General

The Sexually Depraved Antisemite

/3 Comments/in /by

I was thinking that the tired and bankrupt psychoanalytic approach to anti-Semitism had died a natural death, but it’s still prancing around, confident as ever. As always, the advantage of psychoanalysis for Jewish theorists of anti-Semitism is that it is infinitely malleable and can be used to argue anything, as with the Frankfurt School who managed to morph confident, loving parents into instigators of anti-Semitism in their children. I review several other psychoanalytic theories of anti-Semitism in The Culture of Critique, ranging from the ridiculous to the absurd—or is it the other way around?. Always with no empirical basis and of course Boteach (“America’s rabbi”) would never consider that Jewish behavior had anything to do with why people often dislike Jews. Ask a Palestinian whose family has been genocided in Gaza or their property expropriated on the West Bank.

The Sexually Depraved Antisemite

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach
Jan 04, 2026

Erotic Psychosis and the Roots of Modern Jew-Hatred

I’m feverishly writing my newest and 37th book, Kosher Sex for Antisemites. I hope to publish it quickly, within a month or two, God willing.

For those who need convincing that sexual depravity and repression are at the very heart of antisemitism, here is a somewhat comprehensive overview. And it explains why the worst of the emerging modern antisemites – from Candace Owens to Tucker Carlson, from Nick Fuentes to Dan Bilzerian, from Andrew Tate to Kanye West, and so on and so on, all evince, have discussed, have condemned, or have been accused, of extreme sexual decrepitude or engage in constant sexual condemnation, especially of my international best-selling book Kosher Sex or my daughter Chana’s company of the same name.

Sexual repression and sexual unease are at very root of antisemitism, racism, and bigotry. Let’s dive deeper.

Psychologists and historians have long observed a link between sexual repression and extremist hatred. The premise is that unresolved or deviant sexual urges can be “sublimated” into aggression toward scapegoated groups. In other words, sexual psychosis – extreme anxiety, perversion, or obsession around sex – often finds an outlet in hatred of an “other.” We now explore how repressive attitudes toward sex, women, and desire have fueled antisemitism and other hatreds throughout history. From medieval clergymen demonizing lust and Jews in the same breath, to modern totalitarian and fundamentalist regimes obsessively policing sexuality, we will see a recurring pattern. The case studies range from Adolf Hitler’s perverse relationship with his niece to the Taliban’s draconian dress codes. Each example illustrates how twisted sexual psychology and misogyny have contributed to history’s worst outbreaks of antisemitism and group hatred.

Ancient and Medieval Foundations: Demonizing Sex and the “Other”

Hostility toward sexuality is deeply ingrained in the Western religious tradition, and it often went hand in hand with demonizing outsiders. Early Church Fathers painted women as dangerous seductresses allied with the Devil. As one analysis notes, “the Church Fathers demonized all women as agents of the Devil” – Eve’s weakness made her the devil’s gateway, and thus all women were viewed as potential temptresses leading men to sin. In medieval Christendom, this paranoia about female sexuality fused with antisemitism. Church art and sermons frequently linked Jews and women as demonic figures undermining Christian society. Medieval Christians imagined both witches and Jews attending diabolical “sabbaths” and committing obscene acts with Satan. Misogyny and Jew-hatred thus shared a common root: fear of carnal sin and the need to blame someone for it.

One striking symbol of this overlap is the depiction of Ecclesia and Synagoga in Gothic cathedrals. The Church (Ecclesia) is shown as a virtuous crowned woman, while the Synagogue (symbolizing Judaism) appears as a defeated female figure – often blindfolded with a broken staff. The blindfold and fallen posture signified Jews’ supposed spiritual blindness and moral corruption. Notably, both are female figures, reflecting how medieval Christians feminized Judaism as a lustful, fallen woman. Such imagery sent a clear message: false religion (Judaism) and uncontrolled female sexuality were twin evils. By portraying Jews as morally weak “daughters of Eve,” medieval society justified harsh measures against them. This climate of sexual fear fed blood libel myths – accusing Jews of ritually killing Christian children and using their blood for their Passover matzo – and other paranoid fantasies, all rife with the language of impurity and defilement.

The medieval Catholic Church further institutionalized this mindset by equating piety with celibacy and bodily denial. Natural sexual desire was cast as sinful unless strictly controlled for procreation. Church authorities relentlessly warned that lust could doom one’s soul – and by extension, the community’s salvation. This obsession with purity found scapegoats in any group associated with carnal “impurity.” Women, labeled daughters of Eve, were obvious targets. Jews, seen as the killers of Christ, were likewise cast as agents of the carnal world or even literal partners of Satan. It’s no coincidence that demonology manuals of the Middle Ages often lumped together witches (almost always women) and Jews as servants of the Devil. In 1494, for example, the Nuremberg Chronicle depicted a monstrous synagogue personified by a woman riding a pig – a vicious slur linking Jewish worship to filthy lust. Such grotesque images reveal how sexual disgust was weaponized into religious and racial hatred.

Repression and Rage in the Inquisition Era

 

By the late medieval and early modern period, anxieties about “impurity” reached fever pitch in institutions like the Spanish Inquisition. The Inquisition enforced rigid Catholic orthodoxy, including sexual morality, through terror. Its leaders, notably Tomás de Torquemada (Grand Inquisitor from 1483–1498), were celibate clerics living in extreme sexual repression. Torquemada himself was rumored to have converso (Jewish-convert) ancestry, and some historians suggest this fueled his zeal to prove his “purity” by persecuting Jews. Under his influence, Spain issued the Alhambra Decree of 1492 expelling all unconverted Jews. The rationale wasn’t only religious but explicitly biological: fear that “impure” Jewish blood would mix with Christian through intermarriage. This is evident in Spain’s first racial laws, the limpieza de sangre (“purity of blood”) statutes, which barred anyone of Jewish descent from many positions. In essence, the Inquisition viewed Jewish lineage like a sexual contamination of Christian society.

Spanish churchmen often framed Jewish practices in lurid sexual terms. They accused secret Jews (crypto-Jews) of indulging in lecherous orgies during Sabbath or of corrupting Christian morals. In reality, many conversos lived ordinary family lives – but inquisitors projected their own morbid fantasies onto these communities. Torture chambers of the Inquisition even had a perverse sexual tinge: prisoners were stripped and physically violated under the guise of extracting confessions. This state-sanctioned sadism targeted heretics, witches, and Jews alike. Notably, the same era that saw mass trials of Jews also saw witch-hunts that burned thousands of women. Both phenomena sprang from the same source – a pathological fear of sexuality and an urge to purge society of imagined “pollution.” The Inquisition’s violence thus embodies how institutional repression of sex can mutate into genocidal hatred.

Martin Luther: Sex, Misogyny, and Anti-Jewish Fury

 

The Protestant Reformation did little to temper these dark undercurrents – in some ways, it intensified them. Martin Luther (1483–1546), the ex-monk who shattered Catholic celibacy rules by marrying a former nun, had a complex relationship with sex and hatred. On one hand, Luther affirmed marriage and sexual intimacy within it, rejecting Rome’s demand of clerical celibacy. Yet he still absorbed his era’s misogyny and harbored violent loathing toward Jews when they refused to convert to his new church. Luther’s later writings drip with vitriol: he called Jewish synagogues “devil’s houses” and urged faithful Christians to burn them down. His 1543 treatise On the Jews and Their Lies is among history’s most antisemitic documents.

