General

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.

Mark Wauck: Brief Venezuela Update

/3 Comments/in /by
We’re still learning about the Anglo-Zionist attempt at a decapitation/kidnap regime change. I’ll be heading out momentarily, but …

DD Geopolitics @DD_Geopolitics

16h

Nat Rothschild…..

Venezuela’s Central Bank is fully state-owned and controlled by the government.

In 2024, the Venezuelan government hired Rothschild & Co. as a financial adviser to assess its foreign debt.

Watch Video

Anglo-Zionists hoping for world takeover.

DD Geopolitics @DD_Geopolitics

 Katie Miller, the wife of U.S. regime Supreme Leader Trump’s unhinged homeland security adviser Stephen Miller, posted an image of Greenland painted in the American flag, captioned “SOON.”

Image
Image

MenchOsint @MenchOsint·

3h

Every single video used by pro-regime change/pro-Israel accounts to claim Venezuelan people is happy with the US coup is AI or unrelated.

For example, there have been videos from non-Venezuela countries claiming to have been from Venezuela.

Related:

Kim Dotcom @KimDotcom·

6h

Warning: 90% of Trump support regarding Venezuela on social media is NOT organic. It’s bot generated. Same CIA playbook as Ukraine. Don’t be fooled. The vast majority is against what Trump did in Venezuela. The fact that they need bots to fake support shows how weak Trump is now.

PP has interesting take. Scott Ritter has been essentially arguing that this was a wildly successful op, that the US bribed the Venezuelan military and now runs the country just be telling Venezuelans what they have to do. He makes some excellent points, but real life isn’t that simple. We’ll see how it works out. A few words about regime change: Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine. This is not a push button world. The Anglo-Zionist playbook of bribery, trickery, economic pressure is not invincible.

Philip Pilkington @philippilk

1h

I think we have some sense of the situation in Venezuela now. It looks like the Trump administration is attempting a somewhat novel high-risk pressure strategy because regime change is not currently possible.

 The first thing to note is that those of us – myself included – who thought regime change proper was not currently possible seem to have been correct. Trump has said as much. Machado and the opposition have limited credibility.

 Under standard operating procedure that would have meant the pressure campaign would have rolled on for a while until the Trump administration got bored. But instead Trump pulled a new rabbit out of the hat: he increased the pressure significantly by capturing Maduro.

Now it appears the strategy is to leave the Maduro regime intact and further pressure it to do what Trump wants. Right now that’s not looking great as the acting president is denouncing US actions and refusing to play ball. The US could capture her of course – and whoever replaces her and so on. But…

 After a while Venezuela will just collapse and become a failed state. This is what happened in Libya when the Obama administration killed Gaddafi and left a power vacuum. Shortly after, Europe was flooded with migrants and the terror attacks started. This destabilised Europe.

 The US is now locked into the pressure strategy. But if it doesn’t work, Venezuela will collapse and the consequences of a mid-sized failed state in Latin America will make themselves felt. The continent could become far more chaotic than Europe in such a scenario considering the extensive criminal networks already operating there, not to mention the current problems with immigration. A collapsed Venezuela could also lead to a string of regime collapses – from Colombia to Mexico.

If I were to ask the White House one question it would be this: what is the payout for this high-risk strategy? If it is equity stakes in Venezuelan oil companies than I’m sorry, this is an insanely bad calculus.

Thoughts on the military seizing Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife.

/8 Comments/in /by

Coulter is very positive about the invasion. If it works out as advertised, Trump wins big, despite foreign regime-change wars being completely the opposite of everything Trump ever said about foreign policy. Maduro is evil, but of course Saddam Hussein was also evil and Iraq turned out to be a bloody and expensive quagmire. It’s always easy at the beginning, but as José Niño notes, there are a lot of ways it could go wrong, We’ll see.

