want to stop the boats. You don’t stop the boats by treating people who are now in the UK and part of our communities as second-class citizens. I have great faith in the British public. They are compassionate, decent people. After all, we are also the nation that takes great pride in the apocryphal story of Paddington. Paddington was a stowaway from Peru and he went to have tea with the Queen. Wasn’t that a beautiful British moment that everybody celebrated? (“We should welcome small boat migrants to Britain… because we welcomed Paddington: Labour MP bizarrely claims fictional bear would be denied UK citizenship under toughened Home Office rules,” The Daily Mail, 12th February 2025)

The arctophilic Stella Creasy, an atypically attractive but typically dishonest and dumb leftist fem-pol, and her “Jewish partner” Dan Fox

Have you got that? Stella Creasy is arguing that because an “apocryphal”[1] bear called Paddington had tea with the Queen in a video, Britain must accept unspecified numbers of young male migrants from the most corrupt, illiberal, rape-friendly and economically unproductive cultures on Earth. It was a staggeringly, stupendously stupid thing to say. She had warmed up for it by saying that illegal migrants shouldn’t be treated as “second-class citizens.” But they aren’t “citizens” and treating them as “second-class” is perfectly legitimate. If a nation draws no distinction between citizens and foreigners, it has abolished itself and annulled its own laws.

Checkmate for racists and Islamophobes

So what’s not to like for leftists? Abolishing White nations has been the “project” of leftists like Stella Creasy for many decades. And any dumb argument will do to advance that central leftist cause. I’d never come across the argumentum ex urso before,[2] but I had come across “Any Exception Disproves the Rule.” Creasy used that more familiar argument when she mentioned Mo Farah, a Somali ex-refugee who took his place alongside British giants like Newton, Galton, Shakespeare and Dickens by running fast in light-weight shoes. The argument goes like this: Somali Mo Farah runs fast and wins medals, therefore the rampant criminality, corruption and welfare dependency of other Somalis in Britain ceases to matter. Q.E.D. For example, there are Somali rape-gangs destroying the lives of White schoolgirls in Britain. But: Mo Farah is Somali and can run fast, so it’s checkmate for racists and Islamophobes!

That’s a dumb argument, but Creasy deployed it anyway. Then she adapted it and made it dumberer. Mo Farah really exists and really can run fast. Paddington Bear doesn’t exist and his “beautiful British moment” with the Queen was entirely “apocryphal.” However, the obvious dumbness of Creasy’s pro-migrant rhetoric wasn’t the only thing worthy of note. There was also the underlying deceit. Creasy also said: “I have great faith in the British public. They are compassionate, decent people.” What she meant was: “I have great contempt for British whites. I trust that they are stupid enough to accept my bullshit about immivaders.” Like all mainstream leftists, Creasy worships words and believes that words control reality. Saying a thing makes it so.[3] But she’s also trying to use what I’ve called verbal venom. That is, she’s trying to use sycophancy and sentimentality to paralyze the will of British Whites and stop them fighting against their own dispossession. She isn’t addressing non-Whites when she talks about the “British public” being “compassionate, decent people” and when she invokes the “beautiful British moment” of ickle Paddington meeting the lubbly Queen. No, she’s addressing Whites and trying to manipulate them into passivity so that non-Whites can continue their predation and parasitism on Whites.

Another leftist word-worshiper oh-so-archly crushes populist protest (“wankpuffin” is the sort of twee twattery the repulsive half-Jew Stephen Fry would use)

But I don’t think Creasy genuinely cares about non-White immivaders either. What she was really trying to do was to advance Jewish interests. Her “partner” is the publicity-shy Zionist Jew Dan Fox, a former director of Labour Friends of Israel. Creasy has obviously followed the same strategy as the Labour leader Keir Starmer and the would-be Conservative leader Robert Jenrick, both of whom made sure to marry Jews as they worked for the top job.[4] Any gentile who wants to advance in British politics must grovel before the group that funds and controls British politics, namely, Jews.

