Featured Articles

“The Impeachment Parade of Jews”

Amidst the on-going saga of the impeachment of Donald Trump, we are incidentally treated to a rare spectacle—a strikingly transparent display of Jewish reach, influence, and power.  Individual bits and pieces of this picture are known, but a comprehensive assessment has yet to be made.  A close look at this situation makes clear, once again, both the dominance and the thorough-going corruption of American Jews and their global network of coreligionists.  It’s worth taking a moment to document this story, “for the record”—and then to draw a few conclusions.

Let’s start at the top.  All recent American presidents have been steeped in Jewish entanglements, but few as personally as Trump, given that his daughter Ivanka converted to Judaism upon marriage to Jared Kushner, an Orthodox Jew.  The only closer personal connection would have been with our presidents who were, themselves, likely part-Jewish:  Teddy and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and perhaps Lyndon Johnson.[1]  Apart from this family connection, we have Trump’s cohort of major Jewish donors:   Lew Eisenberg, Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, Mel Sembler, Ron Weiser, Steve Wynn, Elliott Brody, Laurie Perlmutter, and Carl Icahn,[2] not to mention Bernie Marcus.  Then we have his many Jewish personal and professional associates, who include, among others, Avi Berkowitz, (the now-incarcerated) Michael Cohen, Gary Cohn, Reed Cordish, Boris Epshteyn, David Friedman, Jason Greenblatt, Larry Kudlow, Stephen Miller, Steven Mnuchin, Jay Sekulow, David Shulkin, and Allen Weisselberg.  All those Trump-defenders out there in America should be dismayed at his vast linkage to the people of Israel.

But let’s set all these individuals aside for now.  The current impeachment process is deeply involved with developments in, of all places, Ukraine.  Jewish Ukrainians have come to play a surprisingly prominent role in the proceedings.  That nation has a long and tragic history of Jewish residency, reaching back over 1,000 years.  Their numbers grew through the centuries, peaking at around 3,000,000 in the early twentieth century.   Present-day estimates vary between 200,000 and 400,000 Jews, representing less than 1 percent of the current Ukrainian population of 42 million.  And yet, as elsewhere around the world, Jews exercise remarkable and disproportionate influence in that nation—as in ours.

As we know, current events were largely triggered by a July phone call between Trump and the newly-elected Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky.  Zelensky, 41, was born in the Ukraine “to Jewish parents,” as they say, and proceeded to make a name for himself in the entertainment business, as a comedian.  Becoming famous for playing president in a Saturday Night Live-like television show, he, on a whim, decided to actually run for the office—and won, in March 2019.  Notably, it was reported that “Zelensky has not mentioned his Jewish identity in interviews before or during the campaign, which critics say is purposefully vague.”[3]  This was certainly a good strategy, given the Ukraine’s historic problems with Jews; as a modern-day crypto-Jew, Zelensky learned his lesson well.

The key issue at hand began with the placement of Joe Biden’s son Hunter on the Board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma in April 2014, a post he held for five years.  The leading figure at Burisma, incidentally, is Mykola (Nikolay) Zlochevsky—a man who, with a Jewish surname, is almost certainly a member of the Hebrew tribe.  Hunter received upwards of $500,000 a year for his services, and the Ukrainians got indirect access to VP Biden and President Obama.  Trump’s call was one event in a chain that apparently attempted to expose corruption and abuse of power on the part of the two Bidens, allegedly for his own personal political gain.

The proceedings

On September 24, Nancy Pelosi announced the start of the impeachment process with the formation of six House committees, each of which would have a role in the proceedings.  Of the six chairmen or these committees, three are Jews:  Adam Schiff (Intelligence committee), Jerry Nadler (Judiciary), and Eliot Engel (Foreign Affairs).  Closed-door depositions would begin October 11, and the public hearings on November 13.  To date, Schiff and his committee have garnered all the attention, as it was his committee that led the public testimony phase, with Schiff himself in a starring role.[4]  Nadler’s committee will apparently draw up the actual articles of impeachment, and Engel’s group will provide unspecified assistance.  The three non-Jewish committees will most likely serve only perfunctory and ceremonial roles.

But even before the initial, closed-door phase could begin, Ukrainian Jews made another appearance.  On October 9, news broke that two associates of Trump’s lawyer Rudi Giuliani were arrested at Dulles airport on their way out of the country—two Jewish Ukrainians—and US citizens—by the names of Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman.  They were hit with unspecified charges relating to “a complex web of financial and political interactions linking diplomacy to alleged violations of campaign finance law,” according to the Washington Post.  Their connection to Giuliani goes back at least two years; they initially hired him, apparently, as a sort of consultant, and then later the tables turned and they came to work for him, as the pressure grew to investigate the Bidens and Burisma.  Parnas and Fruman evidently had the right Ukrainian (and Jewish) connections to get the job done.  But the details of their criminal activities have yet to come to light.

Public testimony began, as stated, on November 13.  As the master of ceremonies and chief wire-puller, Schiff oversaw the entire two-week public process and himself conducted much of the questioning.  But much was also directed by the Jewish lead lawyer for the Intelligence committee, Daniel Sachs Goldman.  Goldman has family ties to the (Jewish) Levi Strauss corporate empire, providing him with considerable personal wealth.

It was decided that 12 individuals would offer public testimony.  Among them were two more Jews:  Alexander Vindman and Gordon Sondland.  In Vindman, Ukraine makes yet another appearance.  He and his identical twin brother were born there in 1975, came to the US in 1979, and became naturalized US citizens.  He rose steadily through the US intelligence community, coming to work for the National Security Council in 2018.  Vindman was in on the now-infamous July phone call; he objected to the presumed quid pro quo, and hence was summoned to testify.

Sondland is a 62-year-old Jew from Washington State who made a considerable fortune in the hotel business.  Through a handful of privately-run companies, he donated around $1 million to Trump’s campaign, and as a result, was appointed US ambassador to the EU in March 2018.  Sondland thus joined a host of Jewish US ambassadors, including the likes of Philip Goldberg (Columbia), Robin Bernstein (Dominican Republic), Jonathan Cohen (Egypt), David Cornstein (Hungary), David Friedman (Israel), Lewis Eisenberg (Italy), Lawrence Silverman (Kuwait), and Daniel Rosenblum (Uzbekistan).

As those two came to testify, we were treated to quite a spectacle:  A Jew (Schiff) presiding over the questioning of a Jew (Vindman/Sondland) by another Jew (Goldman).  It was a remarkable scene; one could be excused for mistaking events as some random hearing in the Knesset rather than in the US Congress.

As things proceeded with the other witnesses, numerous references were made not only to Zelensky but also to a mysterious and nebulous group of people, the so-called “Ukrainian oligarchs.”  It turns out that this elite group, like their counterparts in Russia, are mostly Jewish.  Of the five richest and most influential Ukrainian billionaires, four are Jews:  Rinat Akhmetov, Viktor Pinchuk, Ihor Kolomoysky, and Gennadiy Bogolyubov.  Right behind them in the hierarchy are such Jewish-Ukrainian multi-millionaires as Oleksandr Feldman and Hennadiy Korban.  These individuals exercise considerable power in the Ukraine, often outstripping official governmental agencies; they are effectively a government unto themselves.[5]

Unsurprisingly, the new Jewish president Zelensky has very close ties to one of the Jewish oligarchs, Kolomoysky.  It turns out that Kolomoysky owns the TV station “1+1” that was responsible for Zelensky’s rise to nationwide fame.  It was also reported that “Kolomoysky’s media outlet provided security and logistical backup for the comedian’s campaign.”[6]  The same article mentioned that Zelensky traveled 14 times in two years to Kolomoysky’s two foreign homes in Geneva and Tel Aviv.  As might be expected, Kolomoysky himself is caught up in a variety of corruption allegations and lawsuits.  He had been the owner of Ukraine’s largest bank, Privatbank, until its forced nationalization in 2016.  During his ownership, it was reported that “97% of its corporate loans had gone to ‘related parties’ of Kolomoysky and [his Jewish partner and fellow oligarch] Bogolyubov.”[7]  An independent audit found that Privatbank had been subjected to “a large-scale and coordinated fraud over at least a 10-year period ending in December 2016.”  Kolomoysky is also charged with embezzling more than $5 billion from the bank.  And he and his “right-hand man,” the above-mentioned Korban, have been implicated in numerous other crimes, including murder, kidnapping, arson, and bribery.  A fine bunch indeed.

And then there’s George Soros.  The Jewish-Hungarian billionaire (and US citizen) has been indirectly linked to the impeachment scandal, with roots going back years; much of this derives from his longstanding penchant for influencing governments of Eastern Europe.  He has long had an interest in Ukraine, and apparently had regular meetings with the former Ukrainian prime minister—and Jew—Volodymyr Groysman.  Soros is also a key investor in the Anti-Corruption Action Centre (AntAC), a group founded in 2012 in Ukraine, ostensibly to “fight corruption” but almost certainly acting to manipulate governmental policy.  Most recently, it has emerged that Soros’ “Open Society Foundation” had spent years in contact with key people at the State Department relating to Ukraine policy, most notably including (Jewess) Victoria Nuland and (can we say it?) alleged whistleblower Eric Ciaramella.  Other alleged connections are hard to assess.  Alex Jones and others have accused impeachment testifier Fiona Hill of being a “Soros mole,” which she, naturally, vehemently rejected in her private testimony.  The exact nature of that connection remains to be seen.

Media coverage, media bias

With this remarkable convergence of diverse members of single small ethnicity, one might expect an objective and independent media to highlight and examine this fact.  Unless of course your media were also dominated by that single small ethnicity—in which case, you would expect no discussion at all.  And in fact, that’s exactly what we have:  no discussion at all.  Yes, there is passing mention of Sondland as the “son of Holocaust survivors”—leaving viewers to make the identification with his Jewishness—and passing references to anti-Semitism regarding critics of, say, Vindman.  But that’s it.  Certainly nothing on Schiff, Nadler, Goldman, Zelensky, et al.  Even Joe DiGenova’s attack on Soros as “running the State Department” included no mention of Soros’ Jewishness—that would be a bridge too far. Since it’s well known that Soros is Jewish, mentioning that he is influential is now officially considered anti-Semitism.