The comparison is essentially that of a neighborhood skirmish to a regional war. Venezuela is roughly 2,650 times larger than Grenada and 12 times larger than Panama, with 243 times more people than Grenada and 12 times more than Panama. The appropriate historical parallels aren’t Grenada or Panama—they’re Iraq and Afghanistan, multi-trillion-dollar quagmires that killed thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of civilians while advancing no genuine U.S. interests. …

The ultimate challenge for the United States comes the day after when Venezuelan forces, colectivos, militias, and allied guerrilla groups retreat to mountainous regions, jungles, and southern plains. From there, armed groups would be able to conduct asymmetric attacks on U.S. forces and any post-Maduro government, creating multiple overlapping resistance movements.

Coulter:

  1. It’s about time. Maduro and his fellow cartel members top government officials have been indicted over and over and over again in the U.S. for drug trafficking. As I wrote recently, it’s pretty clear by now, we’re not going to indict our way out of this.

From Innocent Venezuelan Fishermen: ‘Hands Up! Don’t Shoot!’

The entire government of Venezuela is a drug cartel. Their No. 1 export is cocaine. Their No. 2 export is cocaine boats. The national coat of arms is a coke spoon and two straws.Under President Barack Obama, U.S. attorneys in Miami and New York indicted some of that country’s top military and law enforcement officials, accusing them of working with Colombian drug kingpins to move drugs through Venezuela to the United States.Nothing changed. Venezuela continued working with the Colombian cartels, and virtually the same indictments were handed up during the first Trump administration, charging government officials with enriching themselves by flooding “the United States with cocaine and inflict[ing] the drug’s harmful and addictive effects on users in this country.”

  1. Unlike, say, for example, off the top of my head, Iran, which poses exactly zero threat to any American, the drug cartel known as “the Maduro regime” is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of young Americans and will continue to kill them, unless we crush it.
  2. Drop the horseshit about making Venezuela great again Other than Uruguay (88% White European), no Latin American country has ever achieved long-lasting peace. The rest are cauldrons of revolution, civil war, coups, military dictatorships etc. They did this to themselves. It’s what they like.

As explained by me in Venezuela’s Welfare Has Run Out. Now They Want Ours:

How did Venezuela become communist again?

[I]t’s not that complicated. Poor people in Venezuela voted for it. Oh boy, did they vote for it.The ridiculous peasant Hugo Chavez promised Venezuela’s poor that he would take vengeance on the rich — “the squalid ones” — and give their stuff to the poor. Millions of poor people responded: YESSSSS!!!Beginning in 1998, and five times after that, the poor came out in droves to support this clown. Fist pumping! Dancing in the streets! Red shirts as far as the eye could see! …As promised, Chavez proceeded to seize private businesses, farms (by 2011, he’d expropriated 6 million acres of farmland) and golf resorts, telling poor people to move onto the club greens.

Again, they voted for it.

  1. The U.S. military can depose, it cannot change the nature of the people. Set up a friendly government, get the American oil companies in, and get out before fat female National Guard members start painting George Floyd murals and instructing the local ladies on feminism.
  2. This is a law enforcement operation. In July, the DEA busted a major drug ring in New York state. That was not followed by installing a new government and promising to bring democracy to New York. We’ve seized foreign drug dealers before, such as Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega. No one thought that meant we should start running Panama, much less admit thousands of Panamanians to our country.
  3. Contrary to the claims of Marjorie Taylor Greene — the media’s new go-to expert on all political questions! — this IS “America First.” (So far.) The Maduro regime is killing Americans. We should stop him.
  4. Send all the Venezuelans who’ve fled to our country home. Every single bad thing that happens in the rest of the world has GOT to stop ending with us having to take in millions of third worlders — the very third worlders who caused the problem in the first place.

