Take Maddow’s hilariously extravagant introductions of Melissa Harris-Lacewell, the half-Black, DEI star performer, who has been given one fabulous job after another, few of which pan out after about a year — and who pretty much created the tampon earrings look. (I’ve been on the liberal patronization beat for some time. For the Box Set, go to: LiberalNoblesseOblige.com.)
General
Constantin von Hoffmeister: Trump Crushes Zelensky
The subtitle could be: Trump as alpha male.
Trump Crushes Zelensky
America, shedding the dead skin of a broken empire, sits on its golden throne, and Trump is back in the White House, glowing, omnipotent, carnivorous. Zelensky, the tangled despot of the East, slithers in, eyes hollow, mouth a gaping wound that only money can fill. He reeks of defeat, desperation, the smell of burnt-out cities and NATO-funded body bags. The war has eaten him alive, but he still plays the game, still clings to the American teat like a starving infant.
“If you didn’t have our military equipment,” Trump says, leaning back, fingers interlocked, “if you didn’t have our military equipment, this war would have been over in two weeks.” Smirking. Amused. A cat playing with a half-dead mouse, wondering if it’s even worth the kill. The truth, hard and cold, spills onto the carpet like spilled blood: Ukraine doesn’t matter. Ukraine is a pawn. America deals in interests, not charity.
JD Vance, the golden boy of the Rust Belt, stands beside him, eyes like steel, mouth set in that grim way men have when they know they hold the bigger gun. “Peace,” he says, “is the only path forward.” Zelensky bristles — no, he snarls. Like a cornered hyena. He wants war, because without war, he is nothing. Without war, he fades into the trash heap of forgotten revolutionaries, another puppet left out in the rain.
Trump lets him squirm. He loves it. “You’re gambling with World War Three,” he says, voice thick with knowing. This isn’t a game of ideals. This isn’t good versus evil. This is a numbers game, and Ukraine’s debt is mounting. No more blank checks. No more free weapons. No more bending over for a man who thinks he can lecture the master of the deal.
Carl Schmitt grins from the grave. The sovereign is he who decides the exception. And here is Trump, drawing the line. No more eternal war, no more forced loyalties. America is sovereign, and Ukraine? Ukraine is just another problem to be solved. Friend? Foe? The difference is paper-thin, a contract waiting to be signed or shredded. Zelensky, for all his screaming about democracy and morality, doesn’t understand the game. Doesn’t understand that power is the only truth.
The decision is the event that defines the sovereign. In the clash of nations, there is no morality, only the friend and the enemy. Trump, standing as the sovereign, names the enemy not by ideology but by necessity. Zelensky is the supplicant who mistakes patronage for loyalty, who believes war can be eternal if the right pockets are lined. But the exception has been declared. America retracts its indulgence, and in that moment, Ukraine’s fate is no longer its own. Power is not in pleading but in the ability to decide, to cut, to sever. The world does not belong to those who beg. It belongs to those who dictate the terms.
The meeting doesn’t end — it implodes. No press conference. No handshakes. Just silence, the void of unspoken war. Trump wipes his hands of it. “Come back when you’re ready for peace,” he says. Dismisses him like a bad debt, like a spurned courtesan. Zelensky scurries away, the smell of failure clinging to him.
And the empire moves on.
Vance stands tall. He sees the future. He sees a nation breaking free from its endless self-inflicted wounds. He knows the war machine is a scam, a churn of dollars and dead bodies. He knows America’s strength isn’t in saving broken nations but in protecting its own.
Zelensky? He’ll run back to Europe, plead like a dethroned vassal, gnaw at whatever scraps the EU throws him. Maybe he’ll realize, in the dark corners of his sleepless nights, that the world never owed him anything. Maybe he’ll understand that gratitude and power are the only currencies that matter.
And Trump, still smiling, still towering, still in control, has made the decision. Sovereignty. Power. The exception.
The war, his war, America’s war, will end on his terms.
Or not at all.
Why Russia expelled USAID
Glenn Greenwald interviews Alexandr Dugin: USAID as an instrument of US foreign policy, e.g., funding Ukraine media, corrupting journalists, fomenting color revolutions, etc.
5-minute video
Rachel Maddow’s Very, Very, Very Special Friend
Ann Coulter is definitely not a fan of the Race Lady. Here’s what she wrote for Thanksgiving, 2023. Takeaways:
You were admitted to Harvard with SAT scores that would have gotten an Asian kid disowned by his parents. People try harder to laugh at your excruciating jokes than they would for a male of any race.