What drove Luther’s anti-Jewish turn? Biographically, Luther struggled as a young monk with intense guilt over sexual thoughts – by his own account, he engaged in self-flagellation and prayer to suppress “carnal lusts.” Such inner turmoil may have predisposed him to harsh judgment of others’ faith and morals. He also equated the “carnality” of the Catholic Church (which he saw in its lavish rituals and corruption) with Jews – an age-old Christian trope. Fascinatingly, Luther at times conflated Jewish women with witches in his imagination. A recent analysis notes Luther’s “overlapping fears” of women and Jews, especially embodied in the figure of the “Jewish witch”. In other words, Luther’s mind linked the two great bogeymen of medieval lore: the seductive woman and the blasphemous Jew. This overlap reinforced his conviction that Jews were agents of the devil’s work – much as misogynist folklore saw witches.

Though Luther’s Reformation ended mandatory celibacy for clergy, it didn’t end repression. Protestant regions were just as eager to police sexuality (fornication, adultery, etc.) and to hunt witches as Catholic ones. In some Lutheran territories, authorities enforced modest dress and harsh punishments for sexual “sin.” Luther’s own sermons thundered against “whoredom” and urged women’s subordination in the home. All of this created a culture where deviating from sexual norms (or religious norms) provoked hysteria. Within that climate, scapegoating Jews as a source of social ills found fertile ground. Luther’s case thus illustrates how even a theological revolution failed to escape the shadow of sexual anxiety and antisemitic tradition. If anything, his disinhibition (after breaking from Rome) made his language toward Jews even more shockingly violent and obscene – as if all the repressed fury had to find a new target once the pope was out of reach.

The Third Reich: Hitler’s Perversion and Purity Obsession

No discussion of hatred and sexual pathology is complete without Adolf Hitler. Hitler and the Nazi regime exemplify sexual repression twisted into genocidal antisemitism. On the surface, Nazi ideology championed “family values” and condemned the decadence of Weimar-era liberalism. The regime outlawed pornography, persecuted homosexuals, and promoted a cult of wholesome Aryan motherhood. But beneath this puritanical facade ran currents of fetishism, hypocrisy, and personal perversion – starting with Hitler himself.

Hitler’s own sexual psychology was deeply troubled. He famously carried on a secret relationship with his half-niece, Geli Raubal, which combined avuncular control, jealousy, and quite possibly incestuous obsession. For over two years in the late 1920s, Hitler kept the much younger Geli as a close companion, living together under the same roof and controlling every move she made. Contemporary accounts and later testimonies suggest the relationship was volatile and unhealthy. Geli grew restive under Hitler’s tyrannical protectiveness – he dictated whom she could befriend or date, even while he himself flirted with other young women. According to friends, their fights were intense, and Geli at times feared Hitler’s rages.

Most disturbingly, multiple sources (including Hitler’s close associates and the testimony of Otto Strasser to U.S. intelligence) indicated that Hitler forced Geli into degrading sexual acts to satisfy his peculiar fetishes. Strasser recounted that Geli described “disgusting” acts demanded by Hitler – things she “had never dreamed could happen,” comparing them to cases from Krafft-Ebing’s Psychopathia Sexualis. In interviews with the OSS in 1943, Strasser divulged specifics: Hitler would make Geli undress and urinate on him as a form of stimulation. Geli reportedly told another confidant that Hitler’s perverted desires “sickened her,” but she complied because she didn’t want to lose his favor. This grotesque picture – a man aroused only by humiliation and dominance – suggests a severely warped sexuality at Hitler’s core. Geli Raubal’s tragic fate, dying of a gunshot wound in 1931 in Hitler’s apartment, widely deemed a suicide under duress, only underscored the pathological nature of Hitler’s intimacy.

Hitler’s sexual impotence and paraphilias dovetailed eerily with his antisemitic fanaticism. In his manifesto Mein Kampf, Hitler repeatedly casts the Jew as a sexual menace. He fulminated that syphilis – the era’s most feared sexually transmitted disease – was a “Jewish” plot to corrupt Aryans. He wrote that “the prostitution of love” and the spread of venereal disease were the result of “Judaization of our life” and the “mammonizing of our mating instinct”, poisoning the blood of German youth. In Hitler’s mind, Jews literally embodied pollution of the pure German body through sex. He railed that even noble families had allowed “any department store Jewess” to bear their children – a “sin against blood and race” that he called “the original sin of the world”. These are explicitly sexualized accusations: Jews were corrupting Aryan purity by sleeping with them, introducing financial motives into marriage, and spreading disease. Hitler’s fixation on racial purity was at heart an extreme sexual anxiety projected onto an entire people.

It is telling that Hitler’s trusted propaganda chief in Nuremberg, Julius Streicher, was himself a sexually deranged personality and pervert. Streicher’s newspaper Der Stürmer specialized in pornographic antisemitism – it printed lurid cartoons of Jewish men molesting blonde German maidens and grotesque tales of Jewish sexual crimes. Streicher seemed obsessed with sexual depravity, to the point that even fellow Nazis found him repulsive. By 1940 his reputation as a “corrupt, sadistic sexual pervert” had become an embarrassment. After the war, at the Nuremberg Trials prison, Streicher would make lewd comments to female staff and even washed his face in the toilet bowl – earning him the moniker “the dirty old man” of the Nazi prisoners. A prison doctor wondered whether Streicher’s “lewd sexual perversions and rabid anti-Semitic writings” sprang from the same diseased mind. Indeed, the pattern of the sexually depraved anti-Semite recurred in Nazi ranks. Another infamous example was Ilse Koch, the “Bitch of Buchenwald,” who was notorious for sexual sadism toward camp inmates. The Nazi movement thrived on projecting its own covert lusts and vices onto Jews as an “evil” to be eradicated.

In Nazi ideology and policy, this translated to concrete sexual persecution. The Nuremberg Race Laws of 1935 criminalized intercourse or marriage between Jews and “Aryans” as Rassenschande (“racial shame”). Propaganda like the film Jud Süß (1940) revolved around the trope of a lecherous Jew preying on a German woman, reinforcing the fear of Jewish sexual predation. Meanwhile, Hitler’s regime promoted early marriage and childbearing for “pure” Germans, but also enforced sterilization of those deemed genetically or morally unfit (including sexual “deviants”). Any non-conforming sexuality – from homosexuality to interracial relations – was harshly punished, always under the pretext of protecting the Volk’s purity. In sum, the Nazi war on the Jews cannot be separated from this sexual panic. As psychoanalysts observed at the time, Hitler’s personal impotent rage was writ large as state policy: an entire genocide grounded partly in terror of “impure” sex. Hitler’s own words tie it together chillingly: “Sin against blood and race is the original sin”. He was, in effect, sacralizing sexual purity – and sentencing millions to death for allegedly violating it.

Islamist Extremism: The Veil, the Whip, and the Enemy

In more recent times, we see similar dynamics in religious fundamentalist movements, particularly Islamist extremism. Groups like Iran’s Islamic Republic, Hamas, and the Taliban combine virulent hatred (often including antisemitism) with obsessive control of sexuality and women’s bodies. Their ideologies make female modesty and sexual morality a pillar of identity – as important as, if not inseparable from, their enmity toward Jews or “infidels.”

Iran under Khomeini: Purity and Persecution

After the 1979 Iranian Revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini established a theocracy that harshly polices personal behavior. Khomeini and his clerics developed an almost surreal focus on sexual “sin.” In his writings and sermons, Khomeini issued detailed pronouncements on sexual matters ranging from marital relations to bizarre hypotheticals about bestiality and incest. For example, in a 1961 legal manual, he calmly ruled on scenarios like: “If a man sodomizes the son, brother, or father of his wife after their marriage, the marriage remains valid”. He even addressed intercourse with animals: “If a person has intercourse with a cow, a sheep, or a camel…”, describing how it would render the animal’s milk impure. Such fixation on sexual minutiae earned the post-revolutionary regime a reputation for hypocrisy and prudish absurdity. As one commentator put it, “in the Islamic Republic of Iran all politics may not be sexual, but all sex is political.”