Chart Westcott in TAC: Carlson’s Christian Charity Is Not Statecraft

/3 Comments/in /by
This is an important critique of Carlson because of Carlson’s very elevated position in mainstream conservatism. It essentially attacks Carlson’s deluded moral individualism based on his interpretation of Christian religious ideas. It manages to thread the needle between Carlson’s advocacy of an ideology which is sure to be a loser in the multicultural West, while at the same time remaining within the conservative mainstream by avoiding White identity politics—yet still managing to condemn Islam as a completely non-Western form of collectivism. As Westcott notes,
Immigration, war, and internal security are necessarily decided at the group level, taking into account statistical risk, historical experience, and civilizational compatibility. Emotional language about “hatred” of one group or another is irrelevant to these decisions. A state that governs as a confessor rather than as a sovereign will not survive. This category error runs throughout Carlson’s argument and is most clearly exposed in his assertion that he does not know anyone “who’s been killed by radical Islam” in the last twenty-four years.
And:
Carlson treats any discussion of group behavior as though it were an accusation of inherited guilt. That is false. States routinely make, and should make, group-based judgments because groups behave differently.
My only critique is that Westcott ignores another very dangerous and powerful collectivist group: Judaism. He seems claims that
The United States historically succeeded in part because it selectively admitted people from cultures that could be absorbed into an Anglo-American civic framework that encompassed secular law, free speech including sacrilege, religious pluralism, and loyalty to the nation over sectarian identity
We are seeing ever more clearly that Judaism has not been absorbed into “an Anglo-American civic framework.” The organized Jewish community has led efforts to open up Western societies to aggressive, collectivist cultures such as Islam, shut down free speech, fund Israel and fight  costly wars for Israel; and it’s obvious that prominent Jews like Ben Shapiro, Mark Levin, Bari Weiss, Miriam Adelson, Larry and David Ellison—just to name a few that come to mind—not to mention a great many of their fellow Jews in the Jewish political mainstream are far more loyal to Israel than to the United States.
Judaism is collectivist to the core, with entirely different moral codes depending on whether Jews are non-Jews are being considered. Judaism and Islam are both collectivist to the core; neither belong in the West.
Yes, Islamic extremism threatens Western civilization.
20230421_rushTucker_00010
(Erin Granzow via The Heritage Foundation)
Chart Westcott
Jan 2, 202612:05 AM

Tucker Carlson, in a recent interview with The American Conservative that sparked significant controversy, was right to insist that Christianity rejects collective guilt at the level of individual moral judgment. But when reflecting on the supposed phenomenon of “rising Islamophobia,” he made a fundamental and dangerous mistake by attempting to translate that moral axiom into political principle. Individual morality cannot be policy. States do not govern souls; they govern populations.

Immigration, war, and internal security are necessarily decided at the group level, taking into account statistical risk, historical experience, and civilizational compatibility. Emotional language about “hatred” of one group or another is irrelevant to these decisions. A state that governs as a confessor rather than as a sovereign will not survive. This category error runs throughout Carlson’s argument and is most clearly exposed in his assertion that he does not know anyone “who’s been killed by radical Islam” in the last twenty-four years.

Public policy cannot be made on the basis of personal acquaintance. Islamic threats are not evenly distributed. They strike first at journalists, soldiers, aid workers, police, dissidents, and civilians unlucky enough to be in the wrong place. The absence of Carlson’s personal proximity to violence is not evidence of its irrelevance; it is possibly evidence of insulation. But in this case, even the claim itself is false.

In 2014, Steven Sotloff, a freelance journalist who had written for The Daily Caller—which Carlson co-founded in 2010—was captured by ISIS in Syria and publicly beheaded. Sotloff was not a soldier. He was not a combatant. He was a young American reporter working in the orbit of Carlson’s own media enterprise. His murder was part of a deliberate campaign of ideological terror carried out in full view of the world. That Tucker overlooked, or perhaps forgot, the murder of Sotloff only reinforces the danger of basing national policy on anecdote, memory, or emotional framing.

Terrorism itself is not even the core issue of Islamic extremism. Civilizations rarely collapse from spectacular violence alone. They erode through demographic pressure, parallel legal systems, self-censorship, intimidation, and the gradual replacement of one moral order by another. The grooming gangs of Britain and the increases in rape rates across Europe due to Islamic immigration speak plainly enough.

Which brings us to the very question Carlson glosses over: Islam itself.