But we cannot simply charge our mass media with a pro-Jewish bias unless we provide the facts—in this case, the names.  So, consider the following list of media journalists and program hosts.  Let’s focus for the moment on the three main ‘opinion-news’ channels:  CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News.  Start with MSNBC—a network owned and operated by NBC Universal, which in turn is owned by Comcast.  Both parent companies have a notable Jewish presence in upper management:  Brian Roberts and David Cohen at Comcast, and Robert Greenblatt, Bonnie Hammer, Noah Oppenheim, Andrew Lack, Mark Lazarus, and Ron Meyer at NBC Universal.  As for the more visible, on-air personalities, we see on MSNBC such individuals as Rachel Maddow, Chuck Todd, Katy Tur, Andrea Mitchell, and Ari Melber—all Jewish.[8]

Trump’s beloved Fox News has its own Jewish presence, in the figures of Howard Kurtz, Mark Levin, Geraldo Rivera, and Chris Wallace.  But perhaps more indicative is Fox’s perennial pro-Israel stance, voiced by the likes of (non-Jew) Sean Hannity—and driven, presumably, by Fox’s rabidly Zionist corporate owners, the Murdoch family.

Most striking of all, though, is CNN, whose on-air staff is remarkably slanted in the Jewish direction.  For one quick indication, we can check the Wikipedia entry “List of CNN personnel,” where we find a section on “Political and legal analysts.”  Of 26 names listed, at least 16 (61%) are Jews:  Dana Bash, Richard Ben-Veniste, Rebecca Buck, Carl Bernstein, Wolf Blitzer, Gloria Borger, Harry Enten, Jamie Gangel, David Gergen, David Gregory, Maggie Haberman, John King (converted), Josh Rogin, Jake Tapper, Jeff Toobin, and Samantha Vinograd.  The following two sections reveal additional Jewish names, such as David Axelrod, David Frum, Peter Beinart, Steve Israel, Jason Kander, Sally Kohn, Catherine Rampell, Hilary Rosen, Aaron Miller, Tony Blinken, and Michael Weiss.  And this is not to mention others like anchor John Berman; frequent guests like Bianna Golodryga, Max Boot, or Alan Dershowitz; converts like Kate Bolduan; and non-Jews with Jewish spouses, like Christiane Amanpour.  All of this is undoubtedly supported by CNN chief Jeff Zucker, who in turn answers to his corporate bosses at Warner Media—namely, Richard Pepler and David Levy.

Given this situation, it is unsurprising that the Jewish parade during the impeachment process gets little or no attention.  In fact, it’s to be expected.  Anything less would be astonishing.

A few conclusions

This rare insight into the American Judeocracy affords us the opportunity to draw a few plausible conclusions.  First is the power of money.  Jews attain positions of influence and power, not because they are so talented, smart, noble, or well-liked, but rather because they effectively buy their way into power.  They are adept at using cash donations, personal connections, and ‘sharp elbows’ to maneuver themselves into key positions in government and media, and then to use those positions to further enhance their wealth and personal network.  It is a self-reinforcing cycle of the most malicious sort:  of using wealth to create wealth, of using power to grow more powerful.  And they do this in what, for most persons, would be considered highly unethical (when not outright illegal) ways.  Everyone accepts that ‘money corrupts politics,’ but they never acknowledge that the bulk of the political money—roughly 25% to 50%, depending on race and party—comes from one source: the Jewish Lobby.  Once in their pocket, politicians then readily write or alter laws to further enhance Jewish power.  Again, it’s a self-serving process of the highest order.  The ultimate goal of all action is, simply put, Jewish wealth and power; not justice, not fairness, not equity, not efficiency, not compassion.  Hence all such things are lacking from our government.

Second, we see how Jews have come to control both major political parties.  There is no opposing view, no real third alternative.  Even the microscopic threat posed by such groups as the Green Party must be controlled—such as through the Jewess Jill Stein.  Our two dominant parties, who fight to the death on nearly every issue, and agree on virtually nothing, find common cause in just one thing:  Jewish/Israeli interests.  Jewish judicial and cabinet nominees get immediate bipartisan approval.  So too does aid to Israel, amounting to in the neighborhood of $6 billion a year, every year.[see Note A below]  Hate speech laws are passed, and ‘white supremacy,’ ‘white nationalism,’ ‘anti-Semitism,’ and ‘racism,’ are routinely and mindlessly denounced by both sides.  Reasonable and nonviolent protests against Israeli crimes, such as actions related to boycotts, divestment, and sanctions (BDS), are automatically condemned and even outlawed.  Even otherwise-sacred First Amendment rights of free expression are trampled and abused whenever such things threaten Jewish interests.

Third, we see the time-honored Jewish strategy of distraction from the real underlying issues.  Fake, superficial political battles mask a subterranean congruence of interests.  Jews will fight among themselves for degrees of power, but when threatened as a group, they circle the wagons.  Against perceived enemies, they employ the most brutal pack-hunting techniques.  Only the toughest and most principled opponents survive.

Fourth is the astonishing compliance and subservience of non-Jews, in evident contrast to their own long-term interests.  We cannot believe that they do this blindly, and hence we must assume that they are fully aware of their actions and their consequences.  Media goyim like Sean Hannity, Anderson Cooper, Chris Cuomo, Laura Ingraham, David Muir, Lester Holt, and others, are guilty of the most appalling and treacherous of crimes:  of selling out one’s nation and one’s race for personal gain.  The same holds for the traitors in corporate leadership and government.  Political leaders like Mike Pence, Nancy Pelosi, Devin Nunes, Chuck Grassley, Mitch McConnell, etc. are criminal traitors to this nation; they cover for and defend the hidden ruling power—the true ‘deep state’—and thus subject us all, and the whole planet, to uncounted miseries.  In a truly just world, they would all be called to account, and pay for their sins.

The gravest betrayal, of course, is that of Donald Trump.  Due to his erratic and infantile behavior, it can be hard to assess his thinking here.  But some things are relatively clear.  By any reasonable accounting, Trump is little more than an unprincipled, semi-literate, egomaniac.  But owing to his extremely thin margin of public support, he is compelled—indeed, forced—to appeal to true conservatives, the working class, and the dissident right.  Clearly he has no intrinsic desire to help such groups, and he has no sympathy for their plight.  Trump is the epitome of a privileged, wealthy, out-of-touch elite.  But to stay in power, he must occasionally throw us a bone.  We on the dissident right can take it and make some hay with it; but we mustn’t expect much more.  Trump’s actual policies and decisions will certainly favor his wealthy compatriots and the Jewish power-brokers he works with.

But it’s worse than this.  Trump is such a fool, degenerate, and race-traitor that he would marry off his own beautiful daughter to the Judeocracy, possibly simply for the money and power that it would bring.  (It obviously says little about her judgement that she would comply.)  The Clintons did the same with their (much more homely) daughter Chelsea—and at nearly the same time, in 2009–2010.  It is perhaps no coincidence that once Hillary and Trump cemented their respective family ties to the Tribe, they both later rose to the height of influence in their corresponding political parties.  If the Jewish Lobby can’t have a Jew directly in power, a family-connected goy is the next best thing.  Hence the presidential battle of 2016 is best seen as a struggle between the two wings of the Lobby; each had their favored candidate, and the Lobby was guaranteed to win, no matter the outcome.  Nothing like stacking the deck.

A fifth conclusion is that things are unlikely to get any better in the near future.  Consider the upcoming 2020 presidential election.  Democrats have a fair chance of winning the presidency, but unfortunately their party is even more saturated by the Jewish milieu than the Republicans.  They receive a higher percentage of campaign money from the Lobby, and their liberal Jewish supporters in the media outnumber their neo-con counterparts (who are all Never-Trumpers).  And then take a look at the current field of presidential contenders.  At the moment there are 18 active contestants—among whom we find no less than five Jews:  Bernie Sanders, Tom Steyer, Marianne Williamson, Michael Bennett, and most recently, Michael Bloomberg.  God help us if we end up with a Jewish president.  All the other contenders, though, are nearly as bad:  pro-Israel, anti-White, anti-‘racist’, pro-military, etc.—with the sole exception of Tulsi Gabbard, whose enduring presence in the race is something of a minor miracle.  She alone seems willing and able to confront the Jewish power structure behind the Democrats.  (Alt-righters: take notice!)  But Gabbard has almost no chance of winning the nomination, and thus we will inevitably have yet another pro-Israel Democrat running against a pro-Israel Trump whose most recent sign of fealty to Israel was declaring the West Bank settlements legal, in contravention to long-standing US lip service to their illegality.

Sixth and finally, the dominance of the Judeocracy is so overarching that all other causes fade into insignificance.  Therefore every American, no matter your cause, should first of all oppose Jewish power, because until it is exposed and undermined, your cause will certainly fail—, unless it coincides with Jewish interests.  The Lobby effectively subjugates every other political priority to its own needs, and therefore everyone should, above all, combat that power directly, if we are to have any hope of resolving our many grievances.  Environmentalists, Medicare-for-all advocates, anti-abortionists, small government defenders, tax resisters, liberals, conservatives, socialists, libertarians…your cause is doomed, unless you can recruit significant Jewish support, and that is impossible if you challenge any of the interests promoted by the Lobby.  It’s as simple—and as challenging—as that.

Thomas Dalton, PhD, is the author of Debating the Holocaust (2015), Hitler on the Jews (2019), Goebbels on the Jews (2019), and numerous other books on Jews, Germany, and the Holocaust.  See his website www.thomasdaltonphd.com

[A] Note:  The $6 billion is a rough estimate of total direct and indirect aid.  Explicit foreign aid for this year, signed by Trump in early 2019, was $3.3 billion.  But then there was another $500 million in military aid funded separately under the DoD budget.  “Another $500 million for Israeli missile defense was apportioned in a defense appropriations bill passed last fall, making American aid to Israel total $3.8 billion.”  This maneuver of hiding aid has been known for some time: “Much of the money the US gives Israel is buried in the budgets of other government agencies, primarily the Defense Department. Other subsidies come in a form that isn’t easily quantifiable, such as the early disbursement of aid, which allows Israel to gain (and the U.S. taxpayer to lose) the interest on the unspent money.”  Counting all relevant aid, including loan guarantees, aid to Israeli lackeys in Egypt and Jordan, and the financial value of free PR, the total annual benefit approaches or exceeds $6 billion.