This extreme sexual puritanism went hand in hand with fierce antisemitism and anti-Westernism in Iran’s official ideology. The hijab (veil) was made compulsory for all women – not just as a religious rule, but as a revolutionary symbol. In fact, Iranian officials often cite the hijab as one of the regime’s three core ideological pillars, alongside opposition to the United States and Israel. The message is stark: if the veil were removed, the entire Islamic Revolution’s integrity (including its stance against Israel) would collapse. Khomeini regularly referred to America as the “Great Satan” and Israel as the “Little Satan,” casting the political struggle in religious terms loaded with moral disgust. The regime’s propaganda frequently depicts Israel (and Jews by extension) as a corrupter of Islamic values – spreading immorality, drink, and unveilings. In this narrative, defending Islamic sexual morality (e.g. strict gender segregation, modest dress, no LGBTQ tolerance) is part of defending the ummah (Muslim community) against Jewish and Western plots.

Iran’s theocracy has enforced its sexual code with brutality reminiscent of the Inquisition. Morality police patrols have beaten or arrested women for a wisp of hair showing, and courts have ordered floggings and even stoning for adultery. In recent years, brave Iranian women’s protests against forced hijab have been met with incarceration and violence. Meanwhile, state media spews Holocaust denial and antisemitic conspiracy theories, blaming social ills on unseen Zionist puppeteers. The psychological interplay is clear: to maintain an iron grip on sexuality, a regime needs internal and external enemies to blame for any cracks. If youths are tempted by Western music or premarital relationships, it must be the “Zionists” corrupting them via the internet or satellite TV. This convenient scapegoating sustains both the sexual repression and the hatred. As journalist Maziar Bahari observed, Iran’s recent turmoil is “the culmination of 60 years of sexual suppression by Ayatollah Khomeini” – repression that bred such frustration that it’s now boiling over.

Hamas: Demonizing Sex and the Jew

In the Palestinian arena, Hamas presents another case where institutional misogyny and antisemitism co-exist. Hamas’s 1988 founding charter is explicitly antisemitic, quoting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and describing an eternal struggle against the Jews. In the same document, Hamas delineates a strictly traditional role for women: they are to be the homemakers and child-rearers of the Islamic nation. The charter extols Muslim women primarily because they “manufacture men” – i.e. produce sons – and guide the next generation. This language reduces women to vessels of reproduction for the cause, stripping them of individual agency. It is a worldview that fears female sexuality unless it is tightly controlled and harnessed for the collective.

After seizing power in Gaza in 2007, Hamas incrementally imposed its moral code on the population. By 2009, it launched a self-described “virtue” campaign to curb “immoral” behavior in Gaza. Armed Hamas police would stop couples in public to verify they were married or related, and they even beat young men for swimming shirtless on the beach. That year, Hamas authorities also began enforcing Islamic dress on women and schoolgirls. Human rights monitors reported that school administrators, under Hamas orders, turned away female students not wearing a hijab and full-length robe; in one case a schoolgirl was slapped by the administrator for not wearing the jilbab (long gown). Women in Gaza suddenly found themselves policed in their clothing, segregated in schools (Hamas passed a law in 2013 mandating gender segregation even in co-ed institutions), and publicly shamed for any perceived un-Islamic behavior.

This Islamist modesty drive exists alongside Hamas’s intense propaganda against Jews and Israel. To Hamas, there is a cosmic battle between Islamic virtue and the “degenerate” influence of the Jewish state. Israeli society is portrayed as morally corrupt – secular, permissive, full of unveiled women – in contrast to Gaza’s supposedly pious resistance society. Some Hamas preachers have gone so far as to blame plagues on women’s behavior; for example, a Hamas-affiliated columnist absurdly claimed that Palestinian women’s immodesty was responsible for the spread of swine flu in 2009. By castigating women for disease, they redirected public anger toward “moral failures” rather than government shortcomings – a tactic familiar from medieval scapegoating. And by extension, the Jew (or Zionist) lurks behind the moral failures, egging on the society to abandon its purity. Indeed, Hamas’s literature often asserts that Western and Zionist forces deliberately spread pornography, drugs, and liberal ideas to undermine Muslim communities. Thus, cracking down on social vices is packaged as part of the anti-Israel resistance.

The Taliban and Others: The War on Women = War on Enemies

Perhaps the starkest modern example of institutional sexual psychosis is the Taliban in Afghanistan. Although the Taliban’s main ideological enemy has been the West (and internal dissenters), they share the jihadist antisemitic worldview common to Islamist extremists. More importantly, their treatment of women is illustrative. During their regime (1996–2001 and again since 2021), the Taliban imposed one of the most draconian gender apartheid systems in history. They forced women to wear the burqa, a head-to-toe shroud with mesh over the eyes. Girls were banned from attending school past puberty, and women were not allowed to work or even leave home without a male guardian. Any deviation was met with public floggings or executions – stadium spectacles were held where “adulteresses” were shot in the head or whipped. In their twisted interpretation, female visibility and education were threats to the moral order.

This pathological misogyny correlates with the Taliban’s embrace of violent jihad. Their fighters, cloistered away from any normal interaction with women, are promised 72 virgins in paradise if they martyr themselves – a fantasy that exploits their sexual deprivation. The demonic bargain of sex in exchange for murder is startling. The Taliban and similar groups (like Boko Haram in Nigeria) frame their war in terms of protecting their women’s honor from infidel influence. It’s notable that when the Taliban conquered territory, one of the first things they often did was destroy anything deemed “immoral” – they smashed televisions (to prevent Western images), banned music and dancing, and beat men who didn’t grow beards (to enforce a stern, ascetic image). This puritanical zeal is inextricably linked to their hostility toward all outsiders. In their rhetoric, Westerners and Jews (often conflated in conspiracy theories) are seeking to defile Muslim women and pollute Islamic culture. So long as a woman’s ankle is considered an existential threat, the mentality that justifies massacring perceived enemies is easily sustained.

Other secular tyrannies have also exhibited sexual pathology in service of hate – from Stalin’s purges (accompanied by a prudish public line on sexuality) to certain elements of the alt-right today (which blends neo-Nazi antisemitism with toxic masculinity and hatred of feminism). Across cultures, there is a recurring profile: the man (it is almost always men) who cannot handle women’s autonomy or his own desires, and who finds release by lashing out at another group. The incel (involuntarily celibate) subculture, for instance, has bred terrorists who target women and also echo white-supremacist, often antisemitic, talking points. These are modern manifestations of an ancient syndrome.

The Perils of Repression

History’s worst fanatics, racists, and especially antisemites were not merely ideologues in a vacuum – they were humans with private demons, often centered on sex. Whether it was a celibate monk like Torquemada compensating for fleshly temptations by punishing Jews, or Hitler projecting his impotent rage onto an entire race, the pattern is disturbingly clear. Sexual psychosis breeds hatred. When natural desires are twisted into guilt, fear, or obsession, they seek a scapegoat. Women, as the bearers of sexuality, and Jews, as the eternal “outsider,” have been frequent targets. The examples in this chapter have shown how controlling women’s bodies and demonizing sexual freedom go hand in hand with violent antisemitism and bigotry:

  • Medieval clergy vilified women’s lust and cast Jews as devils, merging misogyny and antisemitism into a single demonology.
  • Inquisitors and reformers enforced chastity and piety while unleashing fury on “impure” heretics and Jews.
  • Nazi leaders thundered against sexual “degeneracy” and fantasized Jews as sexual predators, even as their own sexual perversions festered.
  • slamist regimes and militias obsess over veils, virginity, and virtue, elevating the control of female sexuality to an ideological pillar on par with hatred of Israel and the West.
None of this is to say that all hate is reducible to sex – economic, political, and theological factors obviously play roles. But it is a striking through-line: those who preach the most hate often also preach the most repressive sexual morals, and their personal lives frequently betray hidden obsessions or dysfunctions. Understanding this connection can help us recognize that antisemitism and misogyny are two heads of the same monster.

