Homo judaicus: The Political Theology of US Foreign Policy

/20 Comments/in , /by

Below is a short compilation of excerpts from my book, first published almost two decades ago, and republished by Arktos media in 2017.  In light of the new geopolitical realignments and continuing political tremor in the Mideast it may be worth looking again at some underlying aspects of US foreign policy.

America’s unconditional support of Israel resembles a belated form of White House Christian-inspired medieval neurosis. Fear of being called an anti-Semite prevents American politicians and a great number of American academics from openly criticizing Israel. When some sparse critical voices are heard, they usually leave out the founding myths of the Biblical narrative, and focus, instead, on dry facts relating to the influence of Jewish lobbies in America. In the typical fashion of American “expertise,” American academics who happen to be critical of Israel use one set of arguments while neglecting other scholarly approaches. In their analysis of the holy alliance between postmodern Israel and America, American scholars tend to forget that the Old Testament ties between these two countries had already predestined America to nurture a special and privileged rapport with the state of Israel.

Clearly, America gains little, if any, geopolitical benefit from supporting Israel. Israel is more of a liability than an asset for America. From the geopolitical perspective, Israel is even a nuisance for America, given that as a small country of approximate size of New Jersey it surrounded by a host of hostile cultures, religions, and neighbors, both outside and within its borders. Although America, due to its unique insular position, has been able to avoid troublesome neighbors and their tribal problems, it has willingly accepted on its own soil the issue of the balkanized Middle East. America’s special friend, Israel, acts in a way similar to that of ancient Prussia; it must grow at the expense of its neighbors — or it must perish. [i] But America’s special filial-fatherly links to Israel must also prevent this last from happening.

Metaphysically speaking, Israel is the spiritual origin of the American divine world mission and the incarnation of American ideology itself. Only within the context of a strange filial relationship with Jewishness and Israel can one understand why America is accepting with equanimity its own deliberate decline into a world-wide morass in the early 21st century — especially since America’s foreign policy actions stand in sharp contrast to the originally proclaimed goals of America’s founding fathers.

Unfortunately, the fear of being called an anti-Semite prevents intelligent Americans from openly discussing the explosive issue of American-Israeli entanglement. Unlike previous geopolitical evaluations that had some sound basis in American foreign policy decision-making, the role of Israel and the Jewish lobby in America are the two major elements that formulate overall American foreign policy. The imagery of Israel and “God’s chosen people” represents the framework of America’s commitments, not only toward the Middle East but also regarding other foreign policy issues. In the meantime, “any aspiring policymaker is encouraged to become an overt supporter of Israel, which is why public critics of Israeli policy have become an endangered species in the foreign policy establishment.”[ii]

These words were written in 2005 by two prominent American scholars whose essay was relayed by major media outlets around the USA and Europe, in turn prompting Jewish lobbies in America to cry foul and raise the proverbial specter of “anti-Semitism.”

What John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt write, however, is nothing new to knowledgeable individuals. Similar critical views of Israel were voiced earlier by many American authors, and these views also reflect, both privately and officially, those of many European scholars and politicians. But when such observations are uttered by scholars from respectable academic establishments, they leave a different aftereffect on the entire American political scene. This explains the reason for worry among American Jews and Israelis.

In Yahve we Trust 

American founding myths drew their inspiration from Hebrew thought. The notion of the “City on the Hill” and “God’s own country” was borrowed from the Old Testament and the Jewish people. The Biblical idea of predestination served the early American founding fathers as a launching pad for their own concept of democratic self-righteousness. Of all Christian denominations, Calvinism was the closest to the Jewish religion and, as some authors have noted, the United States owes its very existence to the Jews. “For what we call Americanism,” writes Werner Sombart, “is nothing else than the Jewish spirit distilled.” [iii]

The author, a disciple of Max Weber, was sympathetic to Jews and, therefore, when he describes the overwhelming influence of the Judaic spirit in American life, he cannot be accused of manifesting a bias against Jews. Similar remarks will be found later among legions of European authors, most of whom fell into oblivion or disgrace given their ties to antidemocratic and racialist schools of thought. Sombart further writes that “the United States is filled to the brim with the Jewish spirit.”[iv] Many wide-spread customs in America, such as giving newborn children Judaic names, or administering circumcision to young newborn males, come from Jewish heritage.[v]

Very early on America’s founding fathers, pioneers, and politicians identified themselves as Jews who had come to the new American Canaan from pestilent Europe. In a postmodern Freudian twist, these pilgrims and these new American pioneers were obliged to kill their European fathers in order to facilitate the spreading of American democracy world-wide. “Heaven ha[s] placed our country in this situation to try us; to see whether we would faithfully use the incalculable power in our hands for speeding forward the world’s regeneration.” [vi]