Be kosher or be krushed

The former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn refused to perform the goy-grovel, which is why he was relentlessly demonized in the media, then overthrown by the shabbos goy Keir Starmer and expelled from the party. And what does Wikipedia say about Stella Creasy? It says she was “a vocal critic” of Jeremy Corbyn. Okay, Corbyn believes in open borders for non-White rapists, murderers and tax-eaters just as fervently as Creasy does, but that’s only the first part of what makes a politician kosher. Corbyn didn’t supply the second part. He doesn’t believe in making Jewish interests his first and overwhelming priority, so he had to go.[5] As all British prime ministers since at least Churchill have known, the goy-grovel is the price of power. If Corbyn had goy-groveled, he might well be prime minister now. Instead, the prime minister is Keir Starmer, goy-groveler supreme.

Keir Starmer and the three Ukrainian rent-boys who allegedly set fire to his property (see video at Youtube)

But Starmer hasn’t done well since Jews bestowed the premiership on him. On the one hand, he’s fallen out with a twink trio of Ukrainian rent-boys (British slang for young male prostitutes). On the other hand, he’s fallen out with the White working-class, who have abandoned Labour and embraced the Reform Party. But have no fear, dear Keir — there’s a simple way to regain working-class support and crush Reform at the next election! Or so a “policy and communications specialist” called James Baggaley has suggested in one of the most serious and intellectually respected forums of the British left. Yes, after a fat fancier of fried food appeared on the BBC, Baggaley acclaimed the fried-food fancier in the New Statesman, the august leftist organ whose pages have been graced by intellectual giants like Bertrand Russell, John Maynard Keynes and Christopher Hitchens.[6] Let’s see if Baggaley has been worthy of his illustrious predecessors:

Bosh for nosh! Big John moobingly tackles a knotty crisis or two (bosh is a cry of approval or celebration; nosh is “food”)

Speak for England, Big John

In the face of racist attacks, the food influencer represents a form of patriotism that is modest and decent.

For John Fisher, the racist vandalism at The Dragon House Chinese restaurant in York was an attack on England. Speaking out to his over 62,000 followers on X, Fisher, otherwise known as Big John, Bosh Soldier, said, “Where is this takeaway? I wouldn’t mind visiting to show support.” Fisher was responding to a local man, a window cleaner, who had gone down to scrub off the graffiti, which included “Go Home” scrawled alongside badly drawn St George’s flags. “Well done to the window cleaning company for helping out,” Big John added.

Big John, as his X bio says, is “Leader of the Bosh Soldiers of the Romford Bull Army. Dad to heavyweight boxer Johnny, and Henry, William, and Hetty.” And if that is no clarification, he is England’s spiritual leader when it comes to the Saturday night Chinese takeaway. He is an influencer whose main output is videos of him ordering and then eating orders from his local takeaway, accompanied by the catchphrase “bosh”. He has a huge following and is widely seen as an English everyman, a very modern John Bull.

And in his response and subsequent posts, as well as his appearance on Newsnight on Friday, this everyman has managed to do something no politician has since the recent uptick in racist attacks. In a very ordinary and everyday way, he managed to speak up for a kind of modern English identity, one that is both accepting of difference and proud of its communities and nation.

In recent months, it has felt that the towns of England, many of which prided themselves on wearing their identity lightly, have adopted a tone and rhetoric more characteristic of Belfast, where flags and competing ideologies fight for supremacy. It should go without saying that it’s possible to be a proud Englishman or woman without the need to force onto others a defined vision of what that England might be. After all, tolerating different stories has its own tradition. And yet, recently, it seems that politics, and in particular the progressive side of politics, has struggled to meet the moment. […]

But why is it that a social media star like Big John is able to connect with the public and tackle the knotty crisis of the moment, while politicians find it so hard? Well, for one, John hasn’t sought to impose his ideology or speak about some abstract historical event or figure. He doesn’t claim some grand moral vision or seek out political rhetoric. He speaks authentically about the community he’s from and his love of a particular aspect of modern England.

Authenticity sits at the heart of his message. And in an age when brands, culture, and sports mobilise ordinary messages which rely on authenticity, John is doing just that, speaking from the heart about something we all share: a cheeky Chinese and being decent to one another, no matter their background. At the same time, political newspeak remains firmly rooted in the abstract. Meaningless lines are given and empty speeches made. This leaves politicians unable to reach the public or tell a story. […] Big John’s appearance on Newsnight, in which he said, “I’m associated with Chinese takeaways, but I would have felt the same if it were an Indian, Caribbean, Mexican, Greek, or Turkish one. People who are working here shouldn’t be targeted like that; nobody should be targeted like that.” has garnered over 12 million views on X alone.

