General

“YOU’RE The Evil Monster!” Mohammad Marandi vs Alan Dershowitz on Iran — Plus Netanyahu Spokesman. Youtube, July 30, 2026.

/2 Comments/in /by

[ED. This is an AI Transcript, edited as best I could for readability without losing what they are meaning to say. This was a very heated debate, so much that was said was ungrammatical and repetitive.]

[start at 22;00] Okay, Professor Marandi,

Marandi: is it my turn? because for the last half hour you’ve been busy with the spokesman for genocide and Epstein’s buddy who used to go to Rape Island, a person who frequented Rape Island, I think anything that he says is nonsense and I listen to him I listen to him but he’s a lawyer yet he cannot tolerate the words of Alma (?_. That’s how weak his argument is. Now, of course, someone who supports the genocidal regime of Israel would say this sort of nonsense. And of course we recall how the South African government in its ICJ complaint showed genocidal intent by the Israeli regime including the Israeli prime minister whose spokesman you brought on and had this little love fest before this discussion and you know what you don’t have to keep making

Dershowitz: Professor Marandi Professor just to be clear it wasn’t a lovefest. I made some tough statements. I treated him with the same respect I try and treat you until you inevitably — you always invariably go ad hominem on people. Try not to go ad hominum stop with the silly digs stick to the proper debate we’re having and viewers may learn something. Force yourself to let the viewers.  Piers I know where you stand Piers I saw your previous interview with Barak I saw it with his spokesman. We know where you stand.

Marandi: So that’s not really important. But the point is that where do you think where do you think you stand? You stand with the genocidal regime. I once asked you three times in a row, do you consider an ethnosupremacist regime to be legitimate? And you refuse to answer. And the tone of your language, the fact that you’re not the fact that I’m not allowed to speak. Hang on, just to be clear I want to get back to the debate in a moment but just to be clear I have repeatedly asked you in our numerous interviews and I platform you regularly something you always try and diminish in terms of its significance but I do and I’ve always asked you to tell me one critical thing about your own regime and you always fail which is very telling so let’s just park that to one side let’s get back to the debate

Marandi: My regime is infinitely superior to your genocidal regime that helped the Israeli regime in the genocide. My regime, as you’d like to call it, your guest doesn’t want me to speak. Obviously, my regime did not pull the plugs on little infants in the in the in the hospital in the premature babies in the Al-Nassar hospital. pull the plug on those premature babies and let them die. My regime didn’t do that. The regime that you support did that. But getting back to the topic, the reality is that chemical weapons were used on our country with the support of your government. I survived two chemical attacks. And then your guest has the audacity to say that Iran would use weapons of mass destruction during the Iran-Iraq war. The state, the leader refused to produce chemical weapons even though the military politicians asked him. He said, “No, it’s immoral.” So, we had to suffer your chemical weapons and your governments prevented our government from even purchasing gas masks. My gas mask was bought on the black market. It was North Korean. So don’t talk about weapons of mass destruction to me when my friends have died because of your chemical weapons. Your regime is the regime that has used nuclear weapons twice and your genocidal ally the apartheid regime the illegitimate regime where 46 I think 44% of Jew young Jews below the age of 35 in the United States believe that Jews and Palestinians have to live together in one state with equal rights.

Marandi: That is exactly the Iranian policy. So despite your propaganda, despite your nonsense, despite the lies that you promote, people are waking up. Jews in the United States are waking up. Christians, Muslims, people from all walks of life are seeing who’s carrying out carrying out a holocaust in Gaza. You know, Ronald Reagan, when this genocidal regime in 1982 invaded Lebanon, he called it a holocaust. This is far worse than the Holocaust of 1982. But you refuse to acknowledge this genocide. Whereas the population in Gaza has collapsed. It’s not 70 or 80,000 people have died as a result of this war. Hundreds of thousands have died. The population has collapsed. People are dying every day, not just because the kids are being bombed or being sniped because they’re dying of illnesses and a lack of medicine that this filthy regime is imposing on the people, on the kids of Gaza. But you want to look away and antagonize the Iranian people or the Palestinians or Hezbollah or whoever else it is that you’d like to antagonize so that they can get away with this. But you will not be able to do so because people are waking up.

Morgan: We need to get Alan to respond. Okay, Alan hang on one second before you before you give a response to what you’ve just heard, I just want to stress again that Israel has never been more unpopular globally and not least in the United States where 50% nearly of Americans said they would like to see Netanyahu arrested for war crimes where two-thirds of Americans have a negative view of Israel. You know, my view of this is that Israel’s current government is populated with people like Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, these other guys who are complete psychopaths and that the activities that they are promoting in for example the West Bank at the moment and so on are making Israel a global pariah. Does that not concern you?

Deshowitz:  Of course it does. And I’m not at all a supporter of Ben-Gvir. I’m not a supporter of Smotrich. I am a supporter of the nation state of the Jewish people. I am a proud Zionist. Zionism is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people. Israel is the only non-colonialist state in the Middle East. All the other states were established by colonialist regimes after the First World War. Israel fought against colonialism and self-determination. I am not here to support everything Israel does. I wouldn’t vote for Ben-Gvir. I wouldn’t vote for Smotrich. I have to tell you that if in 1935 Winston Churchill had been the prime minister of England and he had gone into Germany and attacked them, he would be the most unpopular person in the world. It’s very unpopular to engage in preventive wars because you don’t know what you’re preventing. History is blind and deaf to the future. You only know what you’re doing now. And so it takes enormous courage. courage of the kind that not only Winston Churchill had but that Benjamin Netanyahu has had, that Ronald Reagan has had, that George Washington had back in the day. It takes tremendous courage to get involved in a war that is unpopular. The revolutionary war was unpopular with many many parts of the United States. It was the right war, the Second World War. Nobody wanted to get into it on the basis from the United States. Lindberg was against it. Uh the polls were showing against it. It took enormous courage to take on Adolf Hitler. And you know, I hate to say this, but I think I’m in 1935 and I’m sitting opposite Joseph Goebbels right now and he’s making the propaganda case for the Nazi regime just the way this professor is making the propaganda case for the new Nazi regime, which is the regime of Iran. Will you at least admit, sir, will you at least admit that Iran murdered in cold blood as many as 50,000 innocent protesters? And would you admit, if that’s true, that that comes closer to genocide than anything that Israel has been accused of doing in self-defense after its people were raped, kidnapped, murdered on October 7th, would you at least admit that the Iranian regime has killed many, many, many thousands of people? Yes or no?

Marandi: You know, we are not in 1935. We are not in 1939. We are in 1942. You are the Nazi regime that is carrying out a holocaust in Gaza. You are the Nazi who is doing it as we speak. You’re the evil monster. You say Israel is not a colonial regime. You’re from Eastern Europe. You’re European. All of those Ashkanazi Jews who are now running the country. They’re from Eastern Europe. You came and slaughtered. I’m talking. I didn’t interrupt you as you were ranting. You, the people who you support, the people who are running the country. They’re Polish. They’re Ukrainian. They’re from Czechoslovakia. They’re from Eastern Europe. You’re not Semites. You’re the anti-semite because you’ve been slaughtered. You won’t let me talk. You are afraid. You’re afraid because you know you have no argument. You have no leg to stand on. You slaughtered the Semite Palestinians and you took their land and you support you are a proud Zionist who supports a regime that celebrates the rapists in prison. They rape Palestinians in prison and then they’re celebrated on television. If you don’t let me talk, you’re just exposing yourself. You’re exposing yourself. You’re exposing yourself just as you expose yourself with Epstein. I’m [answering] in response to in response to your nonsense. The nonsense about 50,000 people. Those lies have been responded to by the Iranian people. Stop ranting. I’m speaking. You’re a lawyer. You’re a lawyer. 3,17 [?] people died thanks to an armed insurgency that your regime and the Israeli regime funded and supported. That you’re a coward. You are a coward. You won’t let me talk. You’re afraid. You’re afraid of me talking.