Even American Christian antisemites are subconsciously enamored with the Jewish idea of predestination, which they harbor side by side with their antisemitic sentiments. In fact, American antisemitism can be described as a distorted and hidden form of philo-Semitism which, while not able to materialize itself on its own American chosenness, projects its would-be supremacy through its hatred against Jews. It is not far-fetched to argue, as some authors do, that the American dream is a role model for universal Jewishness, only one which must not be limited to a specific race or tribe in America, as is the case with ethnocentric Jews who are well aware of their ingroup racial feelings. Americanism is designed for all peoples, races and nations on Earth. America is, by definition, an extended form of globalized Israel and not reserved for one specific tribe only. Does that, therefore, mean that our proverbial homo americanus is a universal carbon copy of homo judaicus?

The word “antisemitism,” unlike the words “anticommunism” or “antifascism,” does not reflect political beliefs or critical views of the Jews. This term is exclusively used as a lexical label to depict a person’s grave mental illness. As a perceived medical or judicial illness, antisemitism must never be debated; an antisemitic patient must not be a partner in scholarly duels; his sick views must not be the subject of academic inquiry and counter-inquiry. As an element of medical pathology, antisemitism must only by treated by doctors, preferably by a Jewish psychoanalyst, or legally, by a liberal prosecutor in court.

Accusing American Jews of possessing extraterrestrial powers, or blaming them for their purported conspiracy to subvert Gentile culture, borders on delusion and only reflects the absence of normal dialogue. American antisemitic delusions only provide legitimacy to American Jews in their constant search for a real or surreal antisemitic boogieman around every corner. Without the specter of antisemitism, Jews would likely assimilate quickly and hence disappear. Thus, antisemitism provides Jews with alibis to project themselves as victims of Gentile prejudice. Consequently, it assigns them the cherished role of posing as the sole educational super-ego for Americans and, by proxy, the entire world. In his book on the social role of Jews, a prominent Jewish-French politician and author, Jacques Attali, writes: “As Russian Jews invented socialism, and as Austrian Jews invented psychoanalysis, American Jews in the forefront, participated in the birth of American capitalism and in the Americanization of the entire world.”[vii]

For certain Jewish authors, like Attali, such a remark is easier to put to paper than it would be for a Gentile thinker, who with the same comment would be immediately shouted down as an “anti-Semite.” If a serious American scholar or a politician venture into this forbidden field, his gesture is interpreted as a sign of his being an agent provocateur, or worse, as an indication that he has decided to write his own obituary. Such a schizophrenic climate of self-censorship in America will sooner or later lead to dramatic consequences for both American Jews and Gentiles. The lack of healthy dialogue can last for a century or so, but feigned conviviality between American Gentiles and American Jews cannot last forever, if it continues to take as its basis distorted perceptions of the Other and how this Other should behave. Mendacity carries the germ of civil war.

[i] Jordis von Lohausen, Les Empires et la puissance, (Paris: Le Labyrinthe) p. 266.

[ii] John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, “The Israel Lobby” London Review of Books, Vol. 28 No. 6, March 23, 2006. Also published in an extended version by Harvard University, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” by John

  1. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt; Working Paper Number: RWP06–011; Submitted: 13/03/2006.

[iii] Werner Sombart, The Jews and Modern Capitalism, translated with notes by M. Epstein, (New York: Burt Franklin, 1969; originally published in London 1913), pp. 43–44.

[iv] Ibid., p. 38.

[v] Ibid., p. 249.

[vi]  George B. Cheever, God’s Hand (New York: M.W. Dodd Brick Church Chapel, 1941; London: Wiley & Putnam, 1941); in Carl Bode (ed.), American Life in the 1840s (New York: Doubleday & Company, 1967), 315.

[vii] Jacques Attali, Les Juifs, le monde et l’argent (Paris: Fayard; 2002), p. 419 and passim.

Destination 1922: A Return to Claims of the Arabs in Palestine

/5 Comments/in /by

Bernard M. Smith’s recent article, Israel Is Not Our Ally, presents a concise and cogent overview of the current American predicament — that of having an obsequious relationship with Israel and how our interests and worldwide opinion are realistically affected by it. While the American public is generally awash in one-sided propaganda backing the Jewish State, few get an education on the subject of Zionism, let alone opposing viewpoints unless they were readers of Alison Weir’s If Americans Knew website or her book Against Our Better Judgement: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel. But as we are now a little over a century since the British helped secure the embryonic home of the Jews with the 1917 Balfour Declaration, would it not be prudent to revisit the British Palestine Mandate through the words of its native Palestinian leaders from that early 1922 inception? Thanks to the wonders of Newspapers.com, we can act on our imperative to revisit the roots of the Palestinian-Jewish conflict. Prepare to enter our time capsule. The course is set for Canada, May 6, 1922, and The Edmonton Journal for a counter-narrative not known to many of that time, save buyers of the Ford Model-T automobile!