The current article:
To the eternal misfortune of Black Americans, the left decided to take them as pets, then patronize them to death.
I gotta admit, Joy Reid was indeed blindsided when she was fired from MSNBC this week. How could she possibly have seen this cancellation coming? Sure, by the end, she was down to 11 actual viewers nationwide, eight of them in hospital ICUs, their charts indicating coma protocol.
Of her remaining three viewers, one was a gentleman named Nelson, sitting in a Detroit gastropub, who kept screaming at the bartender, “What is this shit? Dude, turn the f-ing channel. Damn! Bitch crazy.”
Data seem to indicate that the remaining two viewers were at a Frontier Airlines departure gate, where “The ReidOut” was being broadcast without sound. It’s unclear whether these two were traveling as a couple or did not, in fact, know each other.
But how was Joy to deduce from all this that her show was in trouble?
Fortunately for Joy, there is no truer Friend-of-Black-People than her erstwhile MSNBC colleague Rachel Maddow, who lives in a town, Cummington, Massachusetts, that is “0.0%” black. (I wouldn’t mention this, except liberals pioneered the art of counting the number of Black faces at any conservative gathering in order to call them racist. Oh, who am I kidding — yes, I would.)
Here are the highlights of Rachel’s self-aggrandizing, on-air tribute to Joy on Monday night:
“[Joy] is leaving the network altogether. That is very, very, very hard to take.
(Do we think three “very’s” is enough? If she really meant it, wouldn’t there be six or seven?)
“In all of the jobs I have had in all of the years I have been alive, there is no colleague for whom I have had more affection and more respect than Joy Reid. I love everything about her. I have learned so much from her. I have so much more to learn from her.”
“(Goddamn it, this may cost me my career but I’m going to speak up for a black person and let chips fall where they may!)”
“Personally, I think it is a bad mistake to let her walk out the door. … ”
(Clarification sought: Did Joy really “walk out the door”? Are we absolutely sure she wasn’t lifted up and dragged to an elevator by security? I guess we’ll have to wait for the Zapruder film.)
In any event, Rachel has spoken. She came down from the mountain with her tablets and made her ass-kissy pronouncement. Perhaps she can take some solace in knowing that one of the Democrats of Color taking over Joy’s time slot, Alicia Menendez, has a father in federal prison.
This is how White liberals talk about Black people, as if there’s a Race Stasi ready to turn them over to authorities if they’re not effusive enough. But Blubberbutt Maddow stands out in a field with stiff competition.
Here are a few standard intros:
“Joining us now is a woman who couldn`t sound stupid if she practiced it for a week, Melissa Harris-Lacewell …”
“Melissa Harris-Lacewell, associate professor of politics and African American studies at Princeton University. You’re wicked smart.”
“Melissa Harris-Lacewell, Princeton professor, MSNBC contributor, of which we are very proud.”
“Melissa Harris-Lacewell, Princeton professor, MSNBC contributor, and one of the smartest people I’ve ever talked to about anything, anytime, anywhere.”
“Every Tuesday, you’ve been doing this to me, Melissa. Every Tuesday my whole adult life.”
She’s such a pro, I can’t believe Rachel forgot to call Harris-Lacewell “articulate.” Black people love that.
For comparison, here’s how Rachel introduces a Qhite guest: “Joining us now is the chair of the Senate Rules Committee, Minnesota Senior Sen. Amy Klobuchar. Senator, it’s great to see you.”
Liberals have leapt way beyond “the soft bigotry of low expectations” and are now showcasing “the suffocating, smug bigotry of wildly, hysterically overpraising average individuals just because they’re Black.” If a straight White male talked to any presentable-looking female on the air like Rachel talks to Black women, he’d end up in HR.
To the eternal misfortune of Black Americans, the left decided to take them as pets, then patronize them to death.
COPYRIGHT 2025 ANN COULTER
Forward: ‘Devastating’—What Germany’s election results mean for Jews
The AfD’s rise isn’t just another ripple in Europe’s growing nationalist tide — it carries deeper echoes of Germany’s past. Some of the party’s leaders have ties to neo-Nazi rhetoric and have downplayed the Holocaust. Perhaps most alarming is the party’s growing support among younger voters, many of whom are increasingly disconnected from the country’s reckoning with its role in World War II.