It all shows there is a country, or at least part of it, yearning to transcend the tidal wave of rage, hate, and division — a country that can care about migration while respecting one another’s differences and hold its patriotism lightly. It just requires someone to speak for England in the way John Fisher has. (“Speak for England, Big John,” The New Statesman, 9th September 2025)

I find that article about Big John very reassuring. Yes, it’s very reassuring to know that idiots like James Baggaley are advising the British left on how to stem the toxic tide of populist protest. It’s very reassuring that the New Statesman will publish his idiocy without the slightest trace of irony and that readers of the New Statesman will read it without bursting into roars of disbelieving laughter.

The unassimilable immivasion

The New Statesman represents the intellectual cream of the British left. But those highly intelligent leftists don’t object when an idiot like Baggaley peddles blatant bullshit to them.[7] Is Baggaley seriously claiming that “Big John” has “tackled the knotty crisis of the moment”? Yes, he is. Or he’s pretending to, at least. A fat proletarian fancier of fried food has appeared on the BBC, uttered a few vapid sentimentalities while being patronized by a middle-class journalist, and behold — “the knotty crisis” of the unassimilable immivasion has been “tackled.” Big John is “authentic,” you see. He’s fat, speaks with a working-class accent, and loves him his Chinese food.

The Black enricher Kasim Lewis did not truly commit two rape-murders, because “we all share” the principle of “being decent to one another”

But Big John don’t discriminate, do ’e? Nah, he himself underlined the breadth of his love for vibrant New Britain: “I’m associated with Chinese takeaways, but I would have felt the same if it were an Indian, Caribbean, Mexican, Greek, or Turkish one.” That’s the glory of modern Britain: all them tasty effnick cuisines. Nyom, nyom! Rape-gangs, suicide-bombings and acid-throwings are a small price to pay for such culinary treasure. Not that rape-gangs truly exist or that suicide-bombings and acid-throwings truly happen in the glorious modern YooKay. They don’t. At least, not in the best and deepest sense — the leftist sense, that is. After all, Big John was, in Baggaley’s words, “speaking from the heart about something we all share: a cheeky Chinese and being decent to one another, no matter their background.”

Repulsive reality vs leftist fantasy

If “we all share” the principle of “being decent to one another, no matter their background,” then how could Pakistanis ever have raped and tortured White schoolgirls in Rotherham? Or Libyans ever have blown up White schoolgirls in Manchester? Or Afghans ever have thrown flesh-eating chemicals into women’s and children’s faces in London? Okay, in mere reality those things have all happened, but what matters more: repulsive reality or leftist fantasy?

These “Slovakian” Gypsies do not truly rape a White schoolgirl, because “we all share” the principle of “being decent to one another”

Obviously, leftist fantasy matters more. Infinitely more. Like Stella Creasy, James Baggaley is a firm believer in leftist fantasy, not in repulsive reality. Like Creasy, he’s also a firm believer in verbal venom. He’s aiming his sycophancy and sentimentality at Whites, not at non-Whites, and he’s trying to paralyze the will of Whites to resist dispossession. For both Creasy and Baggaley, passivity is “decent.” And like Creasy’s, the obvious dumbness of Baggaley’s rhetoric is accompanied by underlying deceit. He was lying when he said that Big John was “speaking from the heart.” In fact, the fat prole was speaking from the gut, from a crude and entirely self-centered attachment to Chinese food.

That’s why we should note the significance of Baggaley’s phrase “a cheeky Chinese.” It’s an adaptation of the advertising slogan “a cheeky Nando’s,” where Nando’s is a fast-food chain and cheeky means “impromptu” or “slyly self-indulgent.” That is what Baggaley is drawing on to advance his idiotic argument: the manipulative, ethics-free rhetoric of fast-food advertising. It’s also an example of how the supposedly intellectual left justify their love of “diversity” by the two things that make the most sensual and sub-rational appeal to our egos, namely, food and music.