Here we find a full-page article titled Claims of the Arabs in Palestine, by York Guille (reporting from Jerusalem) of the McClure Newspaper Syndicate. This piece is presented in its entirety, with key points and arguments of the text italicized by me in bold for quick perusal if you wish. Here’s the article with my emphasis throughout:

Jews Smuggling German Revolvers Into the Holy Land is One Charge Made — Firearms as Agricultural Machinery — Situation In Palestine, Says Arif Pasha, Nationalist Leader, Rapidly Getting Worse — “Syria Will Soon Be Ablaze”

“The situation is rapidly going from bad to worse. Unless the plan to make Palestine the national home of the Jews is abandoned, Syria will soon be ablaze and the gravest international consequences may follow. Both the Christian and Moslem worlds are concerned. The Arabs will never consent to the Zionist program. Zionism, instead of settling Jewish problems, already threatens a world-wide revival of the anti-Semitic movement.”

This is the considered view of Arif Pasha el-Dazzinn, president of the executive committee of the Congress of the Moslem- Christian Leagues of Palestine, which represents 93 per cent of the entire population and all of the Arabs. He described to me, in a special interview, the Arab point of view and stated it with marked moderation through his secretary, who speaks English fluently. This alert, highly educated representative of one of the most picturesque races of the East, a race which kept learning alive in the Dark Ages and has left Spain a rich heritage of art and culture, upset all of one’s pre-conceived ideas of the Arab. Instead of burnous and turban, he wore a finely tailored grey lounge suit. He belongs to the ruling class and is fully acquainted with Western knowledge and international politics.

Do suits matter? Yes, you say, if wishing to exercise diplomacy? In America today, a hundred of the most perceptive, articulate and scholarly gentlemen dressed in finely tailored grey suits can gather for a peaceful meeting of the minds and cordial presentations at the finest Italian restaurant in the Washington D.C. area, only to be violently attacked by a mob of rabid Antifa immune from prosecution while dressed like the zombies from the movie Night of the Living Dead. It appears that thugs have more power than some of our best suits, because suits who haven’t learned everything they know from television, TikTok, or liberal-approved textbooks cannot even gather at a hotel unharmed. Who is it that plays a predominant role in financing and leading these anarchists to denying American freedom of assembly and freedom of speech? I don’t think it’s the Arabs. But getting back to the article, do many Americans realize that 93 percent of the Palestinian population of 1922 were represented by both Moslems and Christians, all of whom were Arabs? What is that percentage today?

“The worst phase of the situation today is the smuggling of firearms by Jews,” he explained. “The latest incident is the discovery of 96 cases of revolvers and ammunition as they were being landed at Haifa. These cases were labelled ‘agricultural implements.’ They were German revolvers and had been shipped from Trieste. They were assigned to Mr. Rosenberg, the president of the Jewish labor party at Haifa. He is, by the way, also a member of the Haifa city corporation, Rosenberg was arrested and his house searched.  Correspondence was seized and papers found disclosed the fact that this was the second consignment. The first had been successfully smuggled in and a second was on the way. Three other Jews who lived in a village outside the town were implicated. The chief of police hurried off to arrest them, but arrived to find they had fled. A Jewish telegraphist at the Haifa telegraph office – a government servant – had warned them by wire to clear out. Rosenberg was released on bail of 12,500 dollars. He has just been acquitted. This, of course, has called out volumes of protest from all over the country.

Does this Mr. Rosenberg of Haifa have any familial relationship to atomic spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg or BLM fundraising director and convicted American terrorist Susan Rosenberg? Don’t even go there, or you’ll be charged with blatant anti-Semitism! These are all just unrelated individuals of specific identity facing their own objective and selfish reality, Ayn Rand style (Ayn being born Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum).

“Jews are smuggling in firearms incessantly. Only last week there were six cases and six Jews arrested. Public opinion is greatly perturbed and the peace is menaced unless the Jewish immigration is stopped. Already over 25,000, mostly from Poland, Germany, Russia and Central Europe, have come in. They are all young men and women, most of them penniless and many infected with Bolshevism. Firearms have actually been distributed by the government among the Jewish colonists and the people of Palestine are now asking that they should be collected again. Over 900 rifles have been given to these colonists. The Jews complained that they were defenseless and in danger of attack, so the government gave them these rifles to enable them to defend themselves until troops could reach them in sufficient numbers to protect them. At the same time, and this is the worst feature of the position, all the natives have been disarmed.