Dershowitz: Don’t tell me I’m afraid.

Marandi: Lawyer, Epstein’s lawyer, Trump’s lawyer, is afraid of me, a lay man talking. Why? Because you have no leg to stand on. The Iranian people have spoken. They went to the streets in the tens of millions. They went, “You’re a coward. You won’t let me talk. I let you talk because I’m not afraid of you.” People are not afraid of you anymore. You can kill Epstein. You can kill whoever you like, but we’re not afraid. You can bomb my house. You can kill me with my family, but I’m not afraid of you. I will support the Palestinian people until your regime bombs my home. So go and tell them that I’m prepared to die for the Palestinian people. But you, you who used to frequent Epstein Island, you have no principles and no morality. The Iranian people came to the streets in the tens of millions. We all know it. The footage is there. The international journalists were there, not just in Iran, but in Iraq. The Iranian people have spoken whose side they are. No one is going to be fooled by your […] propaganda to justify war.

Dershowitz: Well, let’s get this law how many times do you think I was at Jeffrey Epstein’s island? How many times? Say it again so we could get it on tape. How many times?

Marandi: One time is more than enough, but I think you’ve been there five, six times. Saying multiple times. How many times do you think I was there? I think you were there five, six times. Dershowitz: Say, say it again. Five, six times. Yeah, something like that. Yeah, I was his lawyer just the way I was the lawyer for Palestinian What a naive lawyer. No, no, don’t interrupt me. I was the lawyer for Palestinian students who try to hang the flag when Yassar Arafat died. I was the lawyer for Nazis in Skokie, Illinois. I helped represent them. I would even represent you if anybody tried to prevent you. I’m a lawyer. And that’s what lawyers should be proud of. And then I’m going to continue to represent people you don’t like as long as I have the current strength to do it. And you can cite that as an argument against Israel, but it has nothing to do with Israel. It’s just an ad hominem attack on me as a lawyer and on the American legal system. You wouldn’t understand the American legal system because you don’t have yourself regret being his lawyer. So don’t talk nonsense. Say it again.

Marandi: You yourself admitted that you regret being his lawyer. So don’t talk nonsense to me.

Dershowitz: I don’t regret being his lawyer. I’m proud to have been I’m proud to have been President Clinton’s lawyer. I’m proud to have been Ted Kennedy’s lawyer. I’m proud to have been the lawyer for hundreds of indigent people who didn’t have enough money to have a lawyer. And I would be happy to go to Iran and represent the people who can’t get lawyers there who were executed yesterday because they went to demonstrations. You have to say what you’re saying. The two people who were executed yesterday and I’ve tweeted the foot [?]. The two people I’m glad you said this.

Marandi: You are so naive. You’re not a good lawyer. I tweeted this yesterday and I will retweet it after this debate. The two people executed yesterday. They burned four police officers alive and stabbed them; they were executed for that. They were executed because of murdering four police officers. So I will repeat that today. But that’s ex and that by the way what happened during that arm be don’t be afraid. Let me explain. Don’t be afraid if you don’t listen to you. You are the one from the civilized world. You are the proud Zionist, the ethnosopremacist that we should all be listening to. So don’t worry if people hear what I say. Your own Israeli regime, the regime that you love so much self-admitted that they were behind the armed insurgency. Channel 14 of the Israeli regime, which is close to Netanyahu itself said, and I tweeted this and others have too, that the Israeli regime, they helped send in along with Americans, they helped send in the weapons that killed hundreds of police officers during those two days of armed insurgency. Your own regime admits it.

Dershowitz: Your own regime. I hope that’s true. I would like to see the United States and Israel together topple the Iranian regime and replace it by a democratic regime where all people can vote and all people have free speech. I would be happy to participate in any such attempt to try to topple this Nazi regime. That’s what would have happened in 1935 if they had done the right thing. We have a chance now to have peace in the world by toppling the Iranian regime. It won’t happen overnight. It won’t happen quickly, but ultimately the good people of Iran, the good people of Iran will rise up against their evil leaders who kill them in the street and will give them ultimately for the first time real democracy. That’s what we want.

Marandi: So says the genocide supporter, the genocide supporter who’s supporting an ongoing genocide where every day Palestinians are dying every single day as we speak. And Western media won’t tell anyone about it because it’s controlled by the same sort of people who you are aligned to. Those kids who are dying of disease every day, those parents who are dying every day because of a lack of proper food and medicine, you are responsible. And all those Western journalists who’ve been trying to distract public opinion away from it. The only guilt of the Iranian people, the only guilt of the Iranian people and Hezbollah and Yemen is that they say no to genocide. That has been the guilt for 47 years. For decades, your regime has been supporting the apartheid and genocidal regime of Israel and supporting the most brutal regimes across the world in Latin America, in Africa, in our region, and in Asia. But the only time your hostility is towards Iran because Iran says no to ethnosupremacism just like 46% [clears throat] of young Jews in the United States. Iran says no to genocide, no to ethnic cleansing, no to colonization, and that Palestine must be a land where Jews and Christians and Muslims live as equal human beings.

Marandi: Your regime, your Israeli regime, because you’re not loyal to the United States. You’re loyal to the Israeli regime, to the genocidal regime. Your regime bombed during this war. Your regime bombed a synagogue. Your regime bombed a synagogue in Tehran. Why? Because that synagogue was not a Zionist synagogue. You hate Jews. You hate Jews that are not Zionist. You are an anti-semite because you kill Palestinians and you’re from Eastern Europe. You have no right to slaughter and rape and murder.

Morgan: Let me bring Alan back in. All right, let me bring Alan back in. Alan, let’s just talk about the politics of this because you mentioned earlier this could take five years, it could take longer, but there’s a political relevancy to this, which is if Donald Trump was to lose the House and the Senate in the midterm elections, then he becomes a lame duck president and would then be highly likely to precipitate a loss in the general election for the Republicans. And the moment the Democrats get back into power, they’re going to get out of this. So this could all be over regardless of whatever you would like or Donald Trump would like or Netanyahu would like. This could all be over within the next, you know, just two and a bit more years because of the politics of this in America.

Dershowitz: That’s right. Because we have a democracy and we vote for what we want. Iran, on the other hand, which in which only Muslims have rights, in which there’s no free speech, there hasn’t been an election for [snorts] almost forever. They don’t have those rights. Yes, we can overthrow our government. Yes, the Democrats maybe will take control of the House and the Senate. That’s a risk. That’s what happened in Great Britain after Churchill won the Second World War with the United States. He got thrown out of power. Uh voters are fickle. But principled politicians, churchillian politicians do the right thing regardless of what the political implications are and the right thing is to continue to make sure that Iran doesn’t pose a nuclear danger  to the world. Now I want to pursue a little bit more of what our distinguished professor here said. He said Jews control the media.  Jews control the media. Jews and he and he started making other kinds of arguments.

Marandi: You’re a liar. You’re a liar. You’re a lawyer. You’re a lawyer, but you’re a liar. You’re a lawyer, but you openly lie. People are watching Jews. How 46 44% of young Jews in the United States under the age of 35. They don’t believe your nonsense anymore. No one believes you. You bomb the Jewish synagogue in the enemy of you are the I never said you say that. Your audience can judge for themselves. In fact, when you say Iran has no freedom of speech, you host I’ve invited him to come to Iran on multiple occasions to see if there is free speech. When I tell him to read the book Going to Iran, he gets angry because it goes against his narrative. But you speak on behalf of an ethnosupremacist regime and you speak of free speech. Your country is run by oligarchs. Do you think that the people of the United States have free speech when they lose their jobs? When on campus they can’t talk out against the Israeli regime and the brutality of the regime? Don’t talk nonsense. People lose their jobs in your country. Their futures are destroyed when they speak truth to power.