[1] For evidence on these three individuals, see my book The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (Castle Hill, 2019), 32, 95-99, 162-163.  Also, Bill Clinton of course has close personal connections as well, given his daughter Chelsea’s marriage to Jew Marc Mezvinsky; but that was in 2010, long after Clinton had left office.

[2] “7 big-bucks Jewish donors,” Forward, 17 Nov 2016.

[3] “Jewish comic who play Ukrainian president on TV lead Ukraine’s presidential race,” Times of Israel (13 Mar 2019).

[4] Among Schiff’s fellow committee members is the Jewess Jackie Speier (D-Cal.).

[5] The complaint about a Jewish “state within the state” goes back many years, at least to Johann Fichte in the late 18th century:  “Do you not remember the state within the State?  Does the thought not occur to you that if you give to the Jews, who are citizens of a state more solid and more powerful than any of yours, civil rights in your states, they will utterly crush the remainder of your citizens?”

[6] “The comedian and the oligarch,” Politico.com (14 Apr 2019).

[7] “A bank scandal, an oligarch, and the IMF,” CNBC.com (20 Sep 2019).

[8] For purposes of expediency, I include here individuals who are half-Jewish.

Can Church Influence Explain Western Individualism? Comment on “The Church, Intensive Kinship, and Global Psychological Variation,” by Jonathan F. Schulz et al.

Because of its uniqueness, Western individualism presents a daunting question for scholars and in particular for a theory based on evolutionary psychology. There are essentially two ways for an evolutionary perspective to attempt to understand uniqueness. One is to propose a unique evolutionary environment resulting in genetically based uniqueness; the other is to propose universal psychological mechanisms interacting with particular cultural contexts.  Jonathan Schulz et al.’s “The Church, Intensive Kinship, and Global Psychological Variation” is an example of the latter. It presents a theory of Western individualism in which the cultural context created by the medieval Catholic Church, particularly the prohibitions on relatedness in marriage, played a central role in the development of the individualistic psychology of the West. More precisely, the paper attempts to explain “a substantial portion” of the variation in psychological traits widely recognized to be characteristic of individualism (“individualistic, independent, analytically minded, and impersonally prosocial [e.g., trusting of strangers] while revealing less conformity, obedience, in-group loyalty, and nepotism”) by exposure to the medieval Western Church.[1] Within this cultural framework, there is no attempt to present the motivations of the Church for creating this cultural context in terms of particular psychological mechanisms.

These issues intersect with much of the discussion in my recently published Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future. However, my theory is based on the proposal that Western uniqueness derives ultimately from unique ancestral environments in northwestern Europe, with emphasis on a north-south genetic cline in the relative genetic contributions of northern hunter gatherers, Indo-Europeans, and Early Farmers from the Middle East. While Schulz et al. control for a wide range of variables, they do not control for regional genetic differences within Western Europe that have been uncovered by recent population genetic research (reviewed in my Chapter 1), nor do they review research by family historians indicating important regional variation within Western Europe that does not at all map onto exposure to the Western Church (reviewed in my Chapter 4).

However, I do discuss the influence of the Western Church, concluding that the Church’s

influence was directed at altering Western culture away from extended kinship networks and other collectivist institutions, motivated ultimately by the desire to extend its own power [analyzed as an evolved human universal]. However, although the Church promoted individualism and doubtless influenced Western culture in that direction, this influence built on individualistic tendencies that long predated Christianity and were due ultimately to ethnic tendencies toward individualism unique to European peoples (Chapters 1–4). [From Chapter 5, 170]

My approach thus combines pre-historic natural selection for individualist psychology with particular cultural contexts, one of which is the influence of the Catholic Church, the latter interpreted as building on pre-existing tendencies. My Chapter 5 on the medieval Church argues, on the basis of data similar to that cited by Schulz et al., that the Church facilitated individualism—and may well have sped up the establishment of individualism, but did not cause it. Given that Schulz et al. claim to have achieved only a partial explanation, there is thus no fundamental disagreement. However, based on my treatment, here I attempt to show why exposure to the medieval Church is an inadequate explanation of psychological individualism in the West.

There is much that our approaches have in common. In particular, they note that kinship relationships are central in understanding human societies and that the general trend has been a shift away from extensive kinship relationships typical of hunter-gatherers throughout the world (i.e., relatively weak ties to many people of varying genetic distance—discussed in my Chapter 3) to intensive kinship relations (i.e., kinship deeply embedded within closely related groups, e.g., clans and kindreds with a distinct hierarchy based on degree of genetic relatedness) commonly found in agricultural societies. Read more

The Way Life Should Be? Vol. XV: A Tale of Two Senators, Or How the Establishment Really Works

Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Janet Langhart Cohen. 

Perhaps no two figures better epitomize the kosher sandwich in action than former Maine Senators George J. Mitchell and William S. Cohen, Gentile and Jew, Democrat and Republican, equal and complementary slices of kosher bread in the neo-liberal order. They are, as we shall see, really quite perfect avatars.

George Mitchell

Following his stint in the US Senate from 1980 through the end of his term on January 3rd, 1995, Mitchell was asked by Michael Eisner to join Disney’s Board of Directors; he also joined Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson, and Hand (where Elliott Abrams—yes, that Elliott Abrams—worked before joining the Reagan administration), a law firm and lobbyist organization that in September 2002 merged with Piper Rudnick LLP, which would itself soon be part of the merger that would form DLA Piper. Mitchell is currently a partner and Chairman Emeritus of DLA Piper’s Board, and has been on or is presently on the Boards of Staples, Unum, Unilever, Starwood Hotels (owned by Marriott), Xerox, FedEx, and others; Mitchell was also on the Board of the American Security Project, which is not as innocuous as the name sounds. The American Security Project takes a very antagonistic stance toward Russia and works to advance interventionism in order to combat climate change. They also use climate change as a bogeyman for causing “ethnic conflict” in and mass migration from sub-Saharan Africa. The implications are obvious, and with people like John Kerry on the Board and former “luminaries” including Susan Rice, this is unsurprising. As one example, the same UNICEF that declares the West must open itself up to an indefinite number of “migrants” receives well north of $100 million annually from the United States government[1] and also has a multi-million-dollar partnership with DLA Piper.

Curiously, however, despite the supposedly carbon-driven mass migrations from the Equatorial world, Mitchell’s Bipartisan Policy Center, of which he is co-founder and co-chair, receives a substantial amount of funding from companies like Chevron and ExxonMobil.[2] It also receives funding from FedEx, which is surely a coincidence.

In 2004, Mitchell defended the Board’s ouster of Roy Disney and, as one might expect, was rewarded as Chairman of Disney from March 2004-December 31st, 2006. Roy Disney and Stanley Gold were vocal in their criticisms of Mitchell as former CEO Michael Eisner’s puppet. “Giving the company’s chairmanship to former US Senator George Mitchell, Eisner’s lap dog, is a fig leaf covering Eisner’s continuing control of the company,” wrote one observer. Additionally, as Gold wrote in his letter of resignation from the Board:

Senator Mitchell was appointed Presiding Director, despite having been recently employed as a Company consultant and notwithstanding that the law firm of which he was chairman received in excess of $1 million for legal services on behalf of the Company in fiscal 2001.

No conflict of interest there. It gets better, as Wesley B. Truitt reports in his book The Corporation:

After retirement, [George Mitchell] became a partner in a prominent Washington, DC law firm and accepted Michael Eisner’s invitation to join Disney’s board of directors and those of eight other companies. As a nonemployee director at Disney, he was paid $45,000 annually, plus $1,000 per meeting he attended. Disney also hired him as a $50,000-per-year consultant, and he became a consultant to six of the other companies on whose boards he served. Two of those firms, Federal Express (FedEx) and Staples, for which he was both director and consultant, also employed his law firm, as did Disney. This is all pre-2002. In that year, with corporate governance reforms occurring, Disney dropped Mitchell’s law firm, having paid it $2.6 million in fees over the previous seven years, and required Mitchell to give up all other board seats except three. He kept FedEx, Staples, and Starwood Hotels. He continued to take consulting fees, amounting to $175,000 annually from FedEx and Staples. His consulting fees from Disney had brought him $300,000 over seven years. In March 2005, Disney’s board of directors, following a search in which only one outsider was interviewed (in Eisner’s presence), announced their choice of Robert Iger, then president of Disney and Eisner’s handpicked insider choice, to succeed him as CEO later that year.[3]

In 1998, Verner, Liipfert et al. received $1 million in compensation from Starwood Hotels for their lobbying efforts; that number was $430,000 in 1999, $380,000 in 2000, $380,000 in 2001, and $300,000 in 2002, when they merged with Piper Rudnick. Starwood retained Piper Rudnick, and then what became DLA Piper after the merger, into 2016, at which point Starwood was acquired by Marriott.

As the ultimate Shabbos goy, Mitchell earned high praise from ADL Director Abe Foxman while serving as Special Envoy for Middle East Peace under Barack Obama. As if he could be any more of a living cliché, Mitchell is also in the Bilderberg Group.

Earlier this year, in documents unsealed on August 9th by federal prosecutors in New York at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, Mitchell was among those named by Virginia Roberts Giuffre in a lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell as one of the men she was forced to have sex with while she was allegedly being trafficked for sexual acts as an underage girl by the duo. Mitchell denies the accusation; however a sworn affidavit by a former Epstein employee, Juan Alessi, affirms Giuffre’s claim. Mitchell was absolutely an associate of Epstein’s—Mitchell called Epstein a “friend and supporter” in a 2003 New York Magazine profile and Epstein referred to Mitchell as “the world’s greatest negotiator.” Giuffre named Mitchell in a 2015 defamation suit against Ghislaine Maxwell and again in a sworn deposition in 2016, saying she was instructed to give him a “sexual massage” while he was visiting Epstein in Palm Beach. From these documents, we learn:

American liberal icon, President Obama’s Middle East peace envoy Senator George Mitchell, frequently visited Epstein’s New York residence. Mr. Mitchell…was very close to Jeffrey, Virginia recalled. “He is very clean-cut. You wouldn’t think of him being part of Jeffrey’s crew.”