In our own time, combating hate requires more than challenging an ideology in abstract. It may also require shining light on the human aspects – the fears, shames, and frustrations – that extremists twist into fuel for hate. Healthy attitudes toward sex and women, openness and education, might undercut the psychological root that makes a young man susceptible to blaming Jews for his own woes. As the cases here demonstrate, societies that celebrate life, love, and equality tend to be inoculated against the virus of violent hate. In contrast, societies (or subcultures) that repress and deny the vital part of human nature that is sexuality often breed monsters in the dark. It is an enduring lesson.

When Eros (love) is shackled, Thanatos (death) is unleashed – a lesson written in the blood of history from Geli Raubal’s Munich apartment to the streets of Tehran and Gaza.

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, widely known as “America’s Rabbi”, is one of the world’s most recognized and influential Jewish voices. A bestselling author, award-winning columnist, global human rights advocate, and dynamic public speaker, he has dedicated his life to spreading Jewish values, defending the Jewish people, and championing universal human dignity. The international bestselling author of 36 books that have been translated into multiple languages and sold millions of copies worldwide, his works—including Kosher Sex, Kosher Adultery, The Kosher Sutra, and Kosher Hate—blend timeless Jewish wisdom with modern relevance, challenging readers to rethink love, intimacy, ethics, and spiritual life. His writings are known for their boldness, accessibility, and unapologetic defense of morality in the modern age. In 2000, Rabbi Shmuley became the only rabbi to win The Times of London’s prestigious “Preacher of the Year” competition, and remains the record-holder to this day. He has also been honored with the American Jewish Press Association’s highest award for excellence in commentary, cementing his reputation as one of the foremost Jewish communicators in the world. Follow him on Instagram and X @RabbiShmuley.

Crippling the King: Leftism in the Light of a Consciocentric Classic

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Dystopian novel? No! Instruction manual? Yes! Those two questions are about George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949). The two answers are from the kind of people Orwell was satirizing in the novel. Britain presently has a government full of people like that. It’s the Labour government of the gray grasper Keir Starmer, the Black buffoon David Lammy and the hectoring harpy Jess Phillips. Are those three in politics because they love Truth, Goodness and Beauty? No! Are they in politics to pursue and abuse power? Yes!

Gray grasper, Black buffoon, hectoring harpy: the Labour leftists Keir Starmer, David Lammy and Jess Phillips

Power is what truly interests and motivates those at the top of the left. That’s why leftists have been so successful in co-opting and corrupting so many institutions, from the media to the universities, from the Church to the military. Leftists are unburdened by any concern for truth, logic or reality, by any need to fulfil their promises or benefit those they claim to care about. Take the British Labour party. It was founded, as its very name proclaims, to champion and protect the working-class. But the Labour grandee Roy Hattersley has openly boasted that in the 1960s he refused to work for what “a clear majority of my [working-class] constituents, and most of the country, undoubtedly wanted — the repatriation of all [non-White] immigrants.” And the Labour grandee Maurice Glasman has openly lamented “a terrible situation where a Labour government was hostile to the English working-class” in the 1990s. Yes, it was a terrible situation. But it was also an Orwellian situation:

Even the names of the four Ministries by which we are governed exhibit a sort of impudence in their deliberate reversal of the facts. The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. (Nineteen Eighty Four, Part 3, chapter 9)

In modern Britain, the Labour party is “hostile to the working-class,” the Conservative party seeks to destroy, not to conserve, and the Liberal-Democrats believe neither in freedom nor in democracy. That’s Orwellian. A novel first published in 1949 is still fully relevant to British politics in 2026. Why so? Because the kind of leftists Orwell was satirizing back then are still around right now. They love power and hate Truth, Beauty and Goodness. But what is the point of power for leftists? Here is the answer supplied in Orwell’s novel by the inquisitor O’Brien as he tortures and lectures the protagonist Winston Smith in the perma-lit cellars of the Ministry of Love:

[O’Brien said:] “The real power, the power we have to fight for night and day, is not power over things, but over men.”

He paused, and for a moment assumed again his air of a schoolmaster questioning a promising pupil: “How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?”

Winston thought. “By making him suffer,” he said.

“Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.” (Nineteen Eighty Four, Part 3, chapter 3)

There’s a shorter way of saying all that: Power is about crippling the King. But who is the King? I’m not talking about Chuck the Cuck or Elvis or any other mundane and material monarch. Instead, I’m talking about the King of the Universe. But I’m not talking about Jesus either. No, I’m talking about this King:

The most important thing in the universe can’t be seen, touched, tasted, smelt or heard. No scientific instrument can detect it or measure it. Indeed, everything that science knows and understands about it could be written on the full stop at the end of this sentence. Then again, from the scientific point of view there is no reason whatsoever for it to exist. The universe could — and for billions of years seemingly did — get along perfectly well without it. What is it? It’s consciousness, of course. Without it, you have nothing. With it, you have everything — the myriad sights, sounds, scents, sensations of human existence. All the thoughts and emotions. And the ability to transcend the material. Consider this example of simple logic: If A = B and B = C, then A = C. Such logic applies throughout space and time, although its enactment within your brain occupies a mere speck of space and blink of time. (“Magnissimum Mysterium: Pondering a Huge but Hidden Factor in Politics and White Nationalism,” The Occidental Observer, 19th February 2022)

All of that is why I insist that Consciousness is King. And the crippling of consciousness is, I’d suggest, the central theme of Nineteen Eighty-Four, which is what I’d call a consciocentric classic. That’s why O’Brien proclaims this leftist lie there: “Nothing exists except through human consciousness.” (Op. cit., Part Three, chapter 3) Nineteen Eighty-Four is centered on consciousness and on the second of what are, for human beings, two of the most significant things about consciousness. The first is that we can’t ever explain it in ourselves. The second is we can easily alter it in others. For me, the most interesting and important of all philosophical and scientific questions is this: “How does consciousness work?” But that question is interesting in part because, so far, it’s been intractable. Trying to explain consciousness is like trying to kiss the sun. Anyone can try it, but no-one is going to succeed. Consciousness is at once the most intimate and most elusive phenomenon in the universe. We’ve all got it (or have we?), but no-one has come within a million light-years of explaining it.

The voice and the voyeurism

But if no-one can explain consciousness, anyone can alter it, both in themself and in others. I’m altering your consciousness right now through the medium of language. But if you want, you can turn me off, as it were. You can stop reading and never give my blathering another thought. That isn’t true in Nineteen Eighty-Four. Ordinary citizens can never turn off the blathering of the Party. Or escape its gaze:

The flat was seven flights up, and Winston, who was thirty-nine and had a varicose ulcer above his right ankle, went slowly, resting several times on the way. On each landing, opposite the lift-shaft, the poster with the enormous face gazed from the wall. It was one of those pictures which are so contrived that the eyes follow you about when you move. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, the caption beneath it ran.