Morgan: But let me ask you, Professor Mirandi, let me ask you. Look, I presume there is one thing you would both agree on, which you would like this war to be over sooner rather than later. Correct?

Marandi: We would like justice. We would like that. We would like what would end all wars in this region is one thing that the land of Palestine be a land where Jews, Christians, and Muslims live as equal human beings. That’s something that your other guests would never support and never accept. And that’s why

Morgan: Well, let me ask you, Let me ask you for decades. Well, you said he wouldn’t accept it. Let me ask you, Alan, would you accept that? Of course, I accept it completely. I accept completely people in every part of the world living as equals without regard to their relation.

Marandi: You would accept that all Palestinians living within in the West Bank and Gaza, listen. No, answer my question. All the Palestinians, including those living in the West Bank and Gaza, they would have equal rights to those Israelis who you brought in from Europe and from across the world. They would have equal rights. You accept that?

Dershowitz: Let me be very clear. The vast majority of Israelis come from Arabic backgrounds, North Africa, um, Muslim backgrounds, Arab Palestine.

Marandi: That’s not Palestine. That’s not Palestine. Morocco is not Palestine. Heard Iraq is not Palestine. They’re not speaking with a child orient Ashkenazim. Number one. You and those running the country are mostly Ashkenazi. And the [?] Jews are not Palestinian and they’re not Semites. Of course, I believe in complete equality for everybody. Now I want to ask you the question. Do you think the West Bank and Gaza in the West So you say. No, no, no. Don’t run away from the answer. You say that the that the Palestinian ind you answer the question. You say that the Israeli regime should dismantle the system that now exists and that all Palestinians in the land of Gaza and in the West Bank should have the right of vote and should have citizenship to this land and they cannot be removed from their homes. You say that, right? You accept that, right?

Dershowitz: Of course, I think that they should be citizens of an independent state in Gaza, an independent state.

Marandi: No, no, no, no. I didn’t say that. I did not say that. Don’t change. Don’t change the complete right to. Do you accept that the people in Gaza are refugees from Palestine? I believe in a peaceful Israel. Answer the question. Answer the question. The people in Gaza are refugees from Palestine. They’re not from Gaza. Gaza was a village 50, 60, 70 years ago. The people in the West Bank, many of them are not from the West Bank. Many people in Jordan, they are not from Jordan or Lebanon or in Syria or in Egypt. The Palestinian population that has been expelled from their homes that have been kicked out of their homes and have been decimated for decades. You believe that within Palestine, what is now today called Israel plus the West Bank in Gaza, that they should have equal rights and citizenship. Let’s remember how it started. 1947 the UN partition. Just say yes or no.

Marandi: We know how it started. UK. The people who run Israel came from Europe. We know where they came from. They came from Eastern Europe for the most part. Many came from Russia. We know they’re not semites. I’m asking you a simple question. Just say should the Palestinians in Gaza and in the West Bank and the Palestinians who’ve been expelled from their homes who are from that land and who are they have equal rights and citizenship?

Morgan: This is a simple question. Most of the showers ask you the question and you tried to you tried to shift the question. Let him answer. Let him answer.

Dershowutz: In 1947 United Nations divided what was then a place called Palestine named by the Romans into two areas. One where there were a majority of Jews and that could be a Jewish state and the other which was much larger with the Arab land which could be a Palestinian state. Palestinians would have had a completely free state on the West Bank and in the Gaza and the Palestinian leadership led by a Nazi named Husini turned it down and refused and attacked Israel in a genocidal war against Israel. That’s what caused people to leave their homes and abandon their villages. Ben Gurian wanted to welcome them all, kept them there, let them have a two-state solution. Israel said yes. The Palestinians said no. That was the origin of the conflict and we can’t go back in time now. Obviously things have changed but I want complete equality for everybody. I want every

Marandi: May I just may I just want because as a lawyer let me just tell you one thing for your own sake. It’s only for your own sake for the sake of it’s not for the sake of argument. What you are saying, the argument that you’re making these fairy tales worked before October the 7th. They worked because the West had the propaganda machine. The West had the centers of knowledge. It worked and most people did not know the truth. So it worked. But the mistake that you made was that after October the 7th and the South African complaint to the ICJ, after October the 7th in the complaint that the South African government to the ICJ in the south. In that complaint they showed the genocidal intent of your regime, your Israeli regime. And after that we saw it carry out that and gradually as time well anyone can read it online. I advise all the viewers to use the search engine to go and look at the South African complaint to the ICJ after that. Okay, people can read it. It’s just quotes. It’s just quoting your prime minister. is quoting your president and then people saw the genocide call out on television for the world.

Morgan: Just to be clear, I think it’s probably pretty clear to viewers now why negotiations took 21 hours and why the war is still raging. But I appreciate you both agreeing to each other.

Marandi: Iran did not attack the United States. Iran did not pierce. Iran did not attack the United States. And the United States is sacrificing the world for this ethnospremacist regime.

50 minutes, 57 seconds

It has killed so many

Morgan: I can say all I can say is good luck. All I can say is good luck to the negotiating teams who are trying to bring this war to an end because even trying to bring this debate to an end is proving completely impossible. I appreciate you both. Professor Mirandi, Alan Dershowitz, I’ve got to leave it there. I thank you both very much for your time. Thank you. Thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Li7erGp46k

 

Ben Samuels in Haaretz: America First, antisemitism second: The dangers of Tucker Carlson formally entering politicsI

/6 Comments/in /by
I always thought Haaretz writers were less crazy than the usual pro-Israel fanatics. Here, however, Samuels implies that Jewish money supporting Israel and having an impact on American elections is a myth–despite the $60 million that the pro-Israel candidate in the Michigan Senatorial election got, $30 million from AIPAC. (I omit what could be a very long list of such election-meddling by pro-Israel money.) And the same with dual loyalty–despite people like Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin and the entire pro-Israel lobby. And of course any link between Jeffrey Epstein and Israel is nothing more than a conspiracy theory. And notice the baleful photo of Tucker that accompanies the article:

Needless to say, the ADL is not pleased. From their website:

  • Tucker Carlson is a former Fox News primetime host turned independent media figure and one of the most prolific amplifiers of antisemitic and conspiracy theory-laden content online.
  • The Tucker Carlson Show, which can be viewed online, regularly platforms and lends legitimacy to extremist figures who have espoused antisemitism, anti-Israel conspiracy theories, Holocaust revisionism, white supremacism, and xenophobia, including Candace Owens, Nick Fuentes, Darryl Cooper, Peter Brimelow, and Ian Carroll.
  • Carlson takes a “just asking questions” approach that allows guests like Fuentes and Cooper to say the explicitly antisemitic part while he presents them as authoritative and denies personal endorsement.
  • Carlson himself has promoted multiple antisemitic conspiracy theories, including claims that modern Jews have no biblical lineage and that Israel persecutes Christians.
  • He is one of the most influential figures in mainstreaming the “Great Replacement” theory, framing immigration and demographic change as a conspiracy to take power from white Americans.

There are a great many similar articles in the Jewish media, e.g., here.
 

Tucker Carlson and several of his most prominent ideological allies have signaled in recent days that they are considering launching a third-party political organization, with Israel’s influence over American politics at the center of the prospective movement.

Carlson earlier this week hosted former Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massie — two prominent Republican isolationists who have been pushed to the party’s margins — and Joe Kent, the former Trump administration national security official who resigned shortly after the outbreak of the Iran war earlier this year

All four have fallen out with Trump at various points, and Israel has figured prominently in each rupture.

Their grievances range from opposition to Israel’s perceived role in drawing the U.S. into war with Iran, to broader claims that Trump and the American political system are unduly influenced by Israel and its supporters. Carlson and his allies, meanwhile, have long promoted conspiracy theories involving Israel — most notably concerning the Jeffrey Epstein affair.

What binds the emerging movement is not merely an effort to reclaim the “America First” mantle, but an insistence that Israel and its American supporters represent a central source of the movement’s betrayal.