Though Mitchell cited work commitments as the reason and not the atrocious optics of an accused sex abuser’s affiliation with a fund for those abused by the clergy, he resigned in May from the oversight committee of the Philadelphia archdiocese’s Independent Reconciliation and Reparations Program (IRRP), a fund handled by administrators Kenneth Feinberg and Camille Biros. Feinberg made at least $3.3 million representing British Petroleum after their massive spill, and, per Judicial Watch:

Uncovered U.S. Treasury Department documents…reveal President Obama’s “Special Master for TARP Executive Compensation” Kenneth Feinberg received a $120,830 annual salary to establish executive compensation levels at companies bailed out by the federal government. These documents contradict multiple press reports that Feinberg would not be compensated for this work for the Treasury Department.

Feinberg makes his living deciding on what, if any, financial compensation victims of tragedies like 9/11 are entitled to. There’s really not much else to say about that—a Jewish lawyer profiting wildly from tragedy and financial improprieties says it all, really.

William Cohen

William Cohen and George Mitchell were concurrent Maine Senators for all of Mitchell’s time in office. Cohen was a Senator from 1979 through the end of his term on January 3rd, 1997. Cohen and his wife Janet Langhart have made a tidy profit from advertising their interracial marriage, first with the 2006 memoir Love in Black and White, and next with Langhart’s one-act play Anne and Emmett, which—I kid you not—debuted at the US Holocaust Museum and is about “an imagined conversation between Anne Frank and Emmett Till.”

After serving as the Secretary of Defense during Bill Clinton’s second term, Cohen founded the Cohen Group, a lobbyist organization and “business advisory firm providing corporate leadership with strategic advice and assistance in business development, regulatory affairs, deal sourcing, and capital raising activities,” of which Cohen remains Chairman and CEO. The Cohen Group has lobbied on behalf of special interests such as VR military training technology company Raydon, commercial satellite operator SES Americom, and technology-defense contractor Alion Science & Technology, and has facilitated donations to both Maine Senators Susan Collins and Angus King; a number of their employees and associates have donated to current presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg. Tellingly, Cohen rebuked Donald Trump during Trump’s 2016 campaign and endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. In the 2016 election cycle, the Cohen Group’s largest donation recipient was Hillary Clinton, although Republicans Susan Collins, John McCain, and Jeb Bush were also among the top donation recipients from the Group. This speaks volumes about the truly bipartisan nature of not just the Cohen Group, but of the DC Beltway—and the entire Establishment for that matter: they’re all pretty much on the same page.[4] Also consider that Cohen was John McCain’s Best Man in his second marriage, and the picture increasingly comes into focus. For further illustrative purposes, however, let’s look at some of the top donation recipients from the Cohen Group in other election cycles:

·         2014: Susan Collins, Cory Booker, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Joe Kennedy III

·         2012: Susan Collins, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Joe Kennedy III, Tim Ryan

·         2008: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Susan Collins, Mitch McConnell, Ted Stevens

·         2004: John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, Howard Dean, Arlen Specter, John Edwards

You get the idea. What many do not know, however, is that Cohen’s former chief of staff and top political strategist Bob Tyrer (who by the way is now co-president of the Cohen Group) was tasked with running Susan Collins’s campaign for Senate in 1996 as Cohen’s hand-picked replacement—a position she enjoys to this day. The substantial and consistent donations to Collins especially make much more sense in this light. As you’ll recall from the previous piece, DLA Piper is also a major campaign donor to Collins, as are companies like FedEx. You can see how the pieces are starting to fit.

Cohen is also on the Advisory Board of the Partnership for a Secure America, which, like Mitchell’s American Security Project, considers “climate change” to be a “threat multiplier.” Other organizations of which Cohen is currently or has been involved with include Viacom, CBS, the Council on Foreign Relations, AIG, MIC Industries, the Brookings Institution, the Atlantic Partnership, Thayer Capital, and the Trilateral Commission.

The Sandwich

The most obvious connection between Cohen and Mitchell, aside from the fact that they were concurrent Senators from Maine for a decade-and-a-half and clearly worked closely together is their co-authored book on the Iran-Contra affair published in 1988. Not-so-obvious would be the other aspects of their working relationship. Presently, DLA Piper has established, “a strategic alliance with The Cohen Group, a business consulting firm, to help clients identify and achieve global business and strategic opportunities.”

The first identifiable financial ties are from 2003, when the Cohen Group’s lobbying services were retained by Piper Rudnick for $250,000; in 2004 that number rose slightly to $280,000, but in 2005, when a three-way merger created DLA Piper, the Cohen Group’s compensation fell to $80,000. The working relationship persisted, however, with the Cohen Group’s compensation for their lobbying efforts on behalf of DLA Piper totaling $110,000 in 2006 and $140,000 in 2007. Though DLA Piper is listing as having retained the Cohen Group in 2008, I could not find the amount, at which point the financial record of the Cohen Group’s explicit lobbying endeavors on behalf of DLA Piper appears to vanish. As indicated above, however, this did not end the Cohen-DLA Piper working relationship, but rather precipitated what would grow into a major partnership.

Cohen was a featured speaker at DLA Piper’s annual Global Real Estate Summit in Chicago this year and Ambassador Nick Burns serves as Senior Advisor to DLA Piper through the firm’s exclusive relationship with the Cohen Group, where he is a Senior Counselor. DLA Piper and the Cohen Group have collaborated on “independent reports” designed to influence policy—for which they were financially compensated—and a litany of other projects both domestically and globally. One such project may potentially have involved a coup attempt in Turkey. A large percentage of the Cohen Group’s leading figures are ex-diplomats and military figures; there is a curious paucity of “traditional” business or legal acumen at the top. Oh, and by the way:

We know, from sworn testimony given by FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, that former Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman committed treason when he divulged classified information to Turkish operatives in the summer months of 2001, included in that information was the fact that Brewster Jennings & Associates and Valerie Plame were CIA…Marc Grossman’s former boss at the State Department, Richard Armitage…The ATC helps facilitate billions in defense contracts between the Turkish government and FBI Director James Comey’s friends at Lockheed Martin, where Comey used to be VP and Senior Counsel. Lockheed Martin’s Board of Directors also includes Joseph Ralston and James Loy who work with Grossman at the Cohen Group.[5],[6]

There are deep ties not just between the Cohen Group and DLA Piper, but between the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) and both the Cohen Group and DLA Piper, as Laurence Shoup relates:

The Cohen Group was founded by former Defense Secretary and CFR director William S. Cohen when he left the Clinton administration in early 2001. The objectives of the firm are: “helping multinational clients explore opportunities overseas as well as solve problems that may develop. The Cohen Group has the unique ability to provide our clients with truly comprehensive tools for understanding and shaping their business, political, legal, regulatory, and media environments.” The Cohen Group has a strategic alliance with the international law firm DLA Piper, one of the largest law firms in the world. Both the Cohen Group and DLA Piper have multiple connections to the CFR. Besides Cohen himself, Marc Grossman, a vice chair at the Cohen Group, is a Council member, and former ambassador and undersecretary of state Nicholas Burns is both a CFR member and a senior counselor at Cohen. Former Senator George J. Mitchell, DLA Piper’s former chairman, was a Council director, and former U.S. senator and CFR member Tom Daschle is a policy adviser at this law firm.

But why does it matter that Mitchell, Cohen, and their associates have these connections to the CFR? There are hundreds of these think tanks that recycle the same old “bureaucratic tape-worms,” to borrow Tucker Carlson’s phrase, in between governmental appointments. As Shoup explains in his excellent book Wall Street’s Think Tank: The Council on Foreign Relations and the Empire of Neoliberal Geopolitics, 1976-2014:

The CFR’s own leaders, in their own publication, [state] that U.S. foreign policy in the twentieth century was made by a “professional class” (their term for a ruling capitalist class) of only “several hundred” people, augmented by a number of “experts” beginning in the 1960s. Almost all of these people were members of the CFR, which actively promoted a foreign policy suitable to the U.S. capitalist class…The Council is the most important U.S. and global center of “deep politics” and the “deep state” that rules behind the scenes, a way that the 1 percent conducts their unrelenting class war against the 99 percent. Despite pretensions to “democracy” and endless attempts at instructing the world, U.S. “democracy” is, in reality, largely a fraud, a hollowed-out shell, devoid of any substantive content. The fact is that the U.S. government—led behind the scenes by the CFR—is largely run in an anti-democratic fashion by and for the interests of a financialized capitalist class, their corporations, and the wealthy families that control and benefit from these corporations. No matter who is elected, people from the Council propose, debate, develop consensus, and implement the nation’s key strategic policies. The deep state, in the form of the CFR, operates behind the scenes, making and enforcing important decisions outside of those publicly sanctioned by law and society. A focus on the Council on Foreign Relations is a key way to understand concretely the central sector of the ensemble of power relations in the United States and its informal global empire.

The Cohen Group and DLA Piper each feature both current and former members within or affiliated with the CFR, as well as other major geo-political players; these connections are anything but incidental. Major DLA Piper alumni include: A.B. Krongard, former Executive Director of the CIA; Mel Martinez, former Senator, member of the Bipartisan Policy Center, and JP Morgan Chase’s Chairman of the Southeast US and Latin America; and Harry Cummings McPherson, Jr., who served as counsel and special counsel to Lyndon B. Johnson from 1965 to 1969 and was Johnson’s chief speechwriter from 1966 to 1969. Additionally, DLA Piper represents over 150 Israeli companies and investors. From the firm’s website:

The firm has also assisted over 75+ of its foreign clients who require legal assistance in Israel…Our Israel Country Group delivers all the benefits of a global elite law firm through a team of lawyers dedicated to the Israel market. Our broad knowledge and access to local advice has led to us becoming a key address for advising Israeli clients as they do business across the globe. Recent involvement has included advising on M&A transactions in Japan, Norway, Spain and South Africa; HR matters in Brazil, Singapore and Italy; real estate deals in the US, Germany and the UK; IP and tax in Turkey, Dubai, Australia and Czech Republic; fund formation in Poland and the US; commercial and mining advice in Africa; and litigation advice in the UK, Africa and the US.