And it isn’t only in Europe where AfD’s rise echoes, Vice President JD Vance and Elon Musk have both expressed support for the party. …
Germany’s far-right surge is not happening in a vacuum; it’s part of a broader global trend. At a speech in Munich earlier this month, Vance criticized Germany’s mainstream parties for maintaining a “firewall” against the AfD. Musk made headlines by addressing an AfD rally via video, drawing criticism for lending it legitimacy.
forward.com
Benyamin Cohen
Alice Weidel, co-leader of Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, reacts during an election night rally in Berlin. Photo by Ralf Hirschberger/AFP via Getty Images
Germany’s election on Sunday sent a clear, unsettling message with record turnout and a clear anti-immigration pitch. While the center-right Christian Democrats secured victory, it was the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party that delivered the biggest shock, capturing around 20% of the vote — double its support from 2021, though not as high as some had feared.
“It could’ve been worse,” Meron Mendel, an Israeli-German historian and director of the Anne Frank Education Center in Frankfurt, said in an interview. “But it’s still devastating.”
The AfD’s rise isn’t just another ripple in Europe’s growing nationalist tide — it carries deeper echoes of Germany’s past. Some of the party’s leaders have ties to neo-Nazi rhetoric and have downplayed the Holocaust. Perhaps most alarming is the party’s growing support among younger voters, many of whom are increasingly disconnected from the country’s reckoning with its role in World War II.
And it isn’t only in Europe where AfD’s rise echoes, Vice President JD Vance and Elon Musk have both expressed support for the party.
So, what’s behind the AfD’s recent surge? Why is this development particularly concerning for Jews? And how does it tie into broader global trends? Here’s what you need to know.
What is the AfD, and why is it controversial?
The AfD was founded in 2013 as a party initially focused on opposing Germany’s participation in the European Union and rejecting the euro currency. But the party quickly shifted toward nationalist, anti-immigration rhetoric — especially after 2015, when Germany welcomed hundreds of thousands of refugees, mostly from Middle Eastern countries.
Over time, factions within the AfD have embraced far-right ideology more openly. According to Mendel, figures like Björn Höcke, a regional AfD leader, have promoted rhetoric that minimizes Germany’s responsibility for the Holocaust and echoes nationalist themes reminiscent of Nazi-era ideology.
Why are Jews concerned?
For Jews in Germany, the AfD’s surge has painful historical resonance. While the party publicly denies antisemitism and even brands itself as pro-Israel, some of its leaders have undermined Holocaust remembrance efforts. Höcke, for example, referred to Berlin’s Holocaust Memorial as a “monument of shame,” sparking outrage.
Related
But the concern extends beyond rhetoric. Mendel warned of the broader danger to democratic values. “In my view, it’s in the vested interest of any minority, and especially for Jews, to preserve the liberal order,” he said. “So if these values are eroded in the free world, it’s another warning signal for Jews around the world.”
While most German Jews oppose the AfD, a small minority has been drawn to its strong anti-Muslim stance — a sentiment that has intensified in the aftermath of the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel. “The AfD is trying to position themselves as the only one that protects Jews against Muslims,” Mendel said. “And they have radical ideas: for example, ‘remigration,’ which means to send migrants back to their homelands. And for some Jews, it seems like an attractive answer.”
How did the AfD become so popular?
Several factors contributed to the AfD’s growing support:
Economic anxiety: The German economy has been hit hard by the fallout from the war in Ukraine, particularly the loss of cheap Russian gas. Industries like German car manufacturing have struggled, feeding economic frustration and fueling support for the AfD’s populist messaging.
East-West divide: The AfD has found its strongest support in former East Germany, where feelings of marginalization and disillusionment remain more than 30 years after reunification.
Immigration fears: The party has capitalized on anxieties around immigration, especially among those who feel left behind by mainstream politics. The center-right Christian Democrat party — which won the most votes but must form a coalition government — also campaigned on an anti-immigration platform, an issue which drove many voters to the polls. After the election results were announced, President Donald Trump praised the win by the Christian Democratic party as “a great day for Germany,” and noted that voters were “tired” of a more open immigration stance.
Appeal to young voters: The AfD has gained traction with younger Germans, many of whom don’t have direct family connections to the Holocaust. The party’s social media campaigns have tapped into anti-establishment sentiment and a resurgent nationalism.