A bearded leftist word-worshiper called Thomas Benjamin Wild Esq has a devastating message for racists, transphobes et al: “I think you’re an absolute cunt!” (See “Time to make hate shameful again. Fck Fascism!”)

We should also note the hypocrisy of Baggaley and the BBC. They patronized the prole Big John because he is urging passivity on his fellow proles. If he’d been urging action against the immivasion instead, leftists would have mocked him as “gammon.” That’s the snobbish, anti-prole term aimed at supporters of Brexit and the Reform Party. They’re red-faced and fat, you see, so they look like gammon, a fatty red form of pork.

Natural allies against bigoted Whites

But I suspect that, as with Stella Creasy and Paddington, there’s a hidden ethnic agenda to Big John’s promotion of passivity to his fellow proles. Are they really his fellow proles? Stella Creasy’s “partner” is Jewish and a former director of Labour Friends of Israel. I think Creasy was trying to advance Jewish interests in her rhetoric about Paddington Bear. Creasy may even have Jewish ancestry herself, just as Big John may have Gypsy or Traveller ancestry. He’s fat, stupid and has a son who is a boxer. That sounds like a Gypsy to me.[8]

If I’m right, then Big John’s support for non-Whites has the same motivation as his love of Chinese food: self-interest. Like Jews, Gypsies see non-Whites as “natural allies” against the bigoted White majority who object to the parasitism and predation of minorities. Unlike Jews, Gypsies don’t have enough Machiavellian skill and verbal intelligence to import and privilege “natural allies” by subverting politics and the media. Big John got onto the BBC and into the New Statesman not by his own efforts, but because leftists liked his message of passivity for proles. And I was very pleased to see him getting that publicity. The left are truly getting desperate if they’ll claim that a fat fried-food fancier “speaks for England” and can “tackle the knotty crisis of the moment.” Like Stella Creasy and the rest of the mainstream left, James Baggaley thinks that all problems of race and immigration can be solved by following the principle of “Everything dumber than everything else.”

Demonic Dominic

Keir Starmer and his Labour government think the same. After all, Creasy is part of that government and idiots like Baggaley are advising it. That’s very reassuring for White nationalists like me. I’m also reassured by the accurate predictions of someone who isn’t an idiot like Stella Creasy and James Baggaley. Unlike them, Dominic Cummings believes in repulsive reality, not in leftist fantasy. And after Cummings published the following realism in May 2025, “Britain’s slide” continued exactly as he predicted:

Inside the intelligence services, special forces (themselves under attack from the Cabinet Office and NI Office as they operate as our last line of defence […]), bits of Whitehall, and those most connected to discussions away from Westminster, there is growing, though still tiny, discussion of Britain’s slide into chaos and the potential for serious violence including what would look like racial/ethnic mob/gang violence, though the regime would obviously try to describe it differently. Part of the reason for the incoherent forcefulness against the white rioters last year from a regime that is in deep-surrender-mode against pro-Holocaust marchers, rape gangs and criminals generally, is a mix of a) aesthetic revulsion in SW1 at the Brexit-voting white north and b) incoherent Whitehall terror of widespread white-English mobs turning political and attracting talented political entrepreneurs. They’re already privately quaking about the growth of Muslim networks. The last thing they want to see is emerging networks that see themselves as both political and driven to consider violence. Parts of the system increasingly fear this could spin out of control into their worst nightmare. In No10 meetings with the Met on riots, I saw for myself a) the weird psychological zone of how much order rests not on actual physical forces but perceptions among a few elites about such forces that can very quickly change, and b) how scared the senior police are at the prospect of crucial psychological spells being broken. We can see on the streets that various forces have already realised the regime will not stop them. What if this spreads? Whitehall’s pathology has pushed it to the brink of this psychological barrier and many of them know it.