“We said no more foreign wars and we meant it and supported Donald Trump because he made that promise. But he’s betrayed us all,” Greene posted while sharing a picture of the group at Carlson’s Maine compound. “The movement has begun.”

Appearing on the progressive talk show The Young Turks earlier this week, Kent acknowledged the difficulty of mounting a third-party campaign. “Running as a third-party candidate is challenging. Not impossible, but it is very challenging,” he said. “But that’s kind of the consensus that we came to, that the current system just simply doesn’t work, and we have to find something new to save our country.”

Kent also said that everyone at the gathering urged Carlson to run for president in 2028, so far to no avail. “Hopefully he wakes up one day and Tucker says he’s going to run,” Kent said.

Carlson used his Wednesday show to present an unofficial 10-point vision for the country, organized around ideals including fairness, sovereignty, honesty and decency. His treatment of Israel and the U.S.-Israel relationship suggested that he views the alliance as fundamentally at odds with those aspirations.

The electoral viability of Carlson’s potential party may be less important than its influence on the broader political conversation. It could become the first significant modern American political movement to place allegations of Israeli control — and, by implication, doubts about the loyalty of Israel’s Jewish supporters — at the center of its founding narrative.

Carlson and his allies have repeatedly moved beyond legitimate criticism of Israeli policy and American military support into rhetoric that echoes longstanding conspiracies about Jewish money, influence and divided loyalty. A party organized around those ideas could provide a path into mainstream politics for figures and views that have previously remained beyond acceptable boundaries. It could also encourage the treatment of American Jewish donors, organizations and public officials as presumptive fifth columns.

Whether Carlson ultimately runs for president is almost beside the point. His formal entry into organized electoral politics could normalize a conspiratorial framework in which Israel, Jewish political participation and hidden foreign influence are increasingly treated as interchangeable.

In Praise of North Germanic Man: Introduction to Julius Langbehn’s ‘Rembrandt as Educator‘ (Virtus Editions, 2026)

/17 Comments/in , /by
Edited, translated and with an introduction by Dr. Alexander Jacob.

Julius Langbehn was born in 1851 in northern Schleswig. He studied natural science and philology at the University of Kiel, but his studies were interrupted by the Franco-Prussian War, in which he fought as a volunteer. After the war, in 1873, he travelled to Italy and, on his return to Germany, continued his studies at the University of Munich, where he obtained a doctorate in art and archaeology. His dissertation was written on the early Greek statues of Nike, the goddess of victory. After further travels and a short stay in Vienna, he settled down in 1885 in Dresden. In the winter of 1889 Langbehn visited Nietzsche, whom he considered a kindred soul, in his psychiatric asylum in Jena and requested that the philosopher be removed from the care of doctors whom he considered incompetent and that he be placed under his own psychological care. He did not succeed in his objective and returned regretfully to work on his Rembrandt book. The book was published in 1890 anonymously, ‘von einem Deutschen’ (by a German), and met with great success. It went through 40 printings in its first two years.

The title of Langbehn’s book was inspired by Nietzsche’s essay Schopenhauer als Erzieher (1874). Langbehn’s preference for the philo-Semitic Nietzsche over the anti-Semitic Schopenhauer may betray his own philo-Semitism, a trait that was detected by Theodor Fritsch, who indicated that, up to its 7th edition, Langbehn’s work was indeed quite philo-Semitic, and it was his own correspondence with Langbehn pointing out the necessity of anti-Semitism in such a worldview as Langbehn’s that prompted the latter to render his later editions more starkly anti-Semitic.  At the same time the work became more pro-Catholic in its later editions and, in 1900, Langbehn even converted to Catholicism.

✤

The political successes of Prussia at the time of the unification of Germany in 1871 threatened to engulf Germany with its militarism, industrialisation, and rationalist tendencies in science and art. Marxists responded to this threat with essentially economic projects based on the principle of ‘class struggle’. Idealists on the other hand proposed a cultural revolution through the renewal of German culture itself. The latter effort led to what is generally called the ‘Conservative Revolution’, as constituted in works such as Oswald Spengler’s Preußentum und Sozialismus (Prussianism and Socialism) (1919), Arthur Moeller van den Bruck’s Das dritte Reich (The Third Reich) (1923) and Edgar Julius Jung’s Die Herrschaft der Minderwertigen (The Rule of the Inferior) (1930). Julius Langbehn’s call for a social aristocracy also found an echo in Stefan George’s influential poetical work Das neue Reich (The New Reich) (1929), which outlined a spiritual aristocracy as the ideal German society. Langbehn’s Rembrandt als Erzieher (Rembrandt as Educator) may be considered an early representative of the Conservative Revolution, since it sought to combat the evils of democratic culture at the turn of the century—established by parvenu cosmopolitan elites that promoted foreign, especially French artistic fashions—with a return to the natural aristocratic ethos of the strongest element in the German population, the North Germans. According to Langbehn, only a reversion of Germany to its North German character could effectively neutralise the materialistic scientific spirit that had begun to disintegrate its culture at the end of the nineteenth century.

At the same time, Langbehn’s work is also a major contribution to the series of works on the Nordic ideal that began with Arthur, Count Gobineau’s Essai sur l’inégalité des races humaines (An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races) (1855) and continued with Houston Stewart Chamberlain’s Grundlagen des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts (Foundations of the Nineteenth Century) (1899), Alfred Rosenberg’s Mythus des 20ten Jahrhunderts (The Myth of the Twentieth Century) (1930) and Hans Günther’s Frömmigkeit nordischer Artung (Piety of a Nordic Character) (1934). These works formed the intellectual background of the German National Socialist racialist ideology that was sought to be practically implemented by Heinrich Himmler and the Rasse- und Siedlungshauptamt (Race- and Settlement Head Office), which Himmler established in 1931. However, Langbehn’s study is indeed a serious psychological one since it is based on his own origin in, and familiarity with, the Lower (= North) German culture of Schleswig-Holstein, as well as on his extensive studies in art history. Langbehn’s subtle and detailed analysis of the North German character aims at demonstrating its suitability to lead the newly formed German Reich, and to serve as a model for mankind in general.

Although Langbehn’s work was not a direct forerunner of the National Socialist movement, it was reprinted throughout the Third Reich. Indeed, many of the Heimatkunst (Homeland Art) items on display in the Great German Art Exhibition in Munich in 1937 corresponded to Langbehn’s exhortations to a patriotic style of German painting. Langbehn’s emphasis on the preservation and cultivation of the German physique as the outward manifestation of the ethical personality of the Germans also found practical application in the several youth movements that arose at the turn of the century, such as (and principally) the Wandervogel movement (a German youth organization founded by Hermann Hoffmann-Fölkersamb and Karl Fischer at the end of the nineteenth century for the promotion of outdoor activities and folk culture . Many of these movements, however, were banned in 1933 by the National Socialists, who created their own Hitlerjugend movement in order to deter any opposition from within other youth groupings.

✤

Langbehn begins his work by identifying the increasing devotion to recording and registering activity, rather than to an organic vision of reality, as the principal threat to German culture. Specialisation has led to a microscopic worldview that must be replaced by an artistic, macroscopic one. The glaring light of critical reason in science should be replaced by the light-and-shade that informs artistic creativity. The increasing sterility of modern science can be countered only by a regeneration of the psychological sources of creativity within the German character. These are, principally, the German’s sense of individuality and his developed personality. The modern Germans should learn from the best individuals and personalities of their historic past, and to facilitate this exercise Langbehn chooses the Lower German painter Rembrandt as the symbolic exemplar of the quintessential German spirit. Germanic character is based essentially on loyalty and is naturally opposed to all forms of frivolity.  Tranquillity and depth are the marked qualities of this character, and both are reflected particularly in the light-and-shade effects of Rembrandt’s chiaroscuro. Rembrandt was indeed not classical but mysterious in his connection to the Dutch soil and peasantry as well as to the natural aristocratic ethos of the Lower Germans.