Don’t forget that George Mitchell of DLA Piper was an associate of Jeffrey Epstein, a Mossad asset. Recall also the “changing role” of the NSA following 9/11 and the fact that the NSA gave Israel access to all US citizens’ communications data. This all dovetails rather nicely, as, returning to Shoup:

William J. Clinton was himself a CFR member before he became president…Of Clinton’s three secretaries of the treasury, the first, Lloyd M. Bentsen, was not a CFR member (my note: or a Jew, but definitely a Shabbos goy), but Robert E. Rubin and Lawrence H. Summers were (my note: both Jewish), with Rubin later becoming a director and co-chair of the Council. All three of Clinton’s choices for Secretary of Defense, Les Aspin, William J. Perry, and William S. Cohen, were CFR members, and Aspin and Cohen were directors. Cohen was a director when Clinton called on him to serve in the government…George W. Bush was never a member of the CFR, but…his vice president, Richard B. Cheney, was a longtime member and was a two-time director between 1987 and 1995. Both of Bush’s secretaries of state, Colin L. Powell and Condoleezza Rice, had long been members of the Council when they were appointed, and Powell became a CFR director in 2006…George W. Bush had two secretaries of defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld and Robert M. Gates. Rumsfeld was a CFR member during the 1970s but later dropped out of the organization. Gates has been a continuous Council member since 1985. Bush’s appointees to head the CIA, Porter J. Goss and Michael V. Hayden, were CFR members prior to entering office, as were both of his appointees to head up the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz and Robert Zoellick, who had also been a Council director. Three of the four men Bush appointed to be UN ambassador, John D. Negroponte, John R. Bolton, and Zalmay Khalilzad, were CFR members prior to their appointmentsSusan E. Rice, who also served as Obama’s first UN representative, has been active in the organization for years…Obama’s second secretary of state, John Forbes Kerry, became a CFR member in the early 1990s. He married his second wife, the near billionaire Teresa Heinz (who inherited the Heinz food fortune), in 1995, the same year she was elected to Council membership.

I would be remiss if I did not also mention that Janet Napolitano, who made a brief appearance in Volume IX, is also a member of the CFR, but in light of all of these other revelations, that does seem a bit incidental, doesn’t it?

Reposted from The Anatomically Correct Banana.

[1] “‘Migrating is not a choice,’ according to Henrietta Fore, executive director of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), speaking to reporters last week on the sidelines of the G7 ministerial summit in Paris. Fore insisted: ‘Migrants do not want to leave their country, but they are forced to do so because of the economic situation or the violence that reigns there.’…‘Those of us who live in more developed countries must do whatever we can to allow them to get here and integrate.’… UNICEF is funded by governments and private donations. Due to relentless lobbying on Capitol Hill by UNICEF USA supporters, the United States has ‘traditionally provided more unrestricted funding to UNICEF than any other government.’ The U.S. remains UNICEF’s top funder with $132.5 million in 2019, just as it was in 2016, 2017, and 2018 with similar contributions. What remains to be determined is why the Trump administration continues to write a blank check to [them].” https://cis.org/Rush/UNICEF-Chief-Developed-World-Must-Welcome-All-Migrants-Because-Migration-Not-Choice

[2] Would you like to know more? https://ethics.harvard.edu/blog/bipartisan-lobbying-center

[3] P. 209.

[4] Consider the 636 business organizations that signed their approval of a prospective “Immigration Reform” bill in 2014 that enjoyed bipartisan support, and which would have provided for DREAMER amnesty and the re-orientation of immigration toward “economic necessity”: https://www.uschamber.com/letter/multi-industry-letter-immigration-reform

[5] http://illinoispaytoplay.com/tag/the-cohen-group/

[6] Lockheed Martin is a major donor to both Maine Senators Susan Collins and Angus King, and House Representative Chellie Pingree—Republican, Independent, and Democrat. Yup.

Slavoj Žižek’s “Pervert’s Guide” to anti-Semitism

“ [Kevin] MacDonald’s theory is a new chapter in the long process of the destruction of Reason.”
Slavoj Zizek

“Žižek is, at his best, a posturing charlatan.”
Thomas Moller-Nielsen, Current Affairs, Oct. 18 2019.


This is an essay on anti-Semitism, but because it’s also about Slavoj Žižek we’re going to have to start with the subject of extra-marital affairs. Very early in my academic career, I was asked to take part in a cross-faculty seminar, where PhD students could present small talks on the development of their research. It was hoped that, as a newly-minted PhD, I’d ask presenting students some tough but helpful questions, and thus somehow contribute to a team atmosphere in my department. I was provided with a list of proposed talks and immediately felt an overwhelming sense of apathy at the litany of feminist tripe and quasi-Marxist navel-gazing, none of which was in any way related to my own fields of research. I was eager to please in my new role, however, and so I fell dutifully into line. I’ll never forget the first presentation because it was so remarkably surreal, being an effeminate young African-American who quite literally gave a performance poem titled “Black Skin” about, well, you get the idea. But the more memorable event of the day came later, when a young woman gave a presentation on gender in the media, or something to that effect. Something about her manner irritated me considerably, so I gave her a hard time during the Q & A. This was picked up on by a senior figure in the department, a soft meek-looking and much-gossiped-about English historian, who, after the seminar had finished, invited me to his office for a discussion on gender and sex politics.

I’ve been politically aware since I was a teenager. I’d read deeply about Marxism since the age of seventeen, and was familiar with its cultish elements. None of this prepared me for my adventure in this otherwise unremarkable Englishman’s office, the walls of which were festooned with small red flags and quasi-religious images of Lenin and Trotsky. So, I thought, here was a Red in the flesh. I was in the presence of a dedicated Marxist, and that right there in front of me stood a solitary tangible example of the long march through the institutions. He made tea, and we sat down. He began to talk, I listened. During his initial monologue, my host started speaking from a personal perspective, explaining that even in his private life he aimed to live in accordance with his “socialist beliefs.” Before he got married, he explained, he and his fiancée agreed that they wouldn’t take traditional vows, agreeing they wouldn’t be so possessive as to make an oath of exclusivity to one another. They might “expect” exclusivity, but they wouldn’t demand it. They believed in “freedom,” he said, and ultimately this was what social progressivism and modern gender and sex politics was all about. It wasn’t anything to get upset over, he implied, or laugh about.

Except that it was. The faculty gossip I’d heard was that the wife of this “free love” advocate had been on a short-term teaching stint in Norway and had just recently decided to permanently settle there with a Norwegian lover she’d been having an affair with for some time. She had the marital couple’s two children with her in Norway, and was making it extremely difficult for the meek, permissive, Lenin-loving Englishman to see them. The family home had also been declared off-limits, and my Marxist colleague was apparently reduced to staying in a local bed and breakfast. Tragic? Quite possibly. Hilarious? Most definitely. All of this flooded my mind as the cuckolded Leninite sat opposite me recounting his lukewarm marriage vows, tea in hand, eyes glistening with — tears? Steam from the tea he said, wiping them casually and glancing at the window. My face was stone. The time passed, and my host gradually fell silent. I thanked him most disingenuously, and made a hasty retreat, taking a deep breath as I emerged from the building. I never set foot in that office again.

What does any of this have to do with anti-Semitism? If you’re the superstar Marxist intellectual Slavoj Žižek, it has everything to do with anti-Semitism, since as we will find out, infidelity and anti-Semitism are irrefutably linked. I say “irrefutably” quite deliberately, because his arguments are irrefutable — and they are irrefutable because they are nonsensical. Read more

The Way Life Should Be: #Squad Goals and the U.S Corporate Elites That Fund Them

The rhetoric of climate change has become millenarian and hysterical, uncoupled from any genuine environmental concerns, of which there are many. If a picture is worth a thousand words, let the image of Greta Thunberg, the teenaged Swedish environmental activist’s arrival in New York on a Rothschild family racing yacht—and her return to Sweden along with her family and the entire crew via plane—serve as example number one. It is in the climate of Establishment-generated climate change hysteria that the contradictions of, say, an Ayanna Pressley—vocal supporter of fellow Squad Member Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal—and the sources of her financial backing—such as Global Partners LP (whose “operations focus on the importing of petroleum products and marketing them in North America”), a slew of real estate developers, and Blue Haven Initiative—become all the more grotesque. Blue Haven Initiative, by the way, is another one of these “impact investment” organizations I’ve written extensively on; its co-founder and principal investor is none other than Liesel Pritzker Simmons, of the Jewish Pritzker family. We’ll return to Blue Haven later.

The Green New Deal resolutions in the US House of Representatives and the Senate were sponsored by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ed Markey, respectively. It is always worth looking into where politicians derive their campaign finances from, as this gives us a window into the interests that they represent. For Markey, in the current election cycle, that would be: Akin, Gump, et al.,[1] DLA Piper,[2] Bain Capital, Blackstone Group, Tufts University (alma mater of Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt), Harvard University, Google, Immigrant Learning Center, DISH Network, iHeart Media, Estee Lauder, the National Basketball Association, Verizon, Brownstein, Hyatt, et al., WilmerHale LLP, T-Mobile, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Sprint, Hilton, Morgan Stanley, Dell, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Twitter, and Oracle. As evidenced in The Way Life Should Be? pieces, many of these organizations are a part of Michael Bloomberg’s New American Economy and/or are helmed by Jewish CEOs (or commissioners in the NBA’s case). Also, Markey’s wife, it should be noted, is the Jewish Susan Blumenthal, whose connections include a number of high governmental positions, professorships at Brandeis and Tufts, and a column for the Huffington Post.

Regarding House sponsor Alexandria “AOC” Ocasio-Cortez, since becoming a media darling after her surprising victory over her district’s incumbent Joe Crowley—a genuine grassroots victory, where Ocasio-Cortez was outspent 18-to-1 in the Democratic Primary—Ocasio-Cortez has quickly become the new face of the corporate class. In gearing up for her re-election campaign, Ocasio-Cortez’s primary donors so far include: Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Alphabet Inc., Delta, Kaiser Permanente, “majority women-owned” law firm Selendy & Gay (guess how many of their partners are Jewish?), and WilmerHale LLP. Robert Mueller is a partner at WilmerHale’s Washington office, and the firm is notorious for shady dealings and representing the unscrupulous, including Jewish insider trader Ivan “Greed is Good” Boesky. In this election cycle, WilmerHale has donated not just to Markey and AOC, but Elijah Cummings (now deceased), Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Joe Biden, Julian Castro, John Hickenlooper, Elizabeth Warren, Adam Schiff, Mitch McConnell, Jerrold Nadler, Beto O’Rourke, Bernie Sanders, Tim Ryan, Ben Sasse, Ted Lieu, Joe Kennedy III, Lindsey Graham, Maxine Waters, Tulsi Gabbard, Cristina Tzintzun Ramirez, Mike Levin, and Cory Booker. WilmerHale provided funds to Ayanna Pressley in her initial election bid, as did Alphabet Inc.