Aspects of the situation are tragi-comic. E.g if you talk to senior people in places like UAE [United Arab Emirates], they tell you that bigshots in that region now tell each other — don’t send your kids to be educated in Britain, they’ll come back radical Islamist nutjobs! Our regime has spent thirty years a) destroying border control and sane immigration (including the Home Office’s jihad against the highest skilled, whom they truly loathe discussing and try to repel with stupid fees etc) and b) actively prioritising people from the most barbaric places on earth (hence immigration from the tribal areas most responsible for the grooming/rape gangs keeps rising) and c) funding the spread of those barbaric ideas and defending the organisations spreading them with human rights laws designed to stop the return of totalitarianism in Europe. In parallel, they’ve started propaganda operations with the old media to spread the meme that our ‘real danger’ is the ‘far right’ (code for ‘white people’). As Tories and Labour have continued their deranged trajectory, they have provoked exactly the reactions they most feared including the spreading meme that our regime itself has become our enemy and the growing politicisation of white English nationalism. […]

Starmer is speed-running Sunak’s demented combination of a) massively raising the salience of immigration/boats with b) a set of policies that everyone who understands the details knows cannot possibly do what he’s promising.

Why is he doing it? Because, like Sunak, he’s caught between a) political advice that the country is enraged over immigration/boats and wants action, b) the adamantine priority of the dominant faction in Whitehall — i.e the force that actually orients 99% of policy — is maintaining 1) the HRA [Human Rights Act] / ECHR [European Court of Human Rights]-judicial review system and 2) the cross-party HMT [His Majesty’s Treasury] / OBR [Office of Budget Responsibility] / university-endorsed immigration / asylum Ponzi. Being a Dead Player optimised to ‘defend the institutions’ at all costs however pathological, Starmer has, aping Sunak, synthesised the political advice of McSweeney and the priority of the officials/lawyers actually running No10/70WH and generated his own version of Sunak’s demented combination.

If you’re not in the meetings, you can’t accurately estimate the relative levels of dishonesty and self-delusion involved. Obviously there are officials and lawyers in the meetings who understand reality and are happy to feed ministerial delusions, as they did with Cameron, May, Boris and Sunak. And there are odd unusual officials who could bluntly tell the truth: PM, so there is no confusion, what you’re announcing cannot possible do what you claim. I know Sunak was super-delusional, not lying, only because I spoke to him in person twice. And of course many politicians develop weird super-position personalities, where they sort-of-know and sort-of-lie to themselves such than an impartial observer can rarely conclude either ‘they’re lying’ or ‘they’re deluded’: it’s a bit of both. It’s how many cope when promoted to jobs far beyond them. And it’s very poorly understood among business elites who always overrate the rationality of political players and underrate the prevalence of this super-position-personality phenomenon which means widespread avoidance of the real issues in meeting after meeting to an extent the median business elite has little experience of outside companies heading for bankruptcy. I suspect there’s more conscious dishonesty with Starmer than Sunak but the result is sure to be the same: political disaster. (“People, ideas, machines XII: Theories of regime change and civil war,” Dominic Cummings’ Substack, 28th May 2025)

Dominic Cummings says “political disaster.” I say “Doom of the Dumb.” Leftism is an ideology of idiocy built on obviously stupid assertions like “Transwomen are women,” “Diversity is our strength” and “Wasn’t that a beautiful British moment that everybody celebrated?” In short, leftism is built on words and wind. But don’t get me wrong: words are wonderful things. The point is that words are tools. Like knives or hammers or guns, you can use them well or use them ill. If you use them to describe reality, you’re using them well. If you use them to deny reality, you’re using them ill. Again and again, leftists use words to deny reality. They worship words because by warping words they seek to feed their power-lust and narcissism. But leftists will wail in woe because they worship words. The future belongs to repulsive realists, not to weavers of word-webs.

Appendix: How Leftists Portray Proles Who Don’t Preach Passivity

Leftists use AI to create a gammon with bulldog, cigarette and can of Stella Artois (a strong beer associated with wife-beating)

Unfunny mockery of fat, ignorant gammon who, unlike scientifically literate leftists, believe in race but not in transgenderism

More mockery of fat, ignorant gammon in the supposedly right-wing London Times — the witch is Nigel Farage


[1]Creasy doesn’t appear to know that the primary meaning of apocryphal is “dubious, illegitimate.”

[2]The argumentum ex urso means “argument from a bear,” that is, an argument that invokes a bear to support its claims. Compare the argumentum e silentio, or “argument from silence.”

[3]The corollary of “Saying a thing makes it so” is “Not allowing a thing to be said makes it not so.” That’s why the left tries to silence “racists,” “sexists,” “Islamophobes” and everyone else who speaks the truth about sacred groups rather than peddles leftist lies.