Inside the flat a fruity voice was reading out a list of figures which had something to do with the production of pig-iron. The voice came from an oblong metal plaque like a dulled mirror which formed part of the surface of the right-hand wall. Winston turned a switch and the voice sank somewhat, though the words were still distinguishable. The instrument (the telescreen, it was called) could be dimmed, but there was no way of shutting it off completely. (Nineteen Eighty Four, Part 1, chapter 1)

In Nineteen Eighty-Four, you can’t turn off the voice of the Party and you can’t escape the voyeurism of the Party. In other words, the Party is always in your consciousness. That’s where egomaniacs and megalomaniacs want to be: always at the center of your world just as they are always at the center of their own. Jews and “transwomen” are like that, which is part of why Jews and translunatics are so prominent in leftism despite being such small minorities. The narcissism and vengefulness of Jews and translunatics are also things that those two groups pursue through leftism. The original Narcissus merely wanted to gaze on his own face in adoration. The narcissists named after him want you to gaze at adoration at their faces too. And if you don’t gaze, if you don’t accept their adorability, they want to punish you. In other words, they want to cripple your King — to permanently mar and mark your consciousness. That’s what the Party does to Winston in Nineteen Eighty-Four:

“Do not imagine that you will save yourself, Winston, however completely you surrender to us. No one who has once gone astray is ever spared. And even if we chose to let you live out the natural term of your life, still you would never escape from us. What happens to you here is for ever. Understand that in advance. We shall crush you down to the point from which there is no coming back. Things will happen to you from which you could not recover, if you lived a thousand years. Never again will you be capable of ordinary human feeling. Everything will be dead inside you. Never again will you be capable of love, or friendship, or joy of living, or laughter, or curiosity, or courage, or integrity. You will be hollow. We shall squeeze you empty, and then we shall fill you with ourselves.” (Nineteen Eighty Four, Part 3, chapter 2)

In short, O’Brien is telling Winston that the Party will cripple his King. When O’Brien says “you,” he means “your consciousness.” The Party will always be in Winston’s thoughts, always fouling his emotions — always be part of his consciousness. And Winston could never have escaped that fate, because he is in effect playing a role chosen for him by the Party, which was aware of his rebellion from the very beginning. Indeed, there are hints in the novel that he’s been hypnotized into heresy, that the Party has written a script for him to read just as it’s prepared a stage for him to act on and be secretly filmed and photographed on.[1] Winston thinks that he’s found a private room without a telescreen where he and his fellow rebel Julia can live and love away from the Party’s control and the Party’s scrutiny, even if only for a few months. But in reality the room is a trap prepared for them by the Party. And at one point the Party sardonically inserts itself into Winston’s consciousness there, gloatingly foretelling what awaits him at the Ministry of Love:

[Julia] suddenly twisted herself over in the bed, seized a shoe from the floor, and sent it hurtling into the corner with a boyish jerk of her arm, exactly as he had seen her fling the dictionary at Goldstein, that morning during the Two Minutes Hate.

“What was it?” he said in surprise.

“A rat. I saw him stick his beastly nose out of the wainscoting. There’s a hole down there. I gave him a good fright, anyway.”

“Rats!” murmured Winston. “In this room!”

“They’re all over the place,” said Julia indifferently as she lay down again. “We’ve even got them in the kitchen at the hostel. Some parts of London are swarming with them. Did you know they attack children? Yes, they do. In some of these streets a woman daren’t leave a baby alone for two minutes. It’s the great huge brown ones that do it. And the nasty thing is that the brutes always——”

“Don’t go on!” said Winston, with his eyes tightly shut.

“Dearest! You’ve gone quite pale. What’s the matter? Do they make you feel sick?”

“Of all horrors in the world — a rat!” (Nineteen Eighty Four, Part 2, chapter 4)

Yet it wasn’t a real rat or a real hole: it was a member of the Thought Police wiggling a toy rat through a fake hole. The Party was in Winston’s consciousness, but he wasn’t conscious that it was the Party. That kind of game with consciousness — “I know what this really means, but you don’t” — appeals to a certain psychology. It’s both sardonic and sadistic. Blacks working in restaurants and similar places play that game when they contaminate the food of Whites with spittle, mucus, urine and feces: “We know that this is more than food, you honky mofos, but you don’t!”[2] And Jews played the game when they secretly rigged explosives in the pagers used by members of Hezbollah in Lebanon: “We know that these are more than pagers, you anti-Semitic scum, but you don’t!” It’s debatable whether the booby-trapped pagers were a legitimate tactic of war. It isn’t debatable whether Israelis and their supporters took sadistic pleasure in the slyness and cunning whereby Israel mutilated and maimed its enemies. They certainly did take sadistic pleasure in it and the psychology of that sadism is explained in Nineteen Eighty-Four.

So is the psychology — and sadism — of the surveillance state. Early on Winston ponders the three chutzpah-laden slogans of the Party: “WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.” After that:

He took a twenty-five cent piece out of his pocket. There, too, in tiny clear lettering, the same slogans were inscribed, and on the other face of the coin the head of Big Brother. Even from the coin the eyes pursued you. On coins, on stamps, on the covers of books, on banners, on posters, and on the wrappings of a cigarette packet — everywhere. Always the eyes watching you and the voice enveloping you. Asleep or awake, working or eating, indoors or out of doors, in the bath or in bed — no escape. Nothing was your own except the few cubic centimetres inside your skull. (Nineteen Eighty Four, Part 1, chapter 2)

The Party is always in Winston’s consciousness, always watching him, always speaking to him. But he clings to the hope that Die Gedanken sind frei — “Thoughts are free.” As he will later learn, he’s wrong about that. The Party can get inside his skull too, can inflict pain on him not just indirectly, through his peripheral nerves, but also by directly interfering with the working of his brain:

Without any warning except a slight movement of O’Brien’s hand, a wave of pain flooded [Winston’s] body. It was a frightening pain, because he could not see what was happening, and he had the feeling that some mortal injury was being done to him. He did not know whether the thing was really happening, or whether the effect was electrically produced; but his body was being wrenched out of shape, the joints were being slowly torn apart. Although the pain had brought the sweat out on his forehead, the worst of all was the fear that his backbone was about to snap. He set his teeth and breathed hard through his nose, trying to keep silent as long as possible.

“You are afraid,” said O’Brien, watching his face, “that in another moment something is going to break. Your especial fear is that it will be your backbone. You have a vivid mental picture of the vertebrae snapping apart and the spinal fluid dripping out of them. That is what you are thinking, is it not, Winston?” (Nineteen Eighty Four, Part 3, chapter 2)

It wasn’t “really happening”: it was being “electrically produced.” O’Brien knows about the “vivid mental picture” because he put it into Winston’s head with the torture-machine he’s operating. Even more frightening in some ways is the mind-alteration machine O’Brien later uses. It can make Winston see four fingers as somehow five fingers, make him believe that the lunatic lies of the Party are luminous truths. I’ve written about that machine previously at the Occidental Observer, when I discussed the Jewish psychologists Amy R. Krosch and Sheldon Solomon.[3] I said that they and countless other leftists “would be delighted to use a mind-alteration machine against thought-criminals like those who write for and read the Occidental Observer.”