These sterling aspects of the Germans and their newly formed empire should be protected from foreign influences, especially Gallic and Roman ones. In art, the trend of following foreign, especially French, fashions is particularly deleterious since French painting is either excessively restless or excessively academic and rigid. The French preference for scientific realism, symbolised by Émile Zola’s Naturalist novels, should be countered by a return to German folkloric traditions. Architecture must eschew ornateness in order to express the spirit of the German people and must focus on the manly monumental style that is characteristic of it. Langbehn’s artistic ideals are, however, not only local but also moral. Thus Rembrandt is considered as representing a Protestant view of the world and his Christian figures are often drawn from lowly life. This simplicity of character may be encountered mostly in the country rather than in the metropolises. The latter have, through their modern ‘scientific’ specialisations, lost the sense of the whole that artistic culture should express. Thus, for example, the increased construction of museums in Berlin and other cities only obscures the lack of any true devotion to the Muses themselves in modern German cultural life.

In science, specialisation has resulted in a preoccupation with details that are not informed by any subjective apprehension of their true significance. Science should be infused with an artistic spirit in order to acquire a synthetic, multi-faceted view of the world—a philosophical worldview. Such a worldview would necessarily be a hierarchical one since objects have to be considered according to the degree of their innate human value and not as being of equal objective significance. Against the Darwinian worldview Langbehn proposes the organic and artistic one of Johannes Kepler, who viewed Nature as a unified organism. Historiography too has become cold in its neglect of values in favour of details. This is the result of Roman methods of historical writing, which the Germans would do well to discard in favour of more Germanic ones. Naturally, Langbehn is opposed to Roman Law as well, as an alien legal system that is unsuited for the Germans.

Medicine too must become more holistic focusing on the entire man rather than on individual illnesses. Langbehn even recommends doubtful experiments of the time in craniology, physiognomy, hypnotism, and spiritism as examples of a psychology that is more integral than current scientific approaches to the study of man. Generally, the external world studied objectively does not yield an adequate understanding of the organic natural universe. Only a philosophical science can do this. One of Langbehn’s models of an organic scientific worldview is the ‘Theory of Colours’ of Goethe, which, unlike Newton’s, is subjective and, unlike that of Emil du Bois-Reymond, the leading physiologist of his day, organic. The correspondences between macrocosm and microcosm should be studied meticulously in order to develop a ‘mathematical-tectonic’ system of Nature. Indeed if such a system were to be perfected, the laws of planetary motions could even be applied to the colouration of an insect’s wings.

In politics, the most popular form of government is a monarchy. The peasantry on their land already constitute an aristocratic order that is close to Nature and, like it, hierarchical. Between the ‘noble’ peasants and their king stand the formative artists, who represent the noble creative aspect of what is called the middle class. These three orders together constitute the fatherland. Now that Germany has acquired political unity it must attempt to achieve its spiritual and intellectual unification through a consolidation of these three orders. While Prussia was in a major way responsible for the political unification of Germany, it is rather too rigid in its predominantly military spirit. It should be made more German so that it may acquire a warmer patriotic appeal for all Germans and not remain a merely political model for the newly formed state. Further, Prussia should be represented by its provinces rather than by the ossified capital Berlin. Langbehn suggests that here again Prussia would do well to ally itself with Holland since the Dutch possess that ‘rhythm’ which can complement Prussia’s ‘symmetry’. In fact, Prussia itself was originally settled extensively by Dutch immigrants. More infusion of the Dutch strain into Prussia will therefore be salutary.

The Dutch are considered by Langbehn as the embodiment of the spirit of freedom that was expressed most strikingly in their war of independence against the Spanish Hapsburgs in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. Langbehn interestingly maintains that a truly conservative nation, that is, a nation that is strongly rooted in its traditions, is ‘liberal’ or devoted to freedom, whereas a liberally disposed people, on the other hand, need the discipline of conservatism. Other Lower German sources of the psychological quickening of the German spirit are Denmark/Sweden and England. Langbehn takes care to point out that his own homeland Schleswig-Holstein may be considered the historical centre of the Lower German lands, since the aristocratic Oldenburg family there provided kings and queens for the thrones of half the world. From this same source must the rule of modern Germany extend.

The colonising spirit of the Lower Germans is best illustrated by the flowering of the aristocratic Venetian Republic during the Renaissance, for, according to Langbehn, much of the ruling class was constituted of Lower Germans (Lombards) and Slavs (Croats). Langbehn describes the old Venetian culture as one based on a healthy combination of trade and art. It was also more Greek (i.e., Byzantine) than Roman in its style and, according to Langbehn, its cathedral, the San Marco, is similar to the Temple of Solomon as depicted by Rembrandt. Langbehn even goes so far as to infer from these artistic affinities that the way from Amsterdam to Jerusalem lies through Venice.

On the other hand, when Langbehn compares Venice to North America, which also was settled and developed by Lower Germans, he notes the marked contrast between the aristocratic nature of the former and the democratic one of the latter. Langbehn’s contempt for North American democracy is a counterpart of his aversion to French fashions in art and literature. However, he hopes that the natural aristocratism of the German Lower Germans will eventually inform the New World.  In this he shows himself to be, sociologically, rather naive since the economic emphases of the Puritan founders of America, coupled with the increasing infiltration of the Jewish financial spirit in America, have now made the spiritual fertilisation of American culture by Germanic Europe an impossibility. Further, the very quality of individualism that Langbehn identifies in this work as the distinguishing mark of the Lower Germans has itself turned into the uncontrollable vice of present-day American society.

At any rate, Langbehn maintains that, like the Venetians, the modern Germans should develop a social aristocracy to oppose the increasingly popular movement of social democracy. The better elements of society must always rule the lower and a social aristocracy will be guaranteed only

if the morally and materially better placed classes of its inhabitants seriously act as the born advocates and guardians of the morally and materially worse placed classes and if this relationship finds its lasting constitutional expression [p. 262].

People should be judged not according to their wealth but also according to their moral, intellectual, social, and historical values. And the common man must always be protected by the noble:

To take care of the weak against the strong, of justice against injustice, the people against their oppressors is knightly: in this active sense should knighthood be reborn [p. 263].

In fact the rabble must be turned into a people by giving them higher wages and landed property. The aristocratic rule of Germany will be represented essentially by the Prussian officer and the Christian, particularly the Catholic, priest. For both belong to naturally aristocratic orders and symbolise the throne and altar. Both these orders rest on the agrarian order of the peasants, whose society, as indicated earlier, is also aristocratically ranked.

German politics should finally become a kind of artistic politics. Prussia, which had hitherto focused on scientific development, should now turn to artistic development. The childlike aspect of the German character that is represented by the German artists should be joined to the political aspect, which is represented by the German warriors, beginning with Siegfried. The artistic politician must draw out and develop the individuality and naturalness of the people. A nation’s culture cannot be revived by professors and museum directors. For, while the farmer and artist produce, the specialist scholar, like the businessman, merely markets intellectual goods. Just as all the arts must be considered together as a creative complex, so too all the different divisions of politics must be united in the goal of national development, which may then be extended even to international culture—so long as a nation takes care to absorb only the noble elements of another nation into itself and not the degenerate ones. Like the artist, the politician must be formed in old traditions, but be able to absorb new ones into his fully formed personality.