Collective punishment is not an aberration within Islam; it is embedded in its jurisprudence and historical practice. Apostasy and blasphemy are criminal. Loyalty is owed first to the ummah, the community of believers, not to the nation-state. These are not extremist distortions; they are mainstream doctrines openly taught in Islamic law. Their application on American soil, being revealed concurrent with Tucker’s words, is self-evident in the fraudulent predations of the Somali population of Minnesota.

None of this is a moral condemnation of individual Muslims. It is a structural observation about the belief system that is Islam and the political implications of that system. Confusing those two categories is how serious analysis becomes impossible. Carlson treats any discussion of group behavior as though it were an accusation of inherited guilt. That is false. States routinely make, and should make, group-based judgments because groups behave differently. Insurance companies do it. Militaries do it. Epidemiologists do it. Immigration policy has always done it. Only in the late-modern West has acknowledging the obvious reality of group differences been declared immoral.

The United States historically succeeded in part because it selectively admitted people from cultures that could be absorbed into an Anglo-American civic framework that encompassed secular law, free speech including sacrilege, religious pluralism, and loyalty to the nation over sectarian identity. These are all concepts Carlson claims to value. Large-scale Muslim immigration has repeatedly failed this test in Europe and is beginning to fail it here. How and why is he glossing over such an obvious pattern?

There is a final irony that deserves to be stated plainly. For decades, Americans were sent abroad to fight men animated, in large part, by Islamic extremism. Now, having declared those wars misguided or immoral, we are told that adherents of that same ideology should be welcomed wholesale and treated as future citizens without discernment. Even if the wars were wrong, it does not follow that the ideology was benign, or that importing it strengthens the nation.

The American people—and yes, we are a people—can hold two truths at once: that every human soul has dignity, and that not every belief system is compatible with the American way of life. Christian charity governs how individuals treat one another. Our statecraft should govern whether a people endure and thrive. Carlson’s confusion of Christian morality with the necessities of statecraft is a category error that could easily doom the nation. The lessons of Europe are writ large. We import extremist adherents of Islam at our own risk.

James Edwards interviews Jack Antonio

/2 Comments/in , /by

Below is an interview conducted by talk radio host James Edwards with Jack Antonio*, a professional actor who has appeared in film, television, and theater for over 50 years.

James Edwards: What is it like working with A-list celebrities while having traditional beliefs and not being ashamed of being a White man? Take us behind the scenes, so to speak.

Jack Antonio: On film, TV, and commercial sets, there is very little time to socialize. The producers want to get the A-listers finished and off set ASAP because they are so expensive. I’ve had friendly disagreements about politics with major stars a few times. I did have a very loud argument on set with an obnoxious star who was praising BLM and Antifa during the Summer of Floyd. The Assistant Director intervened and called for an early lunch break. The star and I avoided each other for the rest of the shoot. In theatre, you are around each other much more during rehearsal and then during what you hope will be a long run. I had a very loud disagreement with a star during the 2nd Iraq War. He supported Tony Blair. The rest of the company was with me, so I had back-up.

Edwards: How have you been able to work continuously for so long? And do more actors share your concerns than the media would let on?

Antonio: I’ve always hustled for work and sharpened and expanded my talents. I’m known to be versatile, pleasant, and professional. I can also learn lines and moves very quickly. I give directors what they want in one take. Many actors, alas, are stupid and lazy. I can’t say that there are legions of unabashed pro-White actors out there. But there is a significant minority who are at least Right-lite. I will often test the water in the dressing room or rehearsal hall with a politically incorrect quip and will catch knowing, approving looks from some of the cast. Many White actors’ eyes are being opened by the obvious hypocrisy of supposedly “color blind” casting. That is, blacks can play White roles but not vice versa. Black lesbians get to play King Lear, but I can’t play Harriet Tubman. How come?

Edwards: You have been an actor working for more than fifty years at the top level of international show business. What have been the biggest changes you have seen in that time?