While we’ve discussed half of the self-styled “The Squad,” we should not neglect to look into who’s footing the bill for Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib’s re-election bids as well. For Omar, her top donors in this election cycle include: Google, Apple, Alphabet Inc., Creatis Capital, Evercore Partners, Dana Investment, Paradigm Global Group, Tiger Global Management, and Patagonia, Inc. (which is also a Pressley donor—maybe that’s why they’re all so fashionable). For Tlaib: Fedex, Boeing, AT&T, Evercore, the End Citizens United PAC, East Bridge Capital, Microsoft, and the commercial real estate IDS Real Estate Group. Indeed, irrespective of their “wokeness” or sass quotient, it appears the saucy Congresswomen are, as we expected, nothing but mouthpieces for multi-nationals and global capital. Insert “color-blind” joke here. Donald Trump, however, is not. From the Times of Israel:

Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke, a former congressman from Texas, tweeted: “When he calls 6 members of Congress — all women of color or Jewish — ’savages,’ he wants you to think of them as less than human. Like when he calls immigrants an ‘infestation’ and says ‘no human being’ would want to live in Baltimore.’ We can’t be surprised when violence follows.”

Thank you, Robert Francis. Thank also his donors Sanchez Oil & Gas (O’Rourke has publicly supported the Green New Deal), Microsoft, Dell, IBM, Apple, AT&T, Cisco Systems, the Blackstone Group, Amazon, the US Army, and the University of Texas. Alluded to but unmentioned are Elijah Cummings, Jerrold Nadler, and Adam Schiff, who we’ve touched on a bit already. Schiff has also received campaign donations from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, which spawned Cortez donor Selendy & Gay last winter, as well as Raytheon and DLA Piper in advance of his upcoming re-election bid.[3] Schiff (a descendent of Jacob Schiff, one of the primary Wall Street financiers of the Russian Revolution and of the Japanese in the Russo-Japanese War: “Schiff’s gripe against Russia had been its anti-Semitism”[4]) and Nadler also receive funds from Alphabet Inc. Alphabet Inc.’s fingerprints are everywhere; they are “Mayor Pete” Buttigieg’s primary donor, along with AT&T, Microsoft, Disney, Comcast, Amazon, Wells Fargo, Kaiser Permanente, McKinsey, Harvard University, Facebook, Apple, and the Blackstone Group.

Alphabet Inc. is an American multinational created through a corporate restructuring of Google and is now the parent company of Google and several former Google subsidiaries. As evidenced above, Alphabet Inc. is a primary donor to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar, and they’ve donated small sums of money to Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley in this election cycle as well. In addition to providing funds to “The Squad” and Buttigieg, Alphabet Inc. has also donated over $200,000 to Elizabeth Warren, over $160,000 to Bernie Sanders, $120,000 to Kamala Harris, $60,000 to Andrew Yang, nearly $60,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, $37,000 to Cory Booker, over $34,000 to Joe Biden, over $24,000 to Beto O’Rourke, and over $23,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in this election cycle thus far; they’ve also disbursed funds to the following: Tulsi Gabbard (sigh), Nancy Pelosi, Ro Khanna, Mike Levin, Jay Inslee, Kirsten Gillibrand, Eric Swalwell, Amy Klobuchar, Julian Castro, John Hickenlooper, Tim Ryan, Ted Lieu, Jared Golden (featured in my Maine pieces), John Lewis, Hank Johnson, Xochitl Torres Small, Cristina Tzintzun Ramirez, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Joe Kennedy III, Jon Ossoff, Aisha Wahab, Nabilah Islam (it should be noted Islam is a Program Associate for the Land, Water, and Climate Justice team for the American Jewish World Service organization[5]), and slew of PACs. Lest you think, like Israel, there isn’t strong bi-partisan support for the megalopoly that is Alphabet Inc., the National Republican Congressional and Senatorial Committees have received funds from Alphabet Inc. in this election cycle, as have individual candidates Chuck Grassley, Ben Sasse, Mike Lee, Mitch McConnell, Steve Scalise, Tim Scott, David Perdue, Liz Cheney, Lindsey Graham, Justin Amash (now “Independent”), and…Donald Trump.

Alphabet Inc. dispensed over $5.5 million in the 2018 election cycle, including almost $85,000 to Jewish Maine Congressional candidate Jared Golden, another vociferous supporter of the Green New Deal. They also gave nearly $16,000 to Maine Senatorial incumbent Angus King and almost a quarter of a million dollars to Beto O’Rourke in his unsuccessful bid to unseat Ted Cruz in Texas.

Alphabet Inc. also has deep ties to numerous Jewish organizations, not least of which is the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Twitter, and other technology companies work with the ADL on the “Cyberhate Problem-Solving Lab” and the Best Practices for Challenging Cyberhate. Google subsidiary YouTube has tasked the ADL with filtering out and banning “extremist content” from its platform. Further, as Corinne Weaver writes:

George Soros, Google, and the ADL all have something in common: they all take interest in “white nationalism” online. Google sent an interesting representative to the hearing on “Hate Crimes and the Rise of White Nationalism” on April 9. Alexandria Walden, Google’s Counsel on Free Expression and Human Rights, was introduced by the House Judiciary Committee Chairman as a former Center for American Progress employee. The center is a liberal non-profit that was founded by President Clinton’s former chief of staff John Podesta, and funded by liberal billionaire George Soros… Google already had a friend at the hearing, however. Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-New York) tweeted on April 8 that he was “Honored to join #GrowwithGoogle for its launch with partners @GoodwillNYNJ @HudsonGuild @galeabrewer & others.” According to OpenSecrets.org, Nadler’s top donor for his 2018 campaign was Alphabet, Google’s parent company, which donated $26,000. Google is a major landlord and employer in Nadler’s district…The spokesperson for the Anti-Defamation League, Eileen Hershenov, blamed platforms like Gab and 8chan for being “recruiting grounds for terrorists” and “round the clock white supremacist rallies.” She also stated that the rhetoric of “elected officials and candidates” was encouraging white nationalist crime.[6]

Hershenov’s bona fides include a stint as a law clerk for Jack B. Weinstein in New York’s Eastern District, a Karpatkin Fellow with the ACLU focusing primarily on “women’s rights” and immigration, and as general counsel for George Soros’s Open Society Foundations as well as his Central European University. ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt served as the Director of the Impact Economy Initiative project at the Aspen Institute, which received more $500,000 from George Soros’ Open Society Foundations. The Aspen Institute is also involved with the World Economic Forum (WEF), discussed in The Way Life Should Be? Vol. XVII.

Since 1985, when it began tracking “hate groups’” use of online bulletin boards, the ADL has dedicated resources to censoring the internet, espionage, and sharing intelligence with law enforcement and the government (which includes Israel). Who can forget the infamous “HateFilter” the ADL sent to market in 1998? From a November 2017 Omidyar Network[7] press release on the ADL’s Center for Technology and Society:

The ADL…announced new funding for the center from Omidyar Network, the philanthropic investment firm created by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar…Earlier this year at the South by Southwest conference, ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt announced that the organization was establishing the CTS with a $250,000 seed grant from Omidyar Network. Now up and running, CTS will lead ADL’s efforts to fulfill its civil rights mission in the digital space…Omidyar Network has committed additional funding and will provide $1.5 million to support the Center’s work…The board members are: Danielle Citron, a law professor at the University of Maryland and author of Hate Crimes in Cyberspace; Brad Hamm, dean of the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University; Shawn Henry, former FBI executive assistant director; Reddit founder and CEO Steve Huffman; James Joaquin, co-founder and managing director of Obvious Ventures; Aileen Lee, Cowboy Ventures; Matt Rogers, Nest founder and chief product officer; Facebook VP of Product Guy Rosen; Jeffrey Rosen, president of the National Constitution Center and professor of law at George Washington University; Jeffrey Saper, vice chair of the global tech law firm Wilson Sonsini;[8] Snapchat’s head of public policy, Micah Shaffer; former Twitter executive Katie Jacobs Stanton, Color Genomics’ chief marketing officer; Anne Washington, a public policy professor at George Mason University who focuses on the social dynamics of information; and Whitney Wolfe, CEO of the dating app Bumble.[9]

What you might find interesting is that Greenblatt and Omidyar have a working relationship that extends back to the early 2000s when Omidyar invested in Greenblatt’s Ethos Water; they eventually sold the company to Starbucks and Greenblatt worked for Howard Schultz as the Vice President for Global Consumer Products. Remember how the ADL was going to do the anti-bias training for Starbucks last year?

The ADL’s CTS also has entered into a fellowship program sponsored by the Robert A. and Renee E. Belfer Family Foundation.[10] The Belfer fortune is from “an oil empire that is now in its third generation.” Per Inside Philanthropy, the Jewish Belfers:

Have recently shown a major concern with cybersecurity. To that end, they recently gave a $15 million gift to the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School to establish the Cyber Security Project, which “seeks to help create the conceptual arsenal” for strategists to confront cyber threats.[11]

One of the three inaugural fellows is Samuel Woolley of the Oxford Internet Institute at the University of Oxford, who works with Jigsaw, Google’s think tank.[12] The Center also has joined forces with UC Berkeley’s D-Lab to create the Online Hate Index. In June:

The ADL (the Anti-Defamation League), Moonshot CVE and the Gen Next Foundation…announced a partnership to counter white supremacist and jihadist activity online. The program, dubbed the Redirect Method, will use advertising to redirect individuals who search online for violent extremist material to content that exposes the falsehoods of extremist narratives and directs searchers to non-violent content. This new effort borrows from best practices Moonshot CVE developed with Google for ISIS-related searches, and builds on the previous deployment of the Redirect Method USA – which the RAND Corporation found showed promise – in partnership with the Gen Next Foundation.[13]

Yasmin Green works with the ADL and is the Director of Research and Development for Jigsaw, a unit within Alphabet Inc., and was previously Head of Strategy and Operations for Google Ideas. Green launched the Redirect Method, born out of a partnership in 2016 among Google’s Jigsaw tech incubator, the Google-backed London-based Moonshot start-up, and the U.S.-based Gen Next Foundation. Edward C. Baig reports what the project will look like in practice:

If a person on the fringe, or in some pre-radicalization mode, enters a search query asking, “Is it true that the Mossad took down the World Trade Center?” the counternarrative reflected in a top search result would direct the person to a place that would make it clear that that was just an unfounded conspiracy theory. A search on “I want to join the KKK” could lead to a search result and link that says that “No race should be superior. Make up your own mind. Browse our playlist to find out more.”[14]

Rather rich coming from the self-proclaimed “God’s Chosen People,” don’t you think?