Amy R. Krosch and her krusading komrades “Catherine” Wall and Stephanie Tepper, whose “research interests holistically focus on bias and prejudice” and on “high-level social inequalities”[4] (images from Krosch Lab)

At present leftists can’t use mind-machines like that, but they can certainly try to alter your mind — to cripple your consciousness — in other ways. We are entering dark and difficult days, as the lunacies and lies of leftism begin to bear the poisonous fruit of societal collapse and civil war. Open conflict may soon begin between Whites and the incompatible, unassimilable racial and religious groups imported by the left to wage war on Whites and the West. But part of that war has always been waged against the minds of Whites. They want to cripple your King, to contaminate and corrupt your consciousness. O’Brien proclaims this in that consciocentric classic Nineteen Eighty-Four: “Nothing exists except through human consciousness.” That is a leftist lie, because there is an objective reality outside and independent of human consciousness. But O’Brien’s lie is based on an obvious truth: that nothing matters or has value except through consciousness, whether human, animal, alien or divine.[5] Leftists want to inflict their own misery and hatred of existence on healthy, happy Whites. They also want Whites to despair. Don’t let them do it. Don’t let them cripple your King.

Stonetoss offers some excellent advice visually, just as Nick Griffin offers some excellent advice verbally

[1]Years before he rebels, Winston dreams of hearing an unknown voice in a pitch-dark room that tells him: “We shall meet in the place where there is no darkness.” (Op. cit., Part One, chapter 2) He doesn’t understand the words, but the voice is O’Brien’s and alluding to the perma-lit torture-chambers of the Ministry of Love.

[2]This secret contamination by Blacks is a big but under-reported problem in America. I’m sure that it’s also a big but under-reported problem in other countries where Blacks and other non-Whites are serving White customers. Of course, some Whites do it too, both to other Whites and to non-Whites, but disgusting behavior like that is worse in racially mixed and resentment-filled societies.

[3]In the article itself, I said I wasn’t certain that Amy R. Krosch was Jewish. A commenter helpfully pointed out that “Sarah Gunther, Amy Krosch’s civil-law wife, works for the American Jewish World Service and donates to Jewish religious charities.”

[4]  All three of these heresy-sniffing academics are “LGBTQIA,” all three are possibly Jewish, and all three look both crazy and malevolent.

[5]Imagine a physically complex and active universe that does not contain consciousness and of which no consciousness is ever aware (or rather: don’t imagine it). How would such a universe differ from an empty universe or from nothing, pragmatically, phenomenologically and even ontologically speaking? It wouldn’t, I suggest.

Paul Singer, hedge-fund billionaire, bet on a Venezuela-linked oil refiner at just the right time

/0 Comments/in /by

One wonders if Trump’s pro-Israel donors were a major reason for removing Maduro and opening up Venezuela to capitalist vultures like Paul Singer.

Singer is known for making financial contributions to Republican political candidates, including President Donald Trump. Singer and Elliott, which manages $76 billion, also have a well-known track record of making bold and combative bets in South America that have a political dimension.

Singer’s hedge fund famously waged a 15-year battle with Argentina for debt Elliott had bought before and after the country’s default. Elliott and other holdouts emerged victorious in 2016, earning Singer’s hedge fund $2.4 billion — a gain of about 10 to 15 times its original investment, the Wall Street Journal reported at the time.

As Andrew Joyce noted in 2015:

On its most basic level, the practice is really just the same as Jewish involvement in medieval tax farming. On the older practice, Salo Baron writes in Economic History of the Jews that Jewish speculators would pay a lump sum to the treasury before mercilessly turning on the peasantry to obtain “considerable surpluses … if need be, by ruthless methods.”[2] The activities of Elliot Associates are really the same speculation in debt, except here the trade in usury is practiced on a global scale with the feudal peasants of old now replaced with whole nations. The above cartoon refers to the specific activities of Elliot Associates in Congo where it originally bought $32.6 million in sovereign debt incurred by that country for the knockdown price of under $20 million. In 2002 and 2003, a British court (tactically chosen) forced the Congolese government to settle for an estimated $90 million, which included that all-important interest and fees. Elliot Associates rapidly became known as the quintessential “Vulture Fund.” …

The merciless nature of these Jewish vulture funds has provoked some comment, but the general populations of many countries aren’t familiar with enough of the facts to start joining the dots. Nevertheless, this type of financial parasitism has had a devastating impact on a number of nations. A sovereign’s money is technically owned by its citizens. Making the Panamanian, Argentinian, Congolese, Ecuadorian, Polish or Vietnamese government pay for the full value of the debt, plus interest and fees, even as the major creditors accepted a discounted payment, meant handing citizens’ money to a hedge fund rather than investing in, for example, roads, schools, hospitals, clean water projects or social welfare programs.

This hedge-fund billionaire bet on a Venezuela-linked oil refiner at just the right time

An affiliate of Paul Singer’s Elliott Management won an auction for Citgo late last year

Paul Singer speaking at The New York Times DealBook Conference.

Paul Singer has a track record of making bold and combative bets in South America. Photo: Getty Images

  • Amber Energy, an affiliate of Elliott Management, recently won an auction for Citgo Petroleum Corp. with a $5.89 billion bid.

  • Citgo’s assets include three U.S. refineries and other downstream assets, which are suited for Venezuela’s heavy crude.

  • Venezuela’s oil production is currently about 1 million barrels per day, with potential to quickly increase to 1.5 million barrels per day.

Just a few weeks ago, a U.S. hedge-fund manager known for playing the long game in Latin America won a protracted battle for one of Venezuela’s crown jewels. That bet now looks shrewd in light of the American military operation that captured Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, over the weekend.

Amber Energy, an affiliate of Paul Singer’s Elliott Management hedge-fund firm, emerged victorious in late November in an auction for U.S. oil refiner Citgo Petroleum Corp. The refiner is a subsidiary of Venezuela’s state-owned company PDVSA.

The forced auction was a lengthy process that pitted Amber Energy against one other contender, Gold Reserves Ltd., a creditor of Venezuela that had its gold- and copper-mining assets expropriated. The winning bid from the Elliott Management affiliate came in at $5.89 billion, lower than the $7 billion bid from Gold Reserves, but a federal judge in Delaware viewed Elliott’s bid as most likely to close, as it included payments to Venezuela’s creditors. The deal is expected to close this year, lawyers involved in the situation have said.

Citgo’s assets include three U.S. refineries located in Lake Charles, La.; Corpus Christi, Texas; and Lemont, Ill., in addition to pipelines, terminals and other downstream assets. Venezuela has massive oil reserves that mostly consist of heavy, sour crude that U.S. Gulf Coast refineries are historically suited to handle.

Venezuela has seen waves of expropriations, starting in the 2000s under President Hugo Chavez and continuing under Maduro. The country began defaulting on its debt obligations in 2017. A U.S. judge eventually forced an auction of Citgo so the proceeds could flow to creditors of the Venezuelan government.

Analysts at Mizuho said in a note earlier Monday that in a “best possible scenario,” U.S. major oil companies will invest in the infrastructure needed to boost Venezuela’s oil production.

Venezuela is producing about 1 million barrels of oil a day, with Chevron Corp. accounting for some 20% of production, the analysts said. “Production should be able to ramp up to around 1.5 million bpd rather quickly, though it will take significantly longer” to get to the 3.5 million barrels Venezuela was pumping before Chavez’s rise to power in the late 1990s, they said.

U.S. publicly traded refiners such as Valero Energy  were among the top gainers Monday on hopes that their Gulf refineries, and presumably Citgo’s refineries, would stand to gain from the additional Venezuelan oil arriving at their facilities.

Amber Energy and Elliott did not immediately return requests for comment. On its website, Amber says it is “focused on strengthening CITGO’s world-class assets to deliver essential products that power communities and advance America’s energy advantage.”

Singer is known for making financial contributions to Republican political candidates, including President Donald Trump. Singer and Elliott, which manages $76 billion, also have a well-known track record of making bold and combative bets in South America that have a political dimension.