While controlling the rights to firearm possession seems to have been a key factor in aiding the creation of the Jewish state, it is odd then that Jewish billionaire Mike Bloomberg (who believes in a “secure and stable Jewish democracy”) finds himself in the targets of the NRA for misleading voters in His Anti-Gun Apparatus! Is Mike trying to disarm today’s Americans like the Palestinians were disarmed in 1922? Does Mike believe in a secure and stable American democracy? And was Jewish smuggling of guns, rifles and ammunition only the prelude to smuggling in stolen nuclear weapons material against American and Middle East interests?

Reds Foment Riots

“One of the gravest dangers of this Jewish immigration lies In the type of immigrant. As I have said, many of them are Bolshevistic. Now the Arabs are not, and they will not tolerate the methods or the system of Lenin and Trotsky in Palestine. The night before the Jaffa riots the police seized proclamations printed In Hebrew, Yiddish and Arabic. They were signed by the executive committee of the Palestine Communist Party and called upon the people to fight for the Social Revolution. They appealed to Jewish and Arab laborers to join in an effort to throw off their oppressors and ‘in beating down your torturers and the tyrants among you.’ The Hebrew and Yiddish appeal ended:

Long live the First of May.
Down with the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoise.
Down with the Palestine Rule of Force.
Long live the International Solidarity of the Jewish and Arab Proletariat.
Long live the Civil War.
Long live Soviet Russia.
Long live the Third Communistic International.
Long live the Palestine Communistic Party.’

The Arabic version ended:

‘Down with British and French bayonets.
Down with the Arab and foreign Capitalists.
Long live Soviet Palestine.’

Before reading this Canadian article, I never realized that the predominant type of Jewish immigrant to Palestine in those days was the radical Bolshevik type. Would American Christians today find it surprising that the Israeli state was originally founded by Commie atheists? Having read Stalin’s War by prize-winning historian Sean McMeekin, and considering the influx of immigration to America before the 1924 National Origin’s Act (when Jewish radical-left politics was heavily on the public mind), I should now seriously entertain the possibility that both the USA and Israel are actually dyed in the wool “Red” nations. Why else would the slur “Commie” be unheard of in our media and forbidden in academic writing while Antifa hordes burn our modern cities?

“The Arabs have been charged with responsibility for these riots and those here at Jerusalem in 1920. But what are the facts? A government inquiry was held into the circumstance of the Easter disturbances here when there was serious loss of life, but their report has never been published because the high commissioner (Sir Herbert Samuel), a staunch Zionist, did not wish it. The fact is that its publication would injure the Zionist case. The riot was started by a Jew who threw a stone at the sacred flag of the Hebron Mosque when it was being carried in procession through the streets by a large crowd of Arabs on their way to the Harames-Sherif for the animal national festival of Nebi Mousa. But the report on the Jaffa riot of last year has been published and this shows they were due to a quarrel between Jewish Bolsheviks and the Jewish Labor party. A large quantity of explosives was found by a British army officer in a Jewish house. The official inquiry report states: “We are convinced that the charge constantly brought by Jews against the Arabs that this outbreak had been planned by them, or by their leaders, and was pre-arranged for the first of May is unfounded…the (Arab) notable on both sides, whatever their feelings may have been, were always ready to help the authorities in the restoration of order and we think that without their assistance the outbreak would have resulted in even worse excesses.”

 

The Zionist High Commissioner denied publication of a report on rioting so as to protect Jewish Bolsheviks, much like the Heaphy Report on the 2017 Charlottesville rioting is generally suppressed from our public knowledge and public opinion today, suggesting facts that differ from mainstream propaganda.

“The Arab objects to the Hebrew language, which is spoken by barely one percent of the population, being recognized as an official language. He objects to the tide of Jewish immigration which is bringing into his country mass of undesirable aliens who are not even self-supporting. This foreign laborer deprives the Arab of his daily bread and gets a higher rate of wages for half the amount of work the Arab could do in the same time. Contracts for public works in the majority of cases go to Jews, though their tenders are usually higher than those sent in by Arabs. Road-building has been started to give employment to these Jewish immigrants, who would otherwise be stranded. This work is paid for out of the taxes, paid for mostly by non-Jews. Under normal circumstances this work would have gone to Arab workmen.

A contract for the generation of electricity from the water power of the Auja River, north of Jaffa, has been granted to a Russian Jew named Ruttenberg, who has now come here to carry out his contract. This contract was given to this man without being put to public tender. The administration has no right to give concessions to foreigners before the final status of Palestine has been determined.