In considering German culture in greater detail, Langbehn points first to the defect of rationalism in writers like Gottfried Lessing (1729–81), who was detached from the German people, and was more universalist in his opinions than specifically German. His sort of Prussianism is too cold, too cosmopolitan. Similarly, the classical scholar and historian, Theodor Mommsen (1817–1903) was more interested in the Roman ethos than in the Greek or German and therefore alien to the German national spirit. The excessively rational and mechanical aspect of modern German culture is embodied most strikingly in its present cultural centre: Berlin. Berlin has a Jewish complexion, which Langbehn describes as a degeneration of the earlier healthy Jewishness that it contained in the salons of Rahel Varnhagen (1771–1833). Short-sighted focus on current events has led to the transient fashions of novelistic and other trivial salon literature. Love of triviality and hatred of genius are indeed the typical characteristics of philistinism, which Langbehn’s artistic politics vigorously opposes. The remedy for Berlin is the absorption of more diverse influences from outside it. Berlin represents only the petty officer spirit of Prussia, whereas the Prussian provinces contain more of the aristocratic officer spirit. This martially disciplined and hierarchical Prussia must be harnessed for the regeneration of German culture and in turn be enriched, ‘civilised’ by the humanity of the rest of the German population.

Another fault of present German culture is its overestimation of the importance of academia. Professors in fact represent a democratic multiplication of opinions that obscure through their narrow specialisations the genuine voice of the people. The ‘sense for the essential’ which is the mark of the genius, is quite lost. The French writer Émile Zola’s attempt to write scientifically ‘Naturalist’ novels is an example of the petty plebeian spirit of democratic culture.  Art historians too, like the classicist Johann Winckelmann (1717–68), are not sufficiently German in their academic interests. Even Goethe flirted with classical style unsuccessfully, as in his drama Iphigenie. Its was only in the second part of his Faust that he discovered a German subject and a German style. This style was indeed perfected by the outstanding Lower Germans, Shakespeare and Rembrandt, the former through the breadth of his vision, the latter through his depth. Culture should be subjective, organic and artistic, not rational, objective, mechanical or materialistic. Germany should not classicise but create a classical culture of its own.  Langbehn links classical art etymologically to the army and navy, and stresses that the classical virtues of the Prussian military spirit should now be formulated in an artistic manner in order to create a new classical German culture.

German culture is pre-eminently musical but, while the works of Richard Wagner established a sort of musical German imperium, his style is actually a loud Celto-Roman one, which is not simple as German music must be. German culture must be heroic, and Langbehn interestingly considers the mediaeval Nibelungenlied, in this context, as a more authentic expression of Germanic heroism than the Nordic sagas, which contain many foreign influences in their composition. Langbehn points to the Low German language itself as a model of simplicity and heroism that would serve well as a vehicle of great, even heroic poetry—if only it could find suitable poets for this purpose. At the same time, while German culture must be focused on the heroic, it must highlight also the ‘gentle’ quality of the hero. This quality is indeed consummated in the supremely gentle figure of Christ.

Finally, when considering the development of culture in Germany, Langbehn stresses the importance of corporeal culture so that the bodies of Germans may remain pure and healthy in form. Clothing should be natural and colourful, rather than dark and dreary as it currently is. The education of the youth should be relaxed from its present rigid discipline so that students are not frightened but free in their learning. The curriculum should be directed away from Roman studies to Greek and Germanic. Education should be restricted to a noble minority that is suited for it, and not made universal in a democratic manner.

In the final part of the work, on the universal significance of German man, Langbehn eulogises the German as a model of noble simplicity possessing a healthy balance of passion and reasonableness. Particularly interesting is his repeated reference to the ‘childlike’ nature of the Lower German as that which raises him above others. Indeed, Christ too had a childlike nature and he combined it with an artistic one insofar as he made his whole life a work of art by pouring out his blood for our souls. Artistic nobility and political nobility must go together since they seek to realise the same higher spiritual potential of mankind.

The highest goal of human development is morality. Germanic culture is based on the concept of honour and must be opposed to the greedy parvenu ethos of today. Thus it must conduct ‘a moral battle against money’. As he declares, ‘the modern Siegfried—the reborn German—should kill this glistening dragon’ (p. 169). Aristocratic intellectual circles like those which existed in Weimar during the days of Goethe and Schiller must be recreated in Germany in order to ennoble its culture. The ideal political ruler, the ‘secret Kaiser’ of German lore, must also be humble and selfless, like Christ. He must lose his individual personality in that of the nation and always seek to defend the intellectually weak in the same manner that a real Kaiser defends the economically weak. In order to reform the Reich, he should be an intellectually powerful leader. Indeed, the people always expect a strong genius to lead them. Langbehn’s descriptions of his ideal Kaiser are thus rather prophetic of the Führer principle that was actually realised in Germany thirty years after the publication of this book.

As in National Socialism, Langbehn stresses that German culture should be made popular, that is, based on local and not foreign, especially Gallic, fashions. At present, literature and the theatre are dominated by mercantile Jews who import foreign Gallic fashions into Germany. At this point, Langbehn undertakes a discussion of the crucial Jewish question, but first makes clear his distinction between those whom he considers authentic, noble Jews and the false, degenerate stock-exchange Jews. He insists that anti-Semitism should not become plebeian itself, but be able to separate the good Jews from the bad, though the bad should necessarily be removed from their positions of power.

German culture must be both artistic and warlike, since the latter aspect is necessary to defend the former. However, it should also be Christian since Germany’s traditions are in the main Christian ones. It is interesting to note that, unlike Nietzsche, who considered Christianity as an expression of a ‘slave morality’, Langbehn considers Christianity as an aristocratic spiritual religion that arose in conflict with the democratic rationalism of the Pharisees of the time. Langbehn points particularly to the excellence of Catholicism as a vehicle of spiritual culture compared to Protestantism, for it is indeed more artistic than the latter. Much was lost in German culture through the iconoclastic tendencies of many of the Protestant reformers. The creative spirit of Catholicism should therefore be revived now and to such a degree that Luther will eventually take a secondary place in the history of the Germanic peoples. It is through a return to original Christianity that the Germans will be able to recover the original aristocratic spirit that informed their culture when they were not yet Christian. Thus Langbehn advocates a return

back to the gentle, poetic, German aristocratic intellectual life of the Middle Ages, back to the deep motherly instincts of the earliest Christian-Germanic period, back to the strong, brave, childlike, pictorial and pictorially educated life of the most ancient German, to Germanness in its purest form [p. 451].

This revival of true Germanic culture, according to Langbehn, is of vital importance, not only for Germany, but for the whole of mankind, since the Germans, as the most childlike and vigorous of nations, will be able through such a revival to extend their benefits to other nations in much the same way that the Christians once spread their religion.

 

Fauci’s Never-Ending Snow Day

/2 Comments/in /by

Fauci’s Never-Ending Snow Day

He sacrificed the country on the altar of his ego.

After envy, the most self-destructive emotion is the desire to be on TV, destroying the reputations of, among others, Michael Avenatti, Andrew Cuomo, Eric Swalwell and—since the release of his diary—Anthony Fauci.

Except in Fauci’s case, his fame-mongering was less self-destructive than simply destructive, as demonstrated by David Zweig’s amazing book, “An Abundance of Caution: American Schools, the Virus, and a Story of Bad Decisions” (MIT Press).

As Zweig demonstrates, Fauci had to know the restrictive COVID measures he pushed would do enormous damage to the country—to little kids, dying patients, cancer victims, college students, restaurants, the travel industry, budding careers, the theater, symphonies, professional athletes, etc., etc., etc. Unless he’d had his brain removed, Fauci knew that his directives served no purpose, other than making him, as he wrote in his diary, “the most famous and talked about person in the country and one of the most recognizable persons in the world.”

Zweig, a liberal freelance reporter, was in good standing with the MSM at the beginning of the shutdowns. In April, he had the most read article in The New York Times about a couple stranded abroad by the pandemic. But he became persona non grata the moment he began submitting pieces to the Times with hard data about the virus.

What explains this? Only one thing: Fauci was the left’s most promising silver bullet to take out Trump. As such, the media would brook no dissent from his COVID edicts. Liberals would not only destroy the economy, but countless lives, in order to slay a pestilence worse than the virus: Donald J. Trump.