Singer’s hedge fund famously waged a 15-year battle with Argentina for debt Elliott had bought before and after the country’s default. Elliott and other holdouts emerged victorious in 2016, earning Singer’s hedge fund $2.4 billion — a gain of about 10 to 15 times its original investment, the Wall Street Journal reported at the time.

Ronald S. Lauder, head of the World Jewish Congress, is deeply involved in the proposed Trump conquest of Greenland

/1 Comment/in /by

As is typical, Jewish money is central, starting with buying off Greenland’s elite. Lauder, a major Trump donor, was also involved in Jewish activism in Eastern Europe after the fall of communism. As Szilard Csonthegnyi notes in volume 1 of his forthcoming Warfare Through Manipulation: Group Conflict between Jews and Gentiles  (to be published by Antelope Hill):

Billionaire Ronald S. Lauder’s dealings in the financial, political, and media sectors of gentile societies would require its own book to properly detail. First, it should be recalled that from his 1990 $10 million deal he turned 50 percent of the General Banking and Trust Company (Általános Értékforgalmi Bank Rt.), one of prewar Hungary’s “most venerable institutions, over to a group of high-profile businessmen,” including Reichmann (see Bohlen, 1990: 1). But Lauder was also heavily involved in the media scene of Eastern and Central Europe, and elsewhere, especially with his Central European Media Enterprises (CME). Capitalism cracked the walls open for oligarchs like him, or Harry Evans Sloan (founder and head of SBS Broadcasting Group), and Michael Finkelstein, his successor.

 

Mark Wauck: Venezuela Update 1/4/26 w/ Alastair Crooke

/1 Comment/in /by

Since the oil ain’t coming anytime soon & the Chavistas still control Venezuela, what’s the goal? How about getting them to pay off $21B judgment owed by the government? Guess who owns the rights to $21B? The fund of Paul Singer, the Israeli-supporting big Trump donor.

Venezuela Update 1/4/26 w/ Alastair Crooke

Highly recommended: Alistair Crooke’s remarks this morning with Judge Nap—I’ve only really started listening:

Alastair Crooke : Netanyahu Lures Trump Into War with Iran

Here’s the short version of what he’s saying so far.

The Venezuela op basically has many of the earmarks of the Assad op in Syria. In particular, Crooke points to Delcy Rodriguez. While her family has good Bolivarian ties, she herself has close ties to the Venezuelan oil sector and to Qatari families. In fact, we’re hearing that she has been in contact with the Trump regime through the mediation of Qatar (I’ve seen other reports suggesting UAE, but it amounts to something very similar: the Gulf States, who were also involved in the Assad replacement). She’s now making the usual noises about wanting to get along with the West. Crooke also reports that Maduro had a Cuban security detail and that Cuba is stating that they have all been killed.

Yesterday we reported that Venezuela has gold reserves that are currently valued at $22B. Coincidentally, the arbitration judgment that US oil companies got against Venezuela—and you have to ask yourself, what international arbitrator was going to rule against the likes of Chevron—is $21B. But there’s more to that angle:

Robert Barnes @barnes_law

17h

Since the oil ain’t coming anytime soon & the Chavistas still control Venezuela, what’s the goal? How about getting them to pay off $21B judgment owed by the government? Guess who owns the rights to $21B? The fund of Paul Singer, the Israeli-supporting big Trump donor.

So, gold, oil, Jewish Nationalists …

We the People? The Ruling Class is running this, hoping to get to the Midterms.

However, the situation remains unclear. Crooke points to the return to Venezuela (from Cuba, where he was sent by Maduro) of former Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello. Crooke characterizes Cabello as a “very radical, a Budanov figure, a hitman” with strong support in the Venezuelan security and intel services. Nor is it clear that those services are monolithically behind Rodriquez.

This might only be Phase One.

The Judge asks Crooke whether the US is now regarded as a Rogue State that cannot be trusted. Well, that’s been clear enough for some time, but Crooke’s response is: “I think it’s more than that.” Crooke describes a perception of the the US under the Trump regime as “extremely hyper” and that nothing is certain any longer. The example he and the Judge bring up is of Trump stating repeatedly that “we” would “run” Venezuela. That, says Crooke, was not “in the script” before the op. The script was that Delcy Rodriguez would run Venezuela as a sort of cutout for the Deep State and the Ruling Class, so Rubio had to go on the talk shows to try to walk back Trump’s off script statements. Crooke quotes Michael Wolf speaking of “an awkward tension” in Trump “between grandiosity and dementia”. I have to say, I actually did listen to some of the video clips of Trump speaking, and I didn’t think he sounded like Trump 1.0. There was a disquieting tone to his speech.

In this regard we have to be watching Russia, China, and Iran. We have the recent attempted hit on Putin (or the nuclear command bunker, which Crookes stresses), the promise to attack Iran again. The Judge notes that Trump is “a shadow of his former self” in a physical sense—and his policies are now those of Hillary Clinton’s regime change-ism which he formerly attacked vociferously. Russia and China have to be reevaluating all their views on Trump.

Dangerous times are ahead. I’ll close with this very disturbing observation by Crooke that returns to my contention that it’s all connected:

Neither the strategic bomber fleet nor the early warning radars [attacked by the US earlier] nor the command bunker in the compound at Valdai have anything to do with what’s happening in Ukraine. These are all to do about a nuclear war. What is the message, therefore, that CIA is sending? We don’t quite know what the message is. And I don’t think in Moscow they are 100% sure, but [the CIA] seems to be saying:

‘If you’re going to push back against us, Moscow, if you’re going to push back about Iran about Venezuela or anything else, Look: we can take you out. We can hit your strategic bombers. We can hit your radars and we can hit your command center. We’ve just given you a little sample to see that you understand this.’

This is a very worrying message. And I think the sentiment in Moscow that’s coming out–and I’ve seen this very clearly–is:

‘It’s finished. Negotiations are off the page. There’s no point in having negotiations with Trump. It’s just not believable. It’s completely [pointless?]. We just now have to continue our path without negotiations.’

I find this very plausible. I’ve long maintained that Trump is absolutely not seeking peace with Russia or China. He’s seeking victory, and he’s doing it with a mixture of the con, the bluff, and the bully. He’s walking along a nuclear cliff.

Now the Israeli press (says Crooke) is very clear: Trump gave a green light for a new attack on Iran. Crooke, by the way, states that the demonstrators in Iran are coming out “armed”. This is all part of the Anglo-Zionist buildup to war. Crooke warns of a simultaneous attack on Hezbollah and Palestine/West Bank.

We’re being run by madmen and fanatics.

JTA: Venezuela’s acting leader says ‘Zionist undertones’ marked US capture of Maduro

/0 Comments/in /by

Venezuela’s acting leader says ‘Zionist undertones’ marked US capture of Maduro

The accusation drew on years of anti-Israel rhetoric from Caracas.

Venezuela’s acting leader, in an address to the nation on Sunday, said there were “Zionist undertones” to the U.S. military’s capture of President Nicolás Maduro.

Delcy Rodriguez, a vice president under Maduro who is now the interim leader, has demanded the “immediate release” of Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, since they were captured by U.S. forces on Saturday. Maduro and Flores were flown to New York City, where they are expected to appear in federal court on drug-trafficking and other charges on Monday.

“Governments around the world are simply shocked that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is the victim and target of an attack of this nature, which undoubtedly has Zionist undertones,” Rodriguez said in the televised address. “It is truly shameful.”

President Donald Trump doubled down on his assertion that the United States was “in charge” of Venezuela on Sunday night, telling reporters that he demanded “total access” from Rodriguez.