This really begs one to look at the true possessors of meaningful privilege in the world today. Here in 1922 we find the native Palestinian population discriminated against for valuable employment opportunities, but paid for by taxes on non-Jews. If there’s a modicum of truth to these statements in the article, then there must be a reassessment as to who the “victims” were in 1922 Palestine. And isn’t it uncanny how similar support is being played out for minority migrants and open borders in America today. Who is driving this? It might be the multi-religious efforts following the Jewish creed, “Welcome the Stranger, Protect the Refugee,” as heard from the Hebrew Immigration Aid Society.

Half Goods Imported German

Another matter which we do not like, as we fought with the Allies during the war, is the fact that the last customs statistics show that over fifty per cent of the goods that came into Palestine in the last six months came from Germany through Hamburg and Trieste. And you can walk along the streets here and hear nothing but Yiddish.

The laws and regulations now in force check our liberty and prevent our expansion. Patriotic Arabs are arrested and imprisoned or deported on the pretext that they are dangerous to the State. And the press is muzzled. There is strict censorship. We are not allowed to say what we think nor to disagree with Zionism. Anyone who did so would be deported. Not only can the High Commissioner deport whom he likes but a new law gives power to the governors of districts to recommend anyone they think dangerous to the state for deportation. And they can call on that person to deposit money as a bond to keep the peace. Several prominent Arabs have already been bound over under this regulation. Some of them have had to deposit as much as 5,000 dollars, and where they could not find the money the title deeds of their lands and buildings were taken. Only the other day an ex-Procurator-General was deported. This Is Costaki Saba, who eighteen months ago resigned his post, worth 420 dollars a month, because he could not agree with his chief, the legal secretary, Norman Bentwich, a Jew and a Zionist. Then he started journalism and he has been told to leave the country. When he asked for the reason in writing, it was refused. Mr. Wadie Bustani, a former government official at Haifa, was told the other day that if he took any farther part in politics he would be deported.

What chance has an Arab when the high commissioner is a Jew and a Zionist, and the legal secretary, the controller of stores, the director of commerce and industries and the chief of immigration  are all Jews? Every department of the government has been swamped by Jews, the majority of whom are new and have no previous experience. According to the official statistics one fifth of the senior service are Jews, though Jews represent only seven per cent of the population. In the junior service one third of the staff are Jews who hold the chief places.

Aaaah, where to begin! First, there seems to even be a “Germany story” before WWII and Hitler that benefited organized Jewry and Zionism instead of victimizing them, one most people of today are completely unaware. Next, I’d like to point out that there might be a similarity between harmless Palestinian patriots of 1922 and the diehard MAGA patriots of January 6, 2021. What ties these innocent victims together? And isn’t it prescient that the Palestinian quoted here described leadership in “every department of the government” with a word that would help President Trump coin the term, “The Swamp?” Maybe Trump reads old newspapers too.

That we are not alone in our objection to the Jewish immigration is proved by the fact that there is here a large section of Jews who are hostile to the Zionist movement. When Lord Northcliffe was here recently a deputation of these Jews appeared before him and complained of Zionist religious and political aspirations. There are some 35,000 Palestinian Jews with whom we live and lived before the war in perfect harmony. They object, as much as we do, to Zionism. Indeed, only a day or two ago, Zionists attacked these Ashkenazim rabbis in the synagogues and the police had to be called in to protect them. Ten Zionists were arrested.  Lord Northcliffe, after hearing all sides of the case here on the spot, took a very grave view of the position and has returned to England to wage a campaign in our favor. There are prominent Jews, both in England and America, who support the fight against Zionism. Among them are Mr. Monteflore, who has just resigned the presidency of the British Jewish Colonization Association, and Mr. Morgenthau, the former United States ambassador to Turkey.

Just a thought: was Morgenthau placed in Ottoman Turkey to help Jewish interests in the case that the Germans won WWI, a strategy of having resources on both sides of politics or both sides of the war? I’m not a historian and not as familiar with Henry Morgenthau, Sr., as with Morgenthau, Jr. – a prominent Treasury Secretary highlighted in McMeekin’s book, Stalin’s War. It is, nevertheless, intriguing how this father and son would have the power to shape America and the World.

So strong is the feeling of Palestinians, both Christian and Moslem, that we have combined to send a delegation to Europe and America. The president is His Excellency Musk Kazim Pasha el-Husseini, who belongs to one of the oldest families in Islam, which can trace its descent right back to the prophet.