Fauci performed as expected and was rewarded with extravagant praise, “A-list” parties, undeserved riches and celebrity friends—all meticulously documented in his diary.

Perhaps the cruelest of Fauci’s decrees was his demand that the schools remain closed until a series of impossible benchmarks were met, e.g., no “community spread,” no students with sick family members, no unvaccinated kids, and so on. And yet, he insisted that his “default” position was to open them. But only if all eight major planets aligned in a straight line on the same side of the sun.

Fauci’s stance on the schools could not have been at more odds with the data, devastatingly presented in Zweig’s book.

As early as April 2020, the very outset of the pandemic, the CDC published the results of a massive analysis of 1,482 Americans hospitalized with COVID from March 1 to March 28 in 14 states, including California and New York. Only 0.04% of kids ages 0–17 were hospitalized.

And deaths? Fewer children died from the virus in any of the 3 years of the pandemic than died during several flu seasons in the previous decade.

The CDC’s own report in the spring of 2021 found that 35.2 % of pediatric “COVID deaths” had nothing to do with COVID at all, but rather were attributable to obvious things like suicides, car accidents and murders. It’s bad enough that the media wholly ignored the CDC’s shocking discovery about the fudged “COVID deaths” among children. But Fauci? Lobotomy or pure evil.

And there’s more! Throughout the spring of 2020, kids across Europe were back in school. After what The Atlantic would call “Europe’s Experiment in Human Sacrifice,” on May 17, 2020, EU education ministers announced the results: There had been no significant increase in COVID infections among children, parents or school staff despite millions of students in 22 countries being back at school for months.

A few weeks after the report from Europe, the Times ran an article with the promising title, “How to Reopen Schools: What Science and Other Countries Teach Us.” But instead of telling readers “what other countries teach us,” as the headline suggested, the 2,200-word article did not even mention the EU report. It consisted mostly of random anecdotes and quotes, leaving the impression that it would be sheer madness to open the schools.

The first quote, for example, was from a school nurse in Camden, N.J. (yes, exactly the sort of “expert” RFK is sidelining!): “I’m just going to say it. It feels like we’re playing Russian roulette with our kids.” (I wonder if school nurses have to go to work when the schools are closed.)

It’s one thing for lazy, biased reporters to pretend they didn’t notice what happened when Europe opened the schools. Surely our heroic director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases took note of “what other countries teach us” in making his recommendations.

Nope! Nearly two months after the EU ministers’ announcement about their success in opening the schools, Fauci wrote in his diary: “Trump wants to open the schools at all costs. Clearly he does not care about the safety of the children.” He added, “CNN continues to quote me in opposition to Trump and as the only person telling the truth.”

COPYRIGHT 2026 ANN COULTER

The Grayzone and Nate Bear: Israel protects Mexican official wanted for mass kidnap-murder, along with accused sex criminals and fraudsters

/12 Comments/in /by

As has often been noted, Jews in general have no respect for laws per se. Thus mainstream Jewish organizations and the Israeli government are happy to take donations form convicted fraudsters like Marc Rich whose plea for a pardon included letters from a wide swath of Jewish beneficiaries of his largesse, including Israeli government officials, the ADL, Birthright Israel, etc.

Israel protects Mexican official wanted for mass kidnap-murder, along with accused sex criminals and fraudsters

Israel is home to droves of international criminals accused or found guilty in a second country of various crimes

The Grayzone (Max Blumenthal) and Nate Bear

Among the most notorious figures protected by Israel is Tomás Zerón, accused mastermind of the kidnapping and murder of 43 Mexican students in Ayotzinapa.

This article was originally published by ¡DoNotPanic! and features additional editing by The Grayzone.

Israel has become a haven for international criminals. Many are dual-nationals who have taken advantage of their ability to move seamlessly between Israel and their second country of citizenship to commit crimes and, in some cases, evade justice.

The scale of the criminality, and the volume of cases (relative to the population of Israel), is astonishing.

Among the most notorious accused criminals being protected from justice by Israel is Timur Mindich, the ultimate financial beneficiary of the Ukrainian drone maker Fire Point. Mindich fled to Israel last year, just days before being charged as the mastermind behind a $100 million embezzlement scheme involving Ukraine’s state nuclear power company. Mindich also happens to be the co-owner of Kvartal 95 Studio, the production company founded by Volodymyr Zelensky.

Mindich, like many in this article, has taken advantage of Israel’s controversial Law of Return which allows any Jew in the world to claim Israeli citizenship without having to renounce their home country passport.

Some of those accused and charged have made minor or international headlines, some haven’t, but the scale of the issue was such that I thought it would be useful to document my research here.

In some cases, Israel has refused to extradite the wanted person despite requests from the country in which the crimes were committed.

Staying on Ukraine and refused extradition requests, we have Oleksandr Dubilet, the former Chairman of the Board of Ukraine’s PrivatBank. Dubilet is currently a fugitive in Israel and the subject of multiple criminal investigations and extradition requests for his role in embezzling at least $100 million dollars following the 2016 privatisation of PrivatBank. To date, Israel has refused to extradite him.

Israel as a bolthole for financial fraudsters is a common theme. One of the most significant SEC fraud cases in recent years involved over 150 Israelis (some with dual US-Israeli nationality, others not), wanted for their role in conducting binary options fraud worth upwards of $100 billion.

Binary options are a type of financial bet where the outcome is essentially all-or-nothing. Instead of buying a stock or currency, you bet on whether the price of a stock or currency will be above or below a certain level at a specific time. While not illegal, the Israeli companies were accused of rigging and manipulating prices and expiry times and using fake identities.

For a decade until 2017, Israel was the global centre for the online binary-options industry. The Israeli police failed to investigate, so hundreds of cases were filed in Israeli courts by people from dozens of countries who had been defrauded.

One of the most notorious fraudsters was Lee Elbaz, the CEO of Yukom Communications, a dual US-Israeli national. She was arrested in 2017 when on holiday in New York and eventually convicted of wire fraud and sentenced to 22 years in prison.

Other prime Israeli movers in the binary options fraud business were Yossi Herzog and Yakov Cohen, both connected with Yukom and other binary options front companies. They were charged with $140 million fraud in 2019 but despite being under a DOJ criminal investigation the US choose not to pursue their extradition, while other Israeli co-conspirators in the Yukom case have joined Elbaz in serving jail sentences.

Other Israeli kingpins in the binary options sector include Ran Amiran and Malhaz Patarkazishvili, also known as Pini Peter. They were charged with $100 million fraud by the SEC for their role managing the fraudulent options trader Spot Option. Because it was a civil case and the DOJ wasn’t involved they weren’t eligible for extradition from Israel and continue to reside in Israel. It was reported in 2021 that Amiran had reached a financial settlement for the damages with the SEC, likely so that he could once again travel to the US. Peter, a friend of Netanyahu’s, remains unrepentant, despite being ordered to pay the US government $87 million, a judgment he has appealed.

Above: Benjamin Netanyahu with financial fraudster Pini Peter

There are hundreds of other Israel-linked individuals charged with binary options fraud identified on the SEC website, including joint German-Israel nationals Gil and Raz Beserglik who ran binary options call centres out of Germany to scam people.

Another hotbed of Israeli fraud is the moving industry, where companies pose as legitimate household goods movers only to steal belongings or withhold items unless additional payment is made. One of the largest “hostage load” prosecutions was of Advanced Moving Systems, an Israeli-run company which lured customers with artificially low moving estimates and then extorted them by holding their household goods hostage until they paid fraudulently inflated prices. Many of the dozens of people behind the scam remain wanted, with their current location unknown. Dozens of other Israelis connected with fraudulent moving companies also remain on the run, and have likely fled to Israel. (Incidentally, the Israelis arrested by the FBI on September 11th and quickly released were working for a Mossad counterintelligence operation using a moving company as cover. But that’s another story).