[4]  Both Starmer and Jenrick are also rumored to be secretly gay. See “Starmer’s Rent-Boy Riddle” and this discussion of Jenrick at Neo-Krat.

[5]Note that Corbyn may himself be partly Jewish. For example, his brother, Piers Corbyn, looks like an anti-Semitic caricature from Der Stürmer. Jewish ancestry would help explain Corbyn’s unswerving xenophilia and implacable hostility to White interests.

[6]Wikipedia isn’t being ironic when it lists Hitchens among the great figures who have written for the New Statesman. But I am being ironic when I list him as an intellectual giant of the left. Please see “Gasbags Are Not Great: Christopher Hitchens as Crypto-Rabbi.”

[7]You will not be surprised to hear that Baggaley has an academic colleague called Jake Cohen, who is “Project Manager” of “Progressive Ecosystem” and whose pronouns are “They, them.” See the “Our Team” page at UCL (University College London).

[8]However, the boxer-son, Johnny Fisher, has been to university, which isn’t typically Gypsy. Or wouldn’t have been in earlier decades, when academic standards were much higher.

Book review – Christian Nationalism vs Global Jesus: Projects of peoplehood from Biblical Israel to the collapse of British patriotism by Andrew Fraser

Christian Nationalism vs Global Jesus: Projects of peoplehood from Biblical Israel to the collapse of British patriotism
Andrew Fraser
Arktos Media Ltd., 2025
Available for $33.00 (paperback) or $45.00 (hardback) from www.arktos.com or from amazon.co.uk

Reviewed by Hugh Perry, Lake Placid, New York in Heritage and Destiny, September-October, 2025; reposted by permission.

Andrew Fraser, long time advocate and thinker on matters pertaining to Europeans worldwide but particularly Anglo Saxons, has given us yet another book reflective of long research and ever deeper probing on the most vexing questions. In his Christian Nationalism vs Global Jesus he probes the old question of Christian religion and racial identity.

In the Book of Galatians, Chapter 3, we find the often quoted verses: “26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

These verses and the entire book were written to wean the Galatians of central Turkey off the belief that Christians yet needed to follow the Old Testament ritual laws. Although asserting that group identity is rendered meaningless in Christ, it also classifies believers as “the seed of Abraham.” This confusion is often viewed as the differing perspectives of the Old Testament, given to a specific genetic people, the “children of Israel,” and the New Testament which offers a new form of covenant not limited to one people. In this reading of Testaments, Old and New, many are those who see the seeds of a destructive universalism in the Christian teachings.

Many are the racial nationalists over recent centuries who saw in Christianity, at least, as it developed over the years a teaching virulently threatening to those committed to race, tribe, ethnicity and all forms of group identity beyond the theological. In fact, the ideology of “civic nationalism” is a recent system of seeing ideas, political and economic, as being the core of patriotism. In this world view, Enlightenment politics with its positing of democracy, human rights, equality before the law, free market economics etc, are seen as far more important than ancestry or any cultural reading of group identity.

Some would argue that these universal political dogmas are the result of Christian universalism. They see the current war on all forms of identity as the inevitable flowering of New Testament dogmas and faith in Christ being the only real “brotherhood.”

In an alternative version of this critique, the European (alternatively French) New Right views paganism as – by definition – more tolerant of mankind’s diversity. This position sees all monotheistic faiths, Islam, Judaism and, of course, Christianity as incapable of viewing the Other except through their own dogmas. The Other is only fulfilled if and when he becomes us.

In sum, whether seeing Christianity as a force weakening homogeneous groups via liberal humanism or, as a crusade to obliterate all identities other than its own, it is the Christian faith which has brought us and continues to bring us to the current mortal threat to White peoples around the world.

This critique will, of course, have to explain the ability of racial, ethnic and national awareness to survive in deeply Christian times and places, ranging from Catholic to Protestant to Orthodox cultures. In fact, the argument could well be made that many strains of Eastern Orthodoxy still maintain a Christian orthodoxy but very much in keeping with racial and ethnic identity. Plus, we should not forget that Afrikaner apartheid and American southern segregation were promulgated by two of the most deeply religious Protestant peoples.