Antonio: White actors have been marginalized and even erased from the very industry and culture we created. Since the end of WWII, there has been an organized strategy to replace us in plays, films, sitcoms, commercials, computer games, and even cartoons. At last, Whites are daring to protest the number of non-White faces they see on their screens and stages. In fact, in the UK, there was a recent unbiased study that showed how ridiculously disproportionate the number of non-Whites in commercials is to their actual number in the UK population.

Edwards: How did this happen?

Antonio: The Cultural Marxists targeted the arts in the 1930s. They infiltrated the performing and fine art schools and indoctrinated the White students to hasten and even accept their replacement. I saw productions of Romeo and Juliet in the early 1960s with a White Juliet and a black Romeo. The Marxists, who were overwhelmingly Jewish, slimed into publishing, advertising, and academia. I have consistently encountered this while working on productions around the world.

Edwards: How does it work in advertising?

Antonio: When liberals say it is a coincidence that there are so many non-Whites in the ads, they are just plain stupid. I have starred in commercials for top brands worldwide. I have seen clients, directors, and designers almost come to blows over the color of my necktie. Are you telling me that they don’t agonize over the color of the family in their ads? That they don’t deliberately place black men with White women? Nonsense. The word has come down from, I believe, even above corporate headquarters to push the anti-White race-mixing agenda. I can’t tell you exactly who tells General Mills or Ford to get in line, “or else,” but it is a powerful hidden hand.

 

Edwards: You lived in England for many years. Is it the same there?

Antonio: It’s worse. Many Americans think Britain is just like Downton Abbey. It ain’t. Many of the major cities in the UK are now governed by Muslim mayors. (We just lost New York.) In fact, the town of Rotherham, the epicenter of the Pakistani rape gangs who preyed upon vulnerable White girls, now has a female Muslim mayor who can barely speak English! The United Kingdom has been betrayed by the Royal Family, its government, and the BBC. King Charles kisses so much Muslim butt I’m amazed he can stand up straight. When not blatantly lying about Trump, the BBC churns out historical dramas in which Anne Boleyn is black, the Vikings look like The Jackson 5, and the British army on D-Day looks like the Harlem Globetrotters. Meanwhile, the Labour Party, under the war criminal Tony Blair, created an English version of our disastrous 1965 Immigration Reform Act. Blair flooded the UK with non-White immigrants. That outrage was managed by the Jewish minister Barbara Roche just as ours was managed by Javits and Celler in New York.

Edwards: What is another change you’ve seen in the performing arts?

Antonio: All of the arts in the US and UK have been feminized.  Just as I watched Brits become obese in my thirty years there (thanks to American fast food) I watched their culture become degenerate and deballed. Everything has become cute and girly. This is because on both sides of the Atlantic, girls rule the roost.  I was shocked when I returned to America to find a country ruled by humorless, censorious harridans. Many of them are embittered childless scolds determined to take their misery out on everyone, especially men. They are the Cat Ladies that J.D. Vance quite rightly ridiculed.

Edwards: Where did they come from?

Antonio: I trace them to the social reformers of the early 19th century who harangued men about marriage, money, and meat. Then came Harriet Beecher Stowe, whose preposterous, sentimental novel, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, was a major force leading to the War of Northern Aggression. Then came the suffragettes. (I hope we can agree that giving women the vote has been an unmitigated disaster.)  Then we had the singularly unpleasant Margaret Sanger of Planned Parenthood. Maggie managed to kill several of her children by neglect, which is a novel form of birth control, to say the least. Next came Eleanor Roosevelt, who was a loudmouth witch who practically ruled the country for ten years while the crippled FDR hid and convalesced. And, finally, the decidedly Jewish Second Stage Feminism of the Sixties gave birth to our current crop of miserable, blue-haired, pierced, tattooed, faux-females called Cat Ladies.

They run just about any cultural or civic organization you can name, from choirs and book clubs to police and fire departments. In fact, they run cities and states. We just had two more elected governor!  And their unfulfilled nurturing instincts have taken a perverted turn. With no children to care for, they adopt blacks, homosexuals, transexuals, pedophiles (I’m not kidding!), and, of course, cats. Lots and lots of cats. You can spot these psycho-sexual misfits running around with their pink hair on fire at any protest de jour.