“We need access to the oil and to other things in their country that allow us to rebuild their country,” Trump said.

Rodriguez’s reference to “Zionist” influence echoed past statements by Maduro. The president said that “Zionists” were facilitating Venezuela’s takeover as the United States ramped up its military campaign, including strikes on boats and a naval buildup in the Caribbean Sea, over recent months.

“There are those who want to hand this country over to the devils — you know who, right? The far-right Zionists want to hand this country over to the devils,” Maduro said during a speech in November.

Maduro also blamed “international Zionism” for protests that swept across Venezuela in 2024, after he was accused of stealing the presidential election amid widespread claims of fraud.

Venezuela and Israel have not had formal relations since 2009, when then-President Hugo Chávez cut ties, citing Israel’s conduct during its offensive in Gaza that year. Maduro, like Chavez, is deeply critical of Israel and supportive of Palestinians.

Israeli officials have not publicly responded to Rodriguez’s claim about “Zionist undertones,” but Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu celebrated Maduro’s ouster without naming him on Saturday.

“Congratulations, President @realDonaldTrump for your bold and historic leadership on behalf of freedom and justice. I salute your decisive resolve and the brilliant action of your brave soldiers,” Netanyahu said on X.

Foreign Minister Gideon Saar also praised the U.S. action and said that “Israel stands alongside the freedom-loving Venezuelan people, who have suffered under Maduro’s illegal tyranny.”

Venezuela’s official Jewish community has not yet commented on the operation to remove Maduro. Some 3,000 to 5,000 Jews live in the country, down from a height of about 25,000 in the 1990s. Maduro’s 12-year reign was marked by a protracted economic collapse, exacerbated by U.S. oil sanctions, that drove an exodus of 7.7 million Venezuelans.

The Jewish Democratic Council of America condemned Trump’s actions and attempts to “create regime change” in a statement on Saturday.

“For the overwhelming majority of Jewish American voters, maintaining our democracy is the number one policy priority,” said the group. “The American people do not want — nor did they vote for — unauthorized war with Venezuela, especially not one that circumvents the U.S. Constitution.”

Warren Balogh: Neoliberalism, Venezuela & National Socialism

/12 Comments/in /by

Neoliberalism, Venezuela & National Socialism

Why is Trump going after Venezuela?

Twenty-four years ago, the U.S. attempted its first coup against the Bolivarian revolutionary government of Hugo Chavez. I was 20 years old at the time. This event is well-chronicled in the 2003 documentary, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, which is well worth watching for anyone who doesn’t realize how long U.S. government has been planning regime change in Venezuela.

For background, here is a good article from a socialist website on the neoliberal project in Latin America:

https://socialistworker.org/2018/11/21/how-neoliberalism-vandalized-latin-america

The ravages of neoliberalism are what brought Hugo Chavez to power in the first place. I’m not going to say Bolivarianism is identical to German National Socialism or Italian Fascism, but it has a hell of a lot more in common with both than Reaganism has with either one of them.

The fact is, the population of a country like Venezuela is a New World hodge-podge of Indians, Whites and Blacks (much like USA is rapidly becoming). These countries are partly in the condition they are in, both racially and economically, because they were set up not as nation-states but as colonies for economic exploitation.

Neoliberalism was just a new, worse form of exploitation, because unlike Spanish imperialism (which at least brought some measure of European culture to these lands) this exploitation was purely on behalf of Judeo-American bankers and corporations.

Of course, these countries have plenty of problems. But neoliberalism made all of them worse:

– Privatization: Selling off state-owned enterprises in sectors like energy, health, and education

– Trade Liberalization: Opening economies to international markets and foreign “investment”

– Fiscal Austerity: Cutting public spending, including social programs

– Deregulation: Removing rules on financial markets and labor

The result was, predictably, “significant rise in income inequality, falling wages, job insecurity” and the subversion of democracy by private wealth.

There is nothing National Socialist or Fascist about any of that. Hitler and Mussolini were fighting to free their people from the chains of international bankers, as well as from Bolshevism!

Chavez was not a Bolshevik. He was not an atheist, he identified as a Roman Catholic and as a Christian. While he took inspiration from some Latin American communist leaders such as Fidel Castro, he also identified himself as a Venezuelan nationalist, as well as a socialist.

Venezuela under Chavez had the largest state funding of classical musicians in the hemisphere, and devoted far more resources to developing great classical orchestras and musicians than the United States.

Key Aspects of Classical Music Under Chávez:

Massive Expansion: Chávez’s administration significantly boosted El Sistema, a network of music schools and youth orchestras, aiming to bring classical music education to millions in impoverished areas.

International Acclaim: The Simón Bolívar Youth Orchestra, an El Sistema product, gained global fame, with conductor Gustavo Dudamel becoming a charismatic symbol of its success, performing internationally to sold-out crowds.

Chavez also famously opposed the neocon Iraq War, denounced the 2008-09 Gaza War and hugely strengthened ties with Iran at the same time when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was hosting David Duke for Holocaust revisionist conferences in Iran.

So while it’s not exactly true to say Bolivarianism is the same as National Socialism, it is absolutely true to say the Judeo-capitalist international banker conspiracy based in Wall Street and DC has been trying to destroy Venezuela for decades for much the same reasons they wanted to destroy NS Germany and Fascist Italy.

Bolivarianism was and is a nationalist, socialist response to the attempt to control and exploit Venezuela by international finance and corporations. This is why it’s so incredibly disingenuous for “right-wing influencers” to say this has anything to do with “fighting communism.” You might as well say the Pinkertons who shot down striking steelworkers in Pittsburgh or crushed miners and their families in the coal fields of West Virginia and Kentucky in the early part of the last century were fighting “communism.”

What Trump is trying to impose on Latin America is not some kind of pro-White fascism, but naked dollar imperialism. The biggest economic problems suffered by Venezuela are not the result of any “communist mismanagement” of the country’s resouces, but simply the fact that the U.S. has been waging economic warfare on Venezuela for the past two decades with sanctions and blockades, punishing the country for not opening up their country to international bankers, and for standing up to Israel.

Hitler himself addressed exactly why the U.S. is so hellbent on regime change in Venezuela, and it has nothing to do with Maduro being a dictator:

Yes, Germany was back then a democracy, before us, and we were plundered squeezed and dry. No! What does democracy or authoritarian state mean for those international hyenas? They don’t care at all! They are only interested in one thing. Are you willing to be plundered? Yes or No? Are you stupid enough to keep quiet in the process? Yes or No? And when a democracy Is stupid enough not to stand up, then it is good. But when an authoritarian state declares, ‘you will not plunder our people any longer, neither from the inside or outside!’ Then that is bad.

In reality money rules in these countries. They talk about press freedom, when in fact all these newspapers have one owner, and the owner is in any case the sponsor, this press then shapes public opinion. These political parties don’t have any differences at all, like before with us, you already know the old political parties, they were all the same. Then people must think that especially in these countries of freedom and wealth, there should exist a very comfortable life for its people, but the opposite is the case. In these countries, in the so-called democracies, the people is by no means the main focus of attention. What really matters is the existence of this group of ‘democracy makers,’ that is, the existence of a few hundred of great capitalists, who own all the factories and shares and who ultimately lead the people. They are not interested at all in the great mass of people…. Jews, they are the only ones who can be addressed as international elements, because they conduct their business everywhere. It is a small ruthless international clique, that is turning the people against each other, that does not want them to have peace… They can suppress us! They can kill us, if you like! But we will not capitulate!

If I was a brown Venezuelan, I would fight to the last drop of my blood to keep that exploitative economic model from being imposed on my country again.