Under the Turks he filled several important governorships and under the British was mayor of this city. He resigned because he would not allow Hebrew to be used as an official language and would not subscribe to the Jewish policy of government. The vice-president of the Hai Tewik Hammad, who was a member of parliament for Nabious at the Imperial Parliament at Constantinople. The secretary, Shibly Effendi Jamal, is a B.A. of Beyrout University and has been occupied with education for many years and is also a prominent journalist. The other two members are graduates of the college for officials at Constantinople and the sixth member is a prominent merchant. Four are Moslems and the other two Christians. They were elected at the fourth congress which met in this city of Jerusalem last June. The delegates to the congress, numbering 96, were elected by popular vote by the Moslem-Christian leagues. The late pope received the delegation and talked with them for over an hour. He expressed great sympathy with our aims and promised active cooperation. He told them he would write to all the Catholic powers asking them to support us actively in the League of Nations.

Three members of the delegation then went to Geneva for the last assembly of the League of Nations last September and there interviewed the representatives of all the powers with the important result that the ratification of the mandate for Palestine has been postponed pending a more thorough examination of the situation. In England, I hear, the delegation has already succeeded in gaining the sympathy of many members of parliament who have arranged meetings for them in the house of common and they are to lay our case before the foreign affairs committee. The delegation has not yet finished its work in England, but when it has it will go to the United States, where It believes it will find valuable support among the Jews. It must be made clear that we have no hatred of the race. On the contrary, we have lived with them for a long period and get on well with them. But we hate the Zionist movement which aims to make our land a Jewish state.

Today in America, any criticism of the state of Israel is tantamount to anti-Semitism, regardless of whether you are in love with the Jewish race or enjoy their friendship as individuals. The recent donor response to Ivy League student protests demonstrates how a young college student’s professional future can be destroyed by blacklisting for merely exercising free speech on campus. Note: in the Fox News report linked above, they show a large banner demanding “NO DIALOGUE WITH WHITE SUPREMACY.” Is it not long overdue for Americans to have a conversation on who retains real supremacist power and influence today? And do they simply appear White to everyone, giving European descendants a bad rap?

The British government has now published a resume of the constitution for Palestine. The executive is all in the hands of the high commissioner and his advisers. He has the power to deport any person whom he thinks dangerous to the state without trial and without appeal. There is to be a legislative council of 25 members in addition to the high commissioner who has the casting vote. He nominates ten of the members from the officers of the government and two others as well. The chambers of commerce nominate one and the rest are elected. Thus the high commissioner will have fourteen votes at his command, the votes of the twelve nominated by him and the two votes be had as head of the council. The Jews will, according to numerical strength, have the right to elect one or two. That leaves the Arabs with only ten or eleven members at most. This means they will never have any power because they will always be in the minority of the council although in an overwhelming majority on the basis of population. Moreover, if any measure is passed by the council the high commissioner has the power to veto it. The fact that he is Zionist is not likely to help matters.

As European-Americans are quickly becoming a minority in the country they founded and have had their political leaders sell them out for more than the last one hundred years, can we see White Americans becoming the future Palestinians, held up in Balkanized open concentration camps for future Gaza-styled tyranny? There’s never been a better time for uncensored, unfettered free speech like that which was permitted in the Edmonton Journal of Canada, 1922. But as Elon Musk has discovered, we must first overcome the hate-filled NGOs controlling “what speech has reach.”

Pledges to Arabs Broken

The case for the Palestinians is a strong one. The Arabs are the original inhabitants of the land, whereas the Jews only occupied Palestine as a whole for 520 years and that was many centuries ago. Their proper home is Ur of the Chaldees, which is some-where near the Euphrates. When King Hussein in 1915 took up arms for the allies the British government assured him that the independence of the Arab countries would be acknowledged. Mr. Balfour’s pledge to the Zionists in 1917 seemed a direct contradiction to this. But again in 1918 Lord Allenby promised that nothing would be decided about the future of our land without first consulting its people. In 1919 Mr. Lloyd George stated that the pledge given to King Hussein would be redeemed. But when a Jew and a Zionist was made high commissioner, when Zionists openly boasted that they drew up Mr. Balfour’s declaration and secured the appointment of Sir Herbert Samuel, and above all when they asserted that they did not only mean to make Palestine a home for the Jews, but a Jewish state, ‘as Jewish as England is English or the United States is American,’ we felt it was time for us to protest.

“…as England is English or the United States is American!” What a dream that would be! Today, there seems to be no Western nation that will long reman as an ethnic/cultural homeland. They are all under attack, as professed by the Jewish Barbara Lerner Spectre, who opposes the existence of monolithic or even culturally-tight European societies. Could someone like Barbara explain when Israel “will learn how to be multi-cultural,” as France and Germany and especially Sweden are learning today?

That is why the delegation has been financed for an appeal to the civilized nations and why both Moslem and Christians have joined hands to fight for the self-determination. Mr. Winston Churchill has admitted in the British parliament ‘that the only cause of unrest in Palestine arises from the Zionist movement’ and this has cost the British people for military garrisons fifteen million dollars this year, 22,500,000 dollars last year and 22,500,000 dollars the year before.