Incidentally, every single Democratic candidate for president who has received funds from Alphabet Inc. has also endorsed the Green New Deal, notable—beyond its infeasibility and general ridiculousness—for its preoccupation with “carbon emissions.” I’ve written numerous times that if carbon emissions were a problem, the solutions are actually rather straightforward: curtail mass migration, focus on localized trade and sustainability and re-structure the economy so productive people don’t have to commute (gulp!), and simply plant more trees! There’s no money for that in the current system, obviously, but it does beg the question: why carbon, especially when fossil fuels produce such massive revenues?

Fossil fuels are a finite resource, and the alternatives so far have been wildly inefficient and sorely lacking. As with the whole “climate change” manufactured hysteria in general, this is about resource consolidation and speculation first and foremost, but there are other key reasons as well, ranging from the propagandistic—fewer white babies to save climate while guilty Western nations must also accept millions of African “climate change refugees”—to the “proprietary.” “Carbon will be the world’s biggest commodity market, and it could become the world’s biggest market overall,” said Louis Redshaw, head of environmental markets at Barclays Capital and former power trader at Enron. The carbon-trading market, masquerading as “environmentalism,” does nothing positive for the environment nor does it even address the “problem” of carbon emissions. From Bank Track:

Carbon trading, especially through banks’ proprietary trading desks, is a way for banks to make money from money, without contributing new capital towards solving climate change.[15]

The term “Green New Deal” was first used by Thomas Friedman in January 2007 and the United Nations Environment Program began to promote the concept in 2008. Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, Google, Ikea, Coca-Cola, and GM have publicly backed the “renewable” plank of the Green New Deal. But what are the specifics? They’re sorely lacking. We all know about greenwashing, the term activists developed to describe the corporate practice of claiming that self-serving policies and harmful products are environmentally-friendly. As with “equality,” “inclusion,” and the other plethora of Cultural Bolshevist concepts, most of this rhetoric regarding “sustainability” and the like is a smoke-screen for power and profit, most of which tends to accrue to a certain ethno-religious group and their sycophants. Regarding “greenwashing,” Katharine Schwab writes:

The International Monetary Fund estimates the collective worth of Apple, Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Microsoft at $3.5 trillion, more than the GDP of the United Kingdom…Google and Apple claim to be completely carbon neutral: Apple says all its facilities are powered entirely by renewable energy, while Google has become the world’s largest buyer of renewable energy to offset its energy costs… A story in Gizmodo in February 2019 revealed how Microsoft, Google, and Amazon are helping to “automate” the climate crisis by providing big oil companies with the technological tools to streamline their operations and help them find even more oil.[16]

Not exactly “sustainable,” but if these major companies are set on a “zero emissions” US economy by 2030, they’ll need a whole lot of solar panels, and that will require a massive energy expenditure. As Jasper Bernes writes:

From space, the Bayan Obo mine in China, where 70 percent of the world’s rare earth minerals are extracted and refined, almost looks like a painting. The paisleys of the radioactive tailings ponds, miles long, concentrate the hidden colors of the earth: mineral aquamarines and ochres of the sort a painter might employ to flatter the rulers of a dying empire…Dotted with “death villages” where crops will not fruit, the region of Inner Mongolia where the Bayan Obo mine is located displays Chernobylesque cancer rates…To meet the demands of the Green New Deal, which proposes to convert the US economy to zero emissions, renewable power by 2030, there will be a lot more of these mines gouged into the crust of the earth. That’s because nearly every renewable energy source depends upon non-renewable and frequently hard-to-access minerals: solar panels use indium, turbines use neodymium, batteries use lithium, and all require kilotons of steel, tin, silver, and copper. The renewable-energy supply chain is a complicated hopscotch around the periodic table and around the world. To make a high-capacity solar panel, one might need copper (atomic number 29) from Chile, indium (49) from Australia, gallium (31) from China, and selenium (34) from Germany. Many of the most efficient, direct-drive wind turbines require a couple pounds of the rare-earth metal neodymium, and there’s 140 pounds of lithium in each Tesla…It takes energy to get those minerals out of the ground, energy to shape them into batteries and photovoltaic solar panels and giant rotors for windmills, energy to dispose of them when they wear out. Mines are worked, primarily, by gas-burning vehicles. The container ships that cross the world’s seas bearing the good freight of renewables burn so much fuel they are responsible for 3 percent of planetary emissionsMines require a massive outlay of investment up front, and they typically feature low return on investment, except during the sort of commodity boom we can expect a Green New Deal to produce.[17]

Ah, there it is. There will be a commodity boom and there will need to be more cheap labor to manufacture and distribute the commodities. One of the primary goals of the World Economic Forum (WEF) to “combat climate change” is to “prevent labour market exclusion” and “ensure…openness,” meaning no impediments to the movement of labor across international boundaries, which is obviously at odds with lowering humans’ carbon footprint. This will naturally keep labor costs low and destroy social cohesion, which is essential to the maintenance and expansion of neo-liberalism. From the European Union to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), it starts with “intra-regional labor mobility”[18] and ends with mass migrations, particularly from the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa, where the population is expected by some measures to quadruple by the end of the century. 70,000 arrived in Malaysia—Malaysia—alone in 2012: “Malaysia is now a country of asylum for forced migrants originating from Angola, Burundi, Bhutan, Central African Republic, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Algeria, Guinea, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Kenya, Kuwait, Rwanda and Senegal.”[19]

Beyond the need for cheap labor, there will need to be more markets beyond just the United States to purchase these products as the United Nations and the complicit globalist establishment hammers us with propaganda about the need for “global solutions in an increasingly global world”—which is precisely the root of the problem.

In terms of catering to these “new markets,” the Omidyar Network has facilitated partnerships between oil companies like Shell looking to diversify with their New Energies division and d.light, a solar energy company launched at Stanford University aimed at opening up the “developing world” market:

Shell’s New Energies business was created in 2016 and focuses on two main areas: new fuels for transport, such as advanced biofuels and hydrogen; and power, which includes low-carbon sources such as wind and solar. Within the power portfolio, Shell is also actively pursuing commercial opportunities to invest in energy access solutions in Africa and Asia. The New Energies business is supported by Shell Ventures B.V., the corporate venture capital arm of Royal Dutch Shell PLC (“Shell”)…Shell Vice President Energy Solutions Brian Davis said, “We are impressed by d.light’s track record in meeting evolving customer needs for access to electricity across both Africa and Asia. Their experienced team has developed efficient sales and distribution channels in these markets and continues to expand their product range. We look forward to supporting d.light to realize its growth ambitions. With this latest investment, Shell takes a step closer to meeting its ambition to provide a reliable electricity supply to 100 million people in the developing world by 2030.”[20]

Blue Haven Initiatives is pursuing a similar strategy. Blue Haven Senior Advisor Chad Larson is the co-founder of M-Kopa, a pay-as-you-go solar company based in Kenya. As an answer to the deep corruption and unreliable electrical grid in Kenya, M-Kopa profits off of selling the panels to the rural poor and extending lines of credit to them in order to afford the attendant kit of batteries, bulbs, et cetera. The kit also includes a SIM card that “can communicate with M-Kopa headquarters in Nairobi. When a customer has made a payment via mobile phone, the SIM card sends a signal to activate the battery, which is powered by the panels.”[21] This inter-connectedness is central to the profit-multiplying effect of these companies, firms, and organizations working in tandem. As Stephan Faris writes:

In 2007 the Kenyan mobile operator Safaricom launched a service called M-Pesa, allowing customers to use a phone to send cash. Originally intended as a way to help microfinance borrowers make and repay loans, M-Pesa was rapidly adopted for everything from salaries to taxi rides, bringing banking to people who were miles from physical bank branches. Today about a third of the Kenyan economy flits across Safaricom’s airwaves, and 82 percent of Kenyan adults have a mobile phone…Slogans hand-painted on concrete buildings hawk the power of the Internet in the service of selling smartphones: “Take Google With You” and “You Are Not on Facebook?”… It was [M-Kopa co-founder Nick] Hughes, when he was an executive at Vodafone—which owns 40 percent of Safaricom—who first came up with the idea that would become M-Pesa. M-Kopa’s director of operations, Pauline Vaughan, was in charge of the mobile-money service during its early years.[22]

As M-Kopa grows its market, it will need more employees, and another senior advisor, Paul Breloff is there as CEO of Shortlist, “a recruiting technology startup transforming how talent meets opportunity in emerging markets…Shortlist is on a mission…source and screen great job-seekers for growing, purposeful companies across India and East Africa.” The market growth is intended to be inter-connected, multi-faceted, and exponential:

“If you take the long-term view and if you treat low-income people as customers…you can change the world,” [co-founder Jesse] Moore says…Once M-Kopa has a customer, it works hard to sell him more products on installment. “Your anchor product is clean energy, and then you build a finance relationship,” Hughes says…M-Kopa also sells Samsung smartphones and offers loans to pay for school fees…The interest M-Kopa charges is high by U.S. or European standards. The cash price of one of its products is about 20 percent less than the installment price. But in the markets where the company’s working—so far, Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda—the rates are competitive. Traditional microfinance companies typically charge about 20 percent interest on their loans…In November [2015], M-Kopa received a clear vote of confidence when it completed a $19 million investment round, including $10 million from Generation Investment Management, a fund co-founded by former U.S. Vice President Al Gore that’s also invested in SolarCity, the biggest U.S. rooftop solar installer, and digital thermostat maker Nest Labs.[23] “We think they have the potential of being a multibillion-dollar African success story,” says Colin le Duc, GIM’s head of research. Other investors in the round included Virgin’s Richard Branson and AOL co-founder Steve Case.[24]

Superficially it all sounds great—feel virtuous, make money, and save the planet, but the reality, as is virtually always the case with any ruling-class-hatched scheme, is the opposite: not just grim and ugly, but deadly. Concluding with Jasper Bernes:

The problem with the Green New Deal is that it promises to change everything while keeping everything the same… The appeal is obvious but the combination impossible…The Green New Deal…thinks you can keep capitalism, keep growth, but remove the deleterious consequences. The death villages are here to tell you that you can’t. No roses will bloom on that bush.[25]

Every rose doesn’t even get the chance to have its thorn.