The matter remains far from simple. Of one thing we suspect all may well agree – that institutional Christianity has over recent years become an active force committed to the destruction of racial survival. The question lingers: need it have been or be that way?

Into this debate has entered one of the most prolific writers on issues of White racial identity, Andrew Fraser. He is not a thinker who remains frozen in preconceived notions but has constantly delved ever deeper into racial identity and survival. Two caveats need be added. 1) Fraser is primarily concerned with the survival of his, the Anglo-Saxon people; and 2) he is a Christian. Neither of these convictions is less than essential to Fraser’s overall world view.

In addition Fraser is not simply a complainer. Yes, he dissects that which ails us. And, yes, most of his musings focus on the Anglo-Saxon worlds. But, he has also created a system which he views as a possible means to a resurrection of his peoples’ spirit. It will remain to the reader to decide whether this solution is realistic or, at least, workable. Racialists are often long and adept at diagnosing illness but short on the precise form of a possible cure. Fraser’s writings, at least his most recent ones, offer both.

In fact, the trajectory of Fraser’s thinking is long and complex. His books and articles are thoroughly researched and make for serious, never superficial, reading. This reviewer has often wondered why he is not up there with some of the more serious thinkers to emerge in the varied and creative strands of dissident rightist thinkers. The recent extensive work by Joakim Andersen, Rising From the Ruins: The Right of the 21st Century, outlines dissident schools of thought ranging as far afield as Bharatiya Janata in India to thinkers and movements in the Philippines. Yet, Christian-based movements merit only a few pages, only one of which is from the Anglosphere. Indeed as far as England goes the author, otherwise so detailed, gives us just two pages on the English Defence League.

Truth be told English (or British) nationalists have not fared well at all in the post World War II era. Featuring endless splintering and little electoral success, Andersen may be justified in given the “green and pleasant land” short shrift. So Fraser is advocating for two ostensibly long suffering causes, Christianity and Anglo-Saxon identity. Yet if his thinking is truly analyzed his models may well be relevant to white peoples around the globe. And even if limited to those areas for which he prescribes his cure, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and, to some yet lingering extent, America, Fraser offers scholarly research and, at least, a most hopeful unlikely cure.

It is impossible to separate Fraser from his life’s struggles. The fierce opposition which his opinions encountered served to clarify his own world view.

Andrew Fraser was born in Canada at a time (1944) when that nation’s Anglo-Saxon roots and fealty to the Crown were still strong. He holds BA and LLB degrees from Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario. He went on to achieve an LLM from Harvard and an MA from the University of North Carolina. He eventually emigrated to Australia, to teach at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia. He helped establish the approach of teaching legal theory as part of the history and philosophy of Western legal tradition. He even went so far as to discuss how much the Western legal tradition owed to Christianity.

Eventually his entire department was relegated to second class status at the school. They wished to focus on the career aspects of the law. Finally, in July of 2005 he wrote a letter to the Paramatta Sun questioning Australia’s open immigration policies. The result was quick and furious. By the time the dust had cleared Fraser was suspended from teaching, then accepted an early retirement. This was not the end, for in March of 2006 his letter was branded a breach of Section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act. The sorry story goes on, including Fraser’s persecution at Christian bible schools for whose courses he’d enrolled. For details see his book, Dissident Dispatches (2017: Arktos).

In sum this is a man who not only talks the talk but also walks the walk, suffering for his heretical beliefs on matters racial and much else. He is a tireless writer and profound analyst of the fading fortunes of Anglo-Saxons wherever they may dwell.

In order to understand properly the policies advocated in this Christian Nationalism Versus Global Jesus book we will first look at the conclusion of an earlier book, The Wasp Question (2011: Arktos), which was reviewed in H&D #49 by Ian Freeman. After explaining steady demonization and erosion of Anglo-Saxon identity he suggests three schools of thought upon which a renaissance might be constructed.

They are kinism, preterism and Covenant creationism. Each provides a theology capable of embracing believing Christianity as well loyalty to the people’s identity. Kinists believe that Old Testament prohibitions of mixing species still are obligatory today. They go so far as to view multiracial marriages as a violation of the sin of adultery, seeing the racial, ethnic family as similar to the nuclear family.