Edwards: Where are the men?

Antonio: Well, you should ask. Many are so tired of being harangued and belittled that they have abandoned ship and become incels. Young men have been bombarded with anti-male propaganda and poisoned by chemicals since birth. Their t-count is tragically low. Many are saddled with mommies who have serious male issues and take those out on junior. Take note of how often it is mommy who pushes for Sonny Boy to be castrated. There has always been a Battle of the Sexes, but heretofore it has been a healthy jousting before bed. Now it is an ugly, hateful suicide pact.

Edwards: You paint a grim picture. Is there hope?

 Antonio: There is. Thanks to Mother Nature. Note that men have retreated to video games in which they can pretend to be warriors and superheroes. Note that women have made romance novels and rom-com movies the most popular genres. The natural desire for normal sexual relations can never be completely extinguished. If we can find a way to rekindle our generative spark, nature will take care of the rest. You may think I’ve been watching too many rom-coms myself. But the awful truth is that we either rediscover the Adam and Eve in our kind and heal this rift between men and women, or we perish.

 Edwards: Final thoughts?

Antonio: The America I left in 1990 was not full of autism. I know the diagnosis of autism has been broadened, but that is a separate issue. I tell you that when I returned to America thirty years later, I was shocked by how many people were “on the spectrum.” I’m not a doctor or scientist, but I sense that a combination of factors, such as arsenic added to vaccines to extend their shelf life and increase profits, combined with chemicals in the air, food, and water, has poisoned us. And this may be partly responsible for our current sexual malaise. Somehow, someway, someone has stolen our mojo. We gotta get it back!

*Jack Antonio is the pen name of a working actor who is currently starring in a stage production. He is the author of Boy Outa Brooklyn – a murder memoir. It is available on Amazon as a paperback and e-book, as well as from all major e-book distributors. Or visit Jack’s blog at https://boyoutabrooklyn.com/blog/

This article was originally published by American Free Press – America’s last real newspaper! Click here to subscribe today or call 1-888-699-NEWS.

Mondoweiss: 2025 saw the most significant political shift toward Palestinian rights in U.S. history

/6 Comments/in /by

2025 saw the most significant political shift toward Palestinian rights in U.S. history

In 2025, there was notable momentum in both the Democratic and Republican parties toward substantive change in U.S. policy on Palestine.
By     5
FILE: Pro-Palestine protesters march in Washington, DC to call for a ceasefire and end the genocide in Gaza in January 2024. (Photo: Eman Mohammed)FILE: Pro-Palestine protesters march in Washington, DC to call for a ceasefire and end the genocide in Gaza in January 2024. (Photo: Eman Mohammed)

2025 started with a Gaza ceasefire that was never meant to be sustained and is ending with one that was never actually instituted. The year also saw a steady intensification of the occupation on the West Bank, and an unprecedentedly broad wave of Israeli warfare all across the Middle East.

In the United States, the transition from the passionate and self-defeating support for Israel of Joe Biden to the transactional but nonetheless still solid support for Israel of Donald Trump had negligible effect on the superpower policy that is one of the greatest obstacles to the realization of inalienable Palestinian rights.

But there is real hope we might take this year from a significant movement in the American discourse on Palestine and Israel and that this shift is finally starting to be reflected in American politics, albeit in ways far too small to match the needs of the moment.

Most notably, 2025 saw American public opinion continue its shift away from Israel.

In July, an article in The Economist, hardly a progressive publication, noted that,

 “Israel’s rightward political shift in recent years, and especially the protracted war in Gaza, has alienated many ordinary Americans. The disquiet about Israel that has been building for some time within the Democratic Party is now growing among Republicans, too. Younger members of both parties have shifted especially dramatically. A fundamental reshaping of one of America’s deepest friendships seems all but inevitable, with huge ramifications for the Middle East and the world.”