Reposted from The Anatomically Correct Banana.

[1] For more on Akin, Gump, et al. see The Way Life Should Be? Vols. XIII, XIV, and XVI.

[2] For more on DLA Piper, see The Way Life Should Be? Vols. XIII and XV.

[3] For more on Raytheon, see The Way Life Should Be? Vols. III, IV, and XIII.

[4] Historian George F. Kennan states Schiff financed “revolutionary propaganda” during the Russo-Japanese war and revolution of 1905 through the Society of Friends of Russian Freedom. From The Jewish Communal Register of New York City: “Mr. Schiff has always used his wealth and his influence in the best interests of his people. He financed the enemies of autocratic Russia and used his financial influence to keep Russia from the money markets of the United States.” George Kennan, revealed in the New York Times on March 24th, 1917, that Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb Bank on Wall Street financed Russian revolutionaries through this organization. Schiff had been financing Russian revolutionaries since 1905.

[5] “As the only American Jewish organization solely dedicated to ending poverty and advocating for human rights in the developing world, AJWS partners with Jewish leaders to shape policies that will help people in the developing world… In our current political climate, many U.S. policies have harmful effects on millions of people who live far beyond our national borders. For example, the recent expansion of the ‘Global Gag Rule’—a policy that blocks U.S. federal funding to international organizations that provide abortions or abortion-related services to their patients—is an assault on the human rights of women, girls and LGBTI people.”

[6] https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/techwatch/corinne-weaver/2019/04/09/google-sends-former-soros-funded-employee-white

[7] For more on the Omidyar Network, see The Way Life Should Be? Vol. XVII.

[8] Saper is also a national commissioner for the ADL.

[9] https://www.omidyar.com/news/leading-tech-platforms-and-cyber-experts-join-new-adl-advisory-board-clamp-down-online-hate

[10] “FUNDING AREAS: Arts, Education, Health and Jewish causes…In 1992, Robert founded Belco Oil & Gas Corp., a leading independent producer of domestic oil and gas. Belfer is currently chairman of Belfer Management LLC, a private investment firm. Belfer took a big financial hit a while back, losing somewhere in the neighborhood of $700 million because of shares he held in Enron…Albert Einstein College of Medicine at Yeshiva University also received more than $120,000 from the foundation in the past. The foundation is also passionate about Jewish causes. They’ve given more than $86,000 recently to the American Jewish Committee. Central Synagogue, the UJA Federation of New York and Columbia Barnard Hilel have all received funds from in recent years.” https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/grants-for-scientific-research/2019/10/15/belfer-family-foundation-grants-for-science-research

[11] https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/grants-for-scientific-research/2019/10/15/belfer-family-foundation-grants-for-science-research

[12] “His fellowship project will work to understand how political bots and algorithms have been leveraged to target the Jewish community and use this understanding to find ways to counter this bias.” https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/adls-center-for-technology-and-society-announces-first-class-of-belfer-fellows

[13] https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/adl-and-partners-counter-white-supremacists-online-through-google-search

[14] https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2019/06/24/adl-fighting-kkk-jihadism-by-redirecting-online-searches/1437331001/

[15] Regarding carbon trading, I’ve written more on the subject, which you can read here.

[16] https://www.fastcompany.com/90363968/what-big-tech-has-to-learn-from-the-green-new-deal

[17] https://communemag.com/between-the-devil-and-the-green-new-deal/

[18] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/08/southeast-asia-realising-importance-high-skilled-immigration/

[19] https://www.boell.de/en/2017/08/02/future-forced-migrants-asean

[20] https://www.dlight.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Shell-Press-Release_FINAL-FOR-PUBLICATION.pdf

[21] https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-mkopa-solar-in-africa/

[22] Ibid.

[23] Nest Labs was acquired by Google in January 2014.

[24] https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-mkopa-solar-in-africa/

[25] https://communemag.com/between-the-devil-and-the-green-new-deal/

Jeremy’s Jackboots: Even More Jewish Hysteria about Jeremy Corbyn and the British Labour Party

“Gobsmacked” is a good English word that’s gaining ground in America, I’ve read. If it’s not familiar to you, it means “very surprised or otherwise affected,” like someone who has been unexpectedly smacked in the gob, or mouth. I’ve recently been gobsmacked not once but twice by a Scottish journalist called Stephen Daisley.

Corbyn’s a monster, Blair’s a mensch

My first gobsmacking from Daisley came when I read this article by him in the cuckservative Spectator:

A vote for Labour is a vote for anti-semitism

The Labour party (1900 – 2015) is dead. It died the day a majority of members, £3 and otherwise, voted to make their leader a man already plainly drenched in the moral sewage of anti-Semitism. The Labour party (2015 – ) is Corbyn’s party and if the famous centrists are working to preserve any party, it is that one. They might eventually salvage something out of it — Corbynism without Corbyn — but they will remain culpable for his actions until then.

Every vote for Labour is a vote for Corbyn. Every leaflet delivered is a two-fingered salute to British Jews. Every door knocked is a declaration: this is who I am and this is my tribe. You can campaign for Labour and vote for Labour without being an anti-Semite but in doing either you announce that you have reached an accommodation with anti-Semitism. Colluding in the organisation of politics against the Jews is worth it to get the railways renationalised.

The Labour party is going to fail the anti-Semitism test and the country might too. (A vote for Labour is a vote for anti-semitism, The Spectator, 29th October 2019)

As you can see, Daisley thinks that Jeremy Corbyn (often nicknamed Jezza) killed the Labour party by becoming its leader in 2015. Obviously, then, Daisley also thinks that Labour was alive and well under the leadership of Tony Blair. You remember Blair, don’t you? He’s the devious narcissist who lied the UK into a disastrous war in Iraq that killed huge numbers of innocent people and that directly led to the rise of the head-choppers and sex-slavers of Islamic State. Blair also nefariously opened Britain’s borders to migrants not just from Eastern Europe, who undercut the wages of Labour’s traditional supporters in the White working-class, but also from the Third World, who set about raping and sexually enslaving the daughters of those traditional Labour supporters.

Porcine punims

Having left office after these crimes, Blair began piling up a vast fortune (now possibly well north of £100 million) as he was rewarded by the greedy and amoral globalists for whom he had worked so hard as prime minister. Jeremy Corbyn resolutely opposed Blair’s Iraq disaster and is not interested in money or material possessions. Yet it’s Corbyn, not Blair, who’s “drenched” in “moral sewage,” and it’s Corbyn, not Blair, who “killed” the Labour party – according to Stephen Daisley. And this brings me to the second gobsmacking I’ve received from Daisley. I looked for photographs of him and found these:

The porcine punim of Stephen Daisley

The porcine punim again

I have never seen a more porcine and less trustworthy punim (which is Yiddish for “face”). And I doubt I ever will. Daisley looks as though he’s in training to play the role of the giant slug-like villain Jabba the Hutt in a remake of one of those old Star Wars movies. But I’m glad Daisley looks like that, because it means his punim is as repulsive as his ideology. I’m no fan of Jeremy Corbyn, believe me. But clearly he’s a far less immoral person than Tony Blair and has been responsible for far less evil in the world. Corbyn opposes war and the military-industrial complex. Blair supports war and has grown rich by working for the military-industrial complex. Read more

What’s good for the Jews? Stephen Miller.

Editorial comment: This article was originally posted on February 8, 2018. I thought that, since Stephen Miller has now been officially outed as a “White nationalist”  by the SPLC it would be a good time to revisit it.

Young right-leaning Jews don’t have many Jewish figures to look up to.  Illustrious elder scholar and “alt right godfather” Paul Gottfried. Taki columnist and revisionist David Cole Stein.  Brilliant neoreactionary thinker and half-Jew Curtis Yarvin (Mencius Moldbug).

But thankfully we now have Stephen Miller, the 32-year old Trump advisor and immigration hard-liner recently blamed by Democratic senators for scuttling their desired amnesty deal for illegal immigrants. Transparently, the Dems are trying to spoil Trump’s relationship with Miller, as they did with Bannon, by insinuating that Miller is pulling Trump’s strings. Of course it is absurd to suggest that Trump is anything but his own man. But Miller is a crucially important figure in the Trump administration and his influence is, from what I can tell, entirely positive for the interest of Americans concerned with mass immigration and the very tangible threat of Europeans and people of European descent becoming minorities in their own countries.

Jews, and Americans overall, need more Stephen Millers. Brash, unafraid, quick-witted, verbally formidable, and unabashedly “America First,” Miller is a powerful spokesman for economic nationalist positions, anti-globalism, and for preserving this country’s original culture and people against the Democratic scheme to flood it with illegal and legal immigrants whose main gift to America will be their reliable Democratic votes in every future election. Miller is roundly despised by the establishment for his positions and rhetoric. Nancy Pelosi has called Miller a “White supremacist,” while others on the left have compared him to Joseph Goebbels. He’s the only Jew I can think of offhand that the mainstream media actively encourages the country to hate.

But we Jews should be honest: for every mensch like Miller, we have shmucks like  Tim Wise, Noel Ignatiev, Rob Reiner, Charles Schumer, and thousands of other high-profile Jews who seem to hate or fear White Christian Americans and seek to hasten their demise as the ethnic majority of this country. Yes, we Jews have Miller, but we also have the ADL and the SPLC — powerful well-funded groups who conduct witch hunts against anyone who dares speak out against multiculturalism, open-borders, globalist doctrine, or who dares to criticize Jews. Jewish political influence in the US is still overwhelmingly negative, despite the great work of a few good Jews.

As an American (first) and Jew (second) who supports Trump and Trumpism, the European New Right, and anyone concerned with the long-term impacts of mass immigration, I want to see more Jews, particularly younger, Generation Z Jews move to our ideological side. I have tried to explore my own motivations for this. Why do I find myself so far to the Right on the issue of immigration and of protecting European cultures and peoples?   Why do I hope other Jews follow me on this ideological journey?  And there is growing indication they are. Read more