Preterism sees history as not a waiting for the Second Coming of Christ. They see no rapture or apocalypse in the future. To them the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 AD was the end of the Old Covenant. From that point on each distinct nation fulfills its destiny via its unique relationship with Christ. Cosmic creationism takes the above a bit further. It sees the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple as ushering in a new era in which God’s grace will now be imbued into every nation or ethnos of the known world.

By the end of The Wasp Question Fraser advocates for mediating corporate bodies such as families, schools, industries, who will be many carriers of the Christian ethnos of the folk.

But it is in his most recent book that Fraser arrives at the final hope (prayer) for the resurrection of Anglo-Saxon Protestantism.

In Fraser’s view, “the religious, political and civil institutions of the Anglosphere now oversee the deliberate degeneration of historic Anglo cultures into mere economic zones populated by rootless, shifting masses of morally debased monads.” This is done, we’d add by bringing millions of other races into the Anglosphere as well as by poisoning, with liberal secularism, the Anglos who previously were its sole citizens.

In place of the oft noted “persistent tension between universalism and particularism”, Fraser posits that Anglo-Protestants desperately need to develop folkish variants of the Christian tradition. He sees the defeat of Germany in 1945 as a serious blow to the folk versions of both Protestant and Catholic Christianity which were encouraged there in the 1933 to 1945 era.

What is required in the future? Fraser sees “an Anglo ethno-religion (as) both the institutional precondition and moral foundation for the creation of socially cohesive communities. Anglo-Protestant churches must become the ethno-religious heart of breakaway parallel societies capable of producing healthy, happy, and morally upright families, together with British descended counter elites set in opposition to the irresponsible corporate plutocracy now misgoverning the Anglosphere.”

The book is a serious scholarly attempt to maintain Old Testament ethno-loyalty while embracing the Christian faith. In fact at one point in his argument Fraser asked whether “other singular incarnations for other unique nations or even other worlds have been forever excluded from the realm of possibility by divine decree?” (Shades of the Traditionalist School of Rene Guenon here?)

The book covers many arenas of Anglosphere surrender with several chapters devoted to Fraser’s new home of Australia and its neighbor New Zealand in hundreds of pages (488) of exquisite detail. Fraser would prefer that the Church of England trace its roots back to the Angelcynn (old English for “kin of the Angles”) church of Alfred the Great.

Of more recent vintage Fraser sees the 19th century Broad Church Movement as one which, as he quotes Stewart Brown, “moved beyond clerical narrowness and excessive dogmatism.” Their view was “that the purpose of the national Church was the spiritual and moral cultivation of the nation, the preservation and interpretation of its history and the defining of its highest aspirations . . . for them, Christianity was social and historical relgion, as well as a personal faith; it was about the redemption of nations as as individuals.”

That this form of rebirth might actually occur in history may seem far fetched. Can an Anglosphere flooded with other races and propagandized to hate itself prove capable of a phoenix-like regeneration. But it is less than a century since the Anglosphere viciously turned on its own people. Australia and New Zealand legislated the maintenance of their own racial identities. Even in America it took until 1965 to dismantle the barriers protecting its European communal identity.

Fraser’s final words are a call for the “idea of patriot king” and his civilizing mission. Fraser hopes (prays?) that there may yet be found in the Royal Family someone still loyal to his people and their identity. He readily grants that “the appearance of the patriot prince would be a miracle indeed.”

This reader has followed Andrew Fraser through the many twists and turns of writings and public battle. What the patriot king may yet do in Anglosphere nations already overrun by aliens is hard to imagine. How a public long brainwashed to despise themselves and their religion may yet find its roots and fight for them is hard to picture.

The hope remains in the rapid deterioration of Western Europe, North America and Australasia. Some lost resolve may yet be located to struggle even at this eleventh hour, with vote totals of “dissident right” political parties continuing to climb.

Fraser envisions the coalescing of racial, ethnic traditional and Christian forces to rescue the Anglosphere. The present is surely a time of great flux. Probably, few H&D readers hope for or envision this Christian patriot king and his return.

Yet, as G.K. Chesterton concludes in his very moving poem The Ballad of the White Horse, which he wrote in 1911.

“And the smoke changed and the wind went by, And the King took London Town.”