Even the most stalwart of Israel supporters found that the political winds had shifted enough that they were forced to criticize Israel’s behavior at least implicitly. Rep. Ritchie Torres, who has made his career as an extreme opponent of Palestinian rights could not withstand the outcry from his New York City constituents at witnessing Israel’s deliberate starvation of the people in Gaza over the summer of 2025. He wrote on X, “The free world has a moral responsibility to Palestinians in distress. Flood Gaza with food.”

Torres’ implication that Israel was not allowing enough food into Gaza (at that point, they were barely allowing any, and Gaza was in a state of famine) was shocking for him. But more importantly it reflected the growing distaste for Israel among Democrats.

Nothing convinces Democrats more than polls, and many polls were showing that their constituents were growing increasingly fed up with Israel.

When Israel began its genocide in Gaza after the attack of October 7, 2023, Americans were split on Israel’s response. A Gallup Poll showed 50% of Americans approved of Israel’s actions, with 45% opposed. That number quickly changed to disapproval, but in 2025, it veered sharply, and by mid-July, 60% of Americans disapproved of Israel’s actions and only 32% approved.

The numbers were even starker for Democrats. While 36% approved of Israel’s initial response, only 8% did by July 2025.

But the shift isn’t only apparent among Democrats. While Republicans are still much more supportive of Israel than Democrats, that support is beginning to ebb, especially among younger Republicans.

Pollster Shibley Telhami, the Anwar Sadat Chair for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland, conducted a poll in August 2025 and found that 21% of Republicans said that U.S. President Donald Trump’s policies were “too pro-Israel.”

“The change taking place among young Republicans is breathtaking,” Telhami said. “While 52% of older republicans (35+) sympathize more with Israel, only 24% of younger Republicans (18-34) say the same — fewer than half.”

Public opinion is finally impacting politicians

In November of 2024, Senator Bernie Sanders introduced a Joint Resolution of Disapproval (JRAD) to stop a large sale of arms to Israel. The measure failed, but 18 senators voted to support Sanders’ resolution.

Such a vote might not have even reached the Senate floor in the past, and a bill like this one would have been lucky to get any support at all. As Jewish Voice for Peace Action’s Political Director Beth Miller put it at the time, “This is too little too late; this genocide has been going on for 13 months, but that does not change the fact that this is a critically important step.”

That vote was also significant because some of the Democrats who supported Sanders were not those one might suspect. For instance, Hillary Clinton’s former running mate, Tim Kaine of Virginia, was among those who supported the Sanders bill.

Despite the failure, Sanders tried again in July 2025. This time, his JRAD got 24 votes in support, a 33% increase. Like the 2024 vote, this still doesn’t speak well of the Senate, Congress, or even the Democrats as a whole. This vote centered on a 22-month-long genocide at that point. But, as Miller had said before, the increase mattered, and it mattered that more moderate Democrats, such as Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, joined in.

These votes, though defeats, are a huge political turning point, even though they failed to save any Palestinian lives. Israel was perceived to be involved in “war,” as unsuitable as that term might be to those of us observing what was happening at the time. And this was not a question of aid to Israel, but weapons sales. The idea of voting against arms to Israel under any circumstances, let alone a sale during perceived wartime, was an absurdity in the past. It was political suicide for all but a few politicians, and it could never have gotten more than a vote or two in support.

Even a few years ago, just whispering about conditioning aid to Israel was considered a dangerous and controversial step. In 2025, more than half of the 47 Democratic caucus members in the Senate voted to block an arms sale to Israel. Political trends can take time to shift, especially when they are supported by powerful political forces and have been entrenched for decades. This is what change looks like.

It was a remarkable turnaround, and as efforts to change American policy on Palestine continue and intensify, there is every reason to believe it is a trend that will persist.

The base of both parties are splitting over Israel 

2025 saw significant momentum build in both parties for substantive change in American policy toward Palestine.

As time passed after Kamala Harris lost the 2024 election and gave the world a new, more unbalanced, and more authoritarian Donald Trump in the White House, it became clearer and clearer that Joe Biden’s and Harris’ policy toward Palestine was a key factor in alienating potential Democratic voters and thus costing her the election.