Is this part of a larger global trend?
Germany’s far-right surge is not happening in a vacuum; it’s part of a broader global trend. At a speech in Munich earlier this month, Vance criticized Germany’s mainstream parties for maintaining a “firewall” against the AfD. Musk made headlines by addressing an AfD rally via video, drawing criticism for lending it legitimacy.
This growing global network has helped normalize far-right rhetoric and expand the AfD’s platform. By aligning with international voices, the party has managed to soften its image for some voters — despite the continued presence of factions within the party that openly embrace neo-Nazi sympathies.
What’s at stake for Germany and its Jews?
While the AfD didn’t win the election, its rise has already shifted Germany’s political landscape. Mainstream conservatives have begun to show a new willingness to cooperate with the far right, breaking long-standing taboos around engaging with extremist parties.
For many Jews in Germany and around the world, the election results are a reminder that history’s darkest chapters can resurface in new forms. “The wish to get rid of the past was always part of the German discussion,” Mendel said. “But these voices are now coming from the second-largest party.”
Related
Orthosphere: Who is to Blame for the Aliens’ Alienation?
Who is to Blame for the Aliens’ Alienation?
Excerpt:
…
Albert Memmi was a Tunisian Jew who emigrated to France and then bitterly blamed the French because he did not feel at home. Like a fastidious vegetarian recoiling from a chunk of beef on the fork of his carnivorous host, Memmi recoiled, with an indignant sense of injury, from the offensive Christianity and Frenchness of narrow-minded France. But in Memmi’s telling his recoil was not Memmi’s rejection of France. It was instead France’s rejection of Memmi.
“I have not rejected anything; unfortunately it is the nation that has rejected me, that leaves me outside.”*
France was inhospitable to Memmi simply because it was French. Its landscape everywhere bristled with menacing Christian spires; many of its towns bore the dreadful names of Christian saints; men and women under strong suspicion of antisemitism stalked the pages of its history books.
“Whether I like it or not, the history of the country in which I live is, to me, a borrowed history. How could I feel that Joan of Arc is a symbol for me? Would I hear with her the patriotic and Christian voices?”*
No, probably not. And the only solution, in Memmi’s opinion, is that the symbol of Joan of Arc be retired to the museum, and no doubt there problematized by a critical reinterpretation— that the native French no longer hear with her (and through her) those patriotic and Christian voices.
This is of course akin to the iconoclastic purge that recently toppled so many statues here in the United States. Can Robert E. Lee be a symbol for descendants of American slaves? Can George Washington be a symbol for the an immigrant who “borrowed” American history only the year before last? Can sons of the Ganges and Niger hear with Robert and George those patriotic and Christian voices?
No, probably not. And so neither will ancestral Americans if men like Memmi have their way.
No Gauls, please. Enough of Celts, ancient Germans, Slavs, conquering Romans and conquering Arabs! For then, I find myself naked and alone: my own ancestors were neither Gauls, Celts, Slavs, ancient Germans, Arabs, or Turks . . . . I have never been able to say ‘We’ in referring to those historical pedigrees on which my fellow-citizens pride themselves. I have never heard another Jew say ‘We’ without wincing, without vaguely suspecting him of an inadvertent blunder, of complacency or of a slip of the tongue.
* * * * *
So then, is the accusation confirmed? As a Jew, you admit to being stateless and cosmopolitan? Of your own accord, you reject the nation! I do not reject anything! What is confirmed? Do I really suffer from my own refusal or from what other men refuse me?”
Who is to blame for the alienation of the alien? Is the alien to blame because he refuses to change, is perhaps incapable of change? Does the fault lie in Memmi’s prejudice against Christian churches, Christian saints, and the myth of Joan of Arc? Or are the French to blame because they refuse to change—because thy are too prejudiced to make Memmi feel at home by pulling down their churches, renaming their towns, and problematizing the Maid of Orlèans?
It was Memmi’s opinion that the fault lay with the French and their offensive insistence on remaining French in a French France. It was Memmi’s opinion that the French should yield to his insistence on remaining a cosmopolitan Jew and feeling at home anywhere he liked. He was, in fact, like the intolerant vegetarian who insists upon remaining vegetarian wherever he dines, and who cries out in pain if every plate at the table is not heaped with beans and kale.
Also available at Barnes & Noble
Also available at Barnes & Noble