The Arab population is composed of merchants, tradesmen, men in the professions, about forty per cent, and landowners and peasants. We have been described as wild, lawless, brutal, ignorant and savage.

What did former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett just call the Palestinians while exploding on Sky News?

Look at this photograph of an Arab peasant woman. She is wearing a gown of which any woman may be proud. It was embroidered by herself and it is worth at least a hundred dollars. Modern methods of agriculture are now being used and up-to-date machinery was introduced before the war. The Turkish government, anxious to encourage modern methods, released agricultural machinery from custom dues and also supplied machinery on the installment plan.

The Jaffa orange industry is in the hands of Arabs and their products are famous the world over. They have brought it to a highly efficient state. During the war owing to the lack of petroleum and machinery most of the gardens dried up and withered but during the last three years everything has been revived and the orange growing is today as good as ever it was. Millions of dollars are invested in it. Soap is another important industry. Palestinian soap is exported in large quantities to India, Egypt, Arabia, Persia, Syria, Mesopotamia and Turkey proper. Cloth is made at Medjel, Ghaza, Nablous and other towns. The mother-of-pearl work at Bethlehem is sent all over the world and a lot goes to America. The olivewood work of Jerusalem and the needle work are both exported in large quantities and are known everywhere. The natives are not asleep. And they certainly do not need Zionism to wake them up.”

Zionism cost Winston Churchill’s Britain the 2023 equivalent of billions of dollars then, and tens of billions of dollars for America today. Isn’t it ironic that as our post-WWII society progresses more to the left every year, we can’t even shelter our increasing homeless population? Why is that? And who has ever read every word of the congressional budget that has stiffed us to the tune of a $33 trillion in debt? I sense that a common playbook of shenanigans is leading America to the abyss.

Abbreviated captions of photos shown in this article:

“Here is a typical Palestine peasant woman of Arab blood. The native dress she is wearing is embroidered by hand and is quite valuable. This is the photograph to which Arif Pasha refers in the special interview he gave to our correspondent.”

And…

“A photograph of the Arab delegation from Palestine, now in England to place their case against Zionism before the British government.”

End of Article, But Please Read on to My Second Destination…

________________________________________________________

Destination 1920

Let’s conclude our time capsule journey by going back two more years, to a Jewish newspaper from Cincinnati, Ohio. There we find embedded a quote from Sir Herbert Samuel (High Commissioner of Palestine):

Herbert Samuel, former British Cabinet Minister and Special Commissioner to Belgium, in passing through Cairo from Jerusalem on his way home, issued a statement to the press, both native and British, in which he declared that the riots In Jerusalem had been due to a misconception of Zionism on the part of the non-Jewish population. He wrote:

They have assumed that Mohammedans and Christians will be placed under the government of a Jewish minority, that the present possessors and cultivators of the soil will be dispossessed of their property, that the ownership of Mohammedan and Christian holy places will be affected, and that the Jews will fill the administrative offices to the prejudice of others. All these assumptions are untrue, but, even if the Zionist organizations entertained such ideas, Great Britain would not permit their adoption.” — The American Israelite, July 1, 1920

He obviously underestimated the tactics of Irgun terrorist leader Menachem Begin (i.e., future Prime Minister of Israel Begin) who ordered the bombing of the British Headquarters at the King David Hotel! But what of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty and the 34 deaths and 174 wounded Navy servicemen? Why did an American carrier group get ordered to turn away from the defense of the Liberty and our American sailors in 1967, while today in 2023 two carrier groups are sent in to aid Israel? The fact is that the average American citizen knows virtually nothing about the details of terrorism that have swept over Palestine lands from 1922 through today except for what our mainstream media has repetitively pounded into our heads. I’ll end my point with a quick one question test: 1. Who was Count Folke Bernadotte?

The time capsule has returned to our present day, 2023, as Israel’s IDF prepares for a ground assault into congested Gaza. I trust that our journey gives you a better understanding of the situation at hand, one that complements the work of Bernard M. Smith, noted in my introduction. I wrote this for the memory of the innocent victims of the last century, the innocent victims of the future, and in the hopes that the American people can find their roots, before it’s too late.

Survey of Anti-White Attitudes

/6 Comments/in /by
Aporia Magazine commissioned two Penn State professors, Eric Silver and Prof John Iceland, to survey anti-White and anti-Black attitudes.

The way we talk about racism has changed. Over the past decade or so, words like “bigot” and “extremist” have been overshadowed by words like “white privilege,” “white supremacy,” and “white fragility.” The new words portray a new kind of racist. Instead of wearing a hood and spewing hate speech, the “new racist” is an ordinary white person whose socialization into “whiteness” causes them to undermine people of color, whether they know it or not.