Just before Trump was sworn in, a poll from the Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU) and YouGov found that the top issue that caused former Biden voters to change or withhold their votes in 2024 was Gaza.

It turned out, in fact, that this was particularly true in battleground states, demonstrating that the famously poll- and focus-group-driven Democrats had either completely misread or disregarded the ideological map in the states they most needed to win.

In December, the Democrats decided to bury a post-mortem report they had commissioned on the 2024 election. They didn’t offer much of an explanation, just some word salad about needing to look forward, not back, which anyone could easily see was a naked evasion.

No doubt, there were many reasons the Democrats found for their loss that were embarrassing and reflected their own political short-sightedness and tunnel vision. But virtually every serious analysis of the loss listed not only Gaza as a key factor, but also issues tangential to Gaza, such as a sense of disconnection between candidates and the base, and the loss of young voters. Both of those problems are reflective of Democrats’ failure to heed the base on Gaza.

Republicans, meanwhile, have seen a growing chasm in their ranks. The split is coming between traditional Republican voters and more isolationist, “America First” voters.

Part of that split has played out in public in ugly ways. There is a faction of former Trump acolytes, such as Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Candace Owens who, to varying degrees, are using Palestine to channel hatred of Jews and disguise it as suddenly discovering the suffering of Palestinians. Owens, in particular, has been very open about using classic anti-Jewish tropes and outright expressions of Jew-hatred to advance her case. In her case, her open bigotry has superseded her initial attempts to connect her hate to the Palestinian cause. Carlson and Greene—both of whom have long histories of Judeophobia as well as Islamophobia, and anti-Arab racism—have not repudiated any of their earlier statements but have clung to anti-Israel statements in the current moment, rather than recalling their earlier anti-Jewish ones.

But that surface fight masks a more important development, which is the growing disillusionment of young Republicans with Israel.

In another, recent IMEU/YouGov poll, 51% of young Republicans said they would prefer to support candidates who would reduce the amount of aid we give Israel. 53% say we should not renew the annual aid commitment to Israel, and 51% oppose the idea of a 20-year enhanced agreement of the type Israel is said to be seeking now.

Some of that is surely rooted in the Jew-hate of figures like Candace Owens and the self-proclaimed neo-Nazi Nick Fuentes. But there is certainly more to it than that. Much of the rock-solid support of Republicans for Israel is based on various forms of Christian Zionism, particularly the dispensationalist belief in the role the Jewish return to the Land of Israel plays in the coming of the end times and the Rapture. But evangelicals have never been monolithic in that belief, contrary to public perception, and more of them are moving away from supporting Israel.

As Palestinian-American, evangelical pastor Fares Abraham put it in February of 2025, “A significant generational shift is underway away from a false gospel of empire toward a faith that upholds justice, mercy and truth. Many young Christians recognize that true faithfulness to Christ cannot be reconciled with the destruction of Palestinian lives, the bombing of churches, hospitals and refugee camps or the systematic starvation of an entire population.

This is a trend that has been visible for some time. It comes together with a rise in isolationism among Republicans, an isolationism that was evident even in the carefully chosen words of Vice President JD Vance at the recent Turning Point USA conference.

Vance said, “99% of Republicans, and I think probably 97% of Democrats, do not hate Jewish people for being Jewish. What is actually happening is that there is a real backlash to a consensus view in American foreign policy.”

That was pretty remarkable for a sitting vice president of either party, regardless of what they might really think.

So, while it was a year of ongoing tragedy and of a familiar helplessness for people who want to end the suffering of the people in Palestine, it was also a year that saw unprecedented progress in the U.S. toward eliminating the support Israel gets for its merciless policies and actions toward the Palestinian people.

That matters. Nothing powers Israel’s apartheid and genocide like the U.S. does. It’s not easy to change American policy that has been entrenched over the course of decades, but the day of that change is finally drawing closer. 2025 provided not just reason for hope but the potential to energize the forces of change for years to come.