Penny stock fraud is another rich seam for Israeli crooks. This type of fraud takes place when the stocks of small companies trading under $5 a share are marketed to often older and uniformed people using high pressure sales marketing tactics, with the caller promising guaranteed returns, often claiming to have inside information. One of the largest instances in recent years saw dual US-Israeli citizen Sharone “Barry” Perlstein and numerous Israeli co-conspirators charged with creating at least 15 fraudulent public shell companies to sell millions of dollars worth of penny stocks using fraudulent tactics. Previous penny stock fraud cases had also involved Israeli nationals.

The diamond industry has also attracted a fair share of Israeli swindlers. One of the most well-known is Mordechai “Moti” Ferder, a California-based luxury jeweller at the centre of one of the largest fraud scandals in the American jewellery industry. Ferder was accused of juicing his company’s accounts to boost the valuation before selling to an investment company, while in reality he was racking up liabilities worth hundreds of millions of dollars. In 2025, with an FBI investigation underway, Ferder fled California for Tel Aviv.

Then there is Gery Shalon, the Georgia-born Israeli responsible for hacking JP Morgan and carrying out the largest theft of customer data from an American financial institution in history.

Outside the fraud cases, Israel also attracts politicians attempting to shield themselves from justice in their home countries. One of the most notorious and ongoing cases is that of Tomás Zerón, the former director of the Criminal Investigation Agency of Mexico. Zerón, who received training in Israel before assuming control of Mexico’s version of the FBI, is accused by Mexican authorities of having direct involvement in the kidnap, torture, and likely murder of dozens of university students.

The Ayotzinapa kidnapping is considered one of Mexico’s most heinous human rights abuse cases. It took place in 2014, when forty-three leftist students were kidnapped and disappeared on their way to Mexico City to commemorate the anniversary of the 1968 Tlatelolco massacre. Zerón is said to have known or ordered the students to be handed over to a cartel group to be murdered and disposed of. The former Mexican top cop promptly fled to Israel after being officially accused of participating in the crime.

Despite an extradition order, an Interpol red notice and numerous requests from Mexico to hand him over, Israel has refused, reportedly as punishment for Mexico’s criticism of Israel at the UN.

Another Mexican diplomat who fled to Israel is Andrés Roemer. Formerly Mexico’s Ambassador to UNESCO based in Paris, and Consul General of Mexico in San Francisco, Roemer fled to Israel in 2021 after being accused by 61 women of rape and sexual assault. While a Jerusalem court has authorized the former diplomat’s extradition to Mexico, he remains in Israel under house arrest.

Roemer is not alone among Jewish sex criminals fleeing from justice in the home countries to Israel. The phenomenon is so prevalent that even CBS News has covered it. Probably the most famous accused sex criminals to have fled to Israel are the Hollywood directors Brett Ratner and Bryan Singer. Rush Hour director Ratner, a good friend of Netanyahu’s, fled to Israel in 2023 after being accused by multiple women of sexual misconduct and assault on set.

Singer, the director of two X-Men films and the 1990’s hit, The Usual Suspects, fled to Israel around 2020 after being accused of sexual abuse, including of children.

Above: Brett Ratner with Benjamin and Sarah Netanyahu, and ultra-Zionist attorney Alan Dershowitz

Israel is a magnet for criminals of all flavors, making this brief compendium just the tip of the iceberg. The Law of Return, known to be policed very lightly, is a gateway allowing Jews to use their dual nationality to commit crimes and then swerve justice under an ethno-supremacist legal regime set up to protect them. Some succeed in avoiding justice, while others are not so lucky.

This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Ann Coulter Interviews Kris Kobach on the heinous Wichita murders of 4 Whites by 2 Blacks

/6 Comments/in /by

VIDEO: Kris Kobach on America’s MOST GRUESOME Murder and why the perps are still breathing. by Ann Coulter

Twenty-six years later, the Carr Brothers are still alive. YOU CAN FIX THIS ON TUES. AUG 4, KANSAS!!!

See video on Substack

The Carr brothers committed the most sickening murder in U.S. history, but despite the jury verdict, the Kansas Supreme Court has intervened to ensure that they will never get it.

Please vote YES on amending the Kansas constitution to allow citizens to elect judges, instead of the current utterly corrupt system.

Here is Justice Scalia’s description of the crime:

In December 2000, brothers Reginald and Jonathan Carr set out on a crime spree culminating in the Wichita Massacre. …

On the night of December 14, the brothers burst into a triplex at 12727 Birchwood, where roommates Jason, Brad, and Aaron lived. Jason’s girlfriend, Holly, and Heather, a friend of Aaron’s, were also in the house. Armed with handguns and a golf club, the brothers forced all five into Jason’s bedroom. They demanded that they strip naked and later ordered them into the bedroom closet. They took Holly and Heather from the bedroom, demanded that they perform oral sex and digitally penetrate each other as the Carrs looked on and barked orders. They forced each of the men to have sex with Holly and then with Heather. They yelled that the men would be shot if they could not have sex with the women, so Holly—fearing for Jason’s life—performed oral sex on him in the closet before he was ordered out by the brothers.

The victims

Jonathan then snatched Holly from the closet. He ordered that she digitally penetrate herself. He set his gun between her knees on the floor. And he raped her. Then he raped Heather.

Reginald took Brad, Jason, Holly, and Aaron one-by-one to various ATMs to withdraw cash. When the victims returned to the house, their torture continued. Holly urinated in the closet because of fright. Jonathan found an engagement ring hidden in the bedroom that Jason was keeping as a surprise for Holly. Pointing his gun at Jason, he had Jason identify the ring while Holly was sitting nearby in the closet. Then Reginald took Holly from the closet, said he was not going to shoot her yet, and raped her on the dining-room floor strewn with boxes of Christmas decorations. He forced her to turn around, ejaculated into her mouth, and forced her to swallow. In a nearby bathroom, Jonathan again raped Heather and then again raped Holly.

At 2 a.m.—three hours after the mayhem began—the brothers decided it was time to leave the house. They attempted to put all five victims in the trunk of Aaron’s Honda Civic. Finding that they would not all fit, they jammed the three young men into the trunk. They directed Heather to the front of the car and Holly to Jason’s pickup truck, driven by Reginald. Once the vehicles arrived at a snow-covered field, they instructed Jason and Brad, still naked, and Aaron to kneel in the snow. Holly cried, “Oh, my God, they’re going to shoot us.” Holly and Heather were then ordered to kneel in the snow. Holly went to Jason’s side; Heather, to Aaron.

Holly heard the first shot, heard Aaron plead with the brothers not to shoot, heard the second shot, heard the screams, heard the third shot, and the fourth. She felt the blow of the fifth shot to her head, but remained kneeling. They kicked her so she would fall face-first into the snow and ran her over in the pickup truck. But she survived, because a hair clip she had fastened to her hair that night deflected the bullet. She went to Jason, took off her sweater, the only scrap of clothing the brothers had let her wear, and tied it around his head to stop the bleeding from his eye. She rushed to Brad, then Aaron, and then Heather.

Spotting a house with white Christmas lights in the distance, Holly started running toward it for help—naked, skull shattered, and without shoes, through the snow and over barbed-wire fences. Each time a car passed on the nearby road, she feared it was the brothers returning and camouflaged herself by lying down in the snow. She made it to the house, rang the doorbell, knocked. A man opened the door, and she relayed as quickly as she could the events of the night to him, and minutes later to a 911 dispatcher, fearing that she would not live.

Holly lived, and retold this play-by-play of the night’s events to the jury. Investigators also testified that the brothers returned to the Birchwood house after leaving the five friends for dead, where they ransacked the place for valuables and (for good measure) beat Holly’s dog, Nikki, to death with a golf club.

Scalia called the court’s overturning of the jury’s verdict of death “beyond reason.”

Stop these sick bastards by voting YES on amending the state constitution today!

Lt. Col. Davis: More BS from Trump on the war

/4 Comments/in /by