It’s not hard to see why well-meaning people might be drawn to this image of the new racist. Racial disparities persist. More than a century after Emancipation and 50 years after Civil Rights, blacks continue to lag behind whites in virtually all areas of success. To attribute these disparities to anything other than racism might seem like blaming the victim. Condemning the “new racist” avoids this problem. [It avoids the problem of persistent disparities that have not disappeared despite massive expenses over at least 5 decades by creating “causes” that are unmeasurable and therefore immune from rational criticism. White racism as a cause has become an axiom, a statement that is accepted without controversy or question, like a tautology. Such a statement is supposed to be so obvious that there is no need to try to prove it.]

Not everyone, however, agrees. Parents protest at school board meetings. State universities quietly soften their antiracism agendas. Individuals take defiant stands, sometimes at great cost to themselves, to combat what they perceive as the spread of anti-whiteness. And then, of course, there’s Florida, where “woke goes to die.”

These actions are motivated in part by concern over the antiracism movement’s use of morally charged language that depicts contemporary whites as racists and blames them for past and present racial injustices. They are also motivated by a fear that if left unchecked, the movement will succeed in normalizing a culture of anti-whiteness, with devastating effects not just for whites but for the country as a whole.

Are such worries warranted? How much of a problem is anti-whiteness, really?

To investigate this, in 2021, we hired YouGov, one of the world’s leading survey research firms, to ask a nationally representative sample of 1,125 US adults whether they agreed or disagreed with five statements designed to measure their “anti-whiteness.”

The statements were:

●     Most white people in this country believe that whites are better than other groups.

●     Most white people in this country just don’t get it when it comes to understanding the hardships of other race groups.

●     Most white people in this country would rather keep society as it is rather than make changes that would benefit other groups.

●     Most white people in this country don’t care about the hardships experienced by other race groups.

●     Most white people in this country are reluctant to give up their white privilege even though doing so would make society more equal.

We found there’s a lot of anti-whiteness out there, including among whites! Blacks were the most anti-white (69-79 percent), followed by Latinos (47- 62 percent), whites (40-53 percent), and other race groups (33-39 percent). Anti-whiteness, it seems, is far from rare, making concerns about its effects on society far from unreasonable.

These results may come as a surprise to those who view the US as a hopelessly white supremacist society where whites are universally admired and put on a pedestal. The data suggest this is far from the truth.

What’s most depressing is that between 30 and 40 percent of White people agree with these statements. These are the people prone to voting for leftist policies along with their non-White coalition partners, an increasingly unbeatable coalition given current demographics and the continuing deluge of non-White immigration, legal and illegal.

The results for Blacks are the opposite. In general, they don’t blame themselves for their problems, trying harder is not the answer, they are not responsible for racial tension, and they don’t think they have too much influence on politics.

The authors propose that diversity training should focus on common values, “shared values that transcend race”— like “liberty, and progress, values that have been a source of unity in the American context for centuries.” However, the problem with that is that it’s not going to change the disparities, and Blacks and Latinos can’t get stuff like affirmative action in education, job preference, and a lenient criminal justice system. by endorsing them. So we’re back where we started.

The Wisdom of Enver Solomon: Importing Fans of Hamas and Other Non-White Savages Is Very Good for the White West

/6 Comments/in /by

If you want to understand Muslim atrocities against Jews, the Jewish Bible is a good place to start:

Deuteronomy 20:16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: 20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee.

Numbers 31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? 31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Islam is a kind of gentile Judaism, translating the ethnocentric barbarism and bloodlust of the Torah into more universalist terms. Where Judaism has a chosen people entitled to exploit and prey upon outsiders, Islam has a chosen ideology. In short, Muslims think like Jews and behave like Jews. This means that Muslims don’t just attack outsiders: they often turn on each other too. The atrocities committed by Palestian Muslims against Jewish civilians in October 2023 were bad. But Pakistani Muslims did the same on a much bigger scale to Bangladeshi Muslims in the 1970s.

Jewish sex-pest vs British anti-Semites

There is no “Turn the other cheek” and “Love your enemies” in Islam. But there is “Rape your enemies,” of course. When Western nations began importing Muslims after the Second World War, those Muslims did the Allah-approved thing and began raping and sexually enslaving White women and girls. Jews and White traitors in high places yawned and looked the other way. It doesn’t matter when it happens to Whites. But it does matter when it happens to Jews. The Jewish sex-pest Nick Cohen has never written about the rape-gangs of Rotherham. But he hastened to his keyboard after the atrocities committed by Hamas against Israeli Jews. He was angry and disturbed at the way “British anti-Semites” have been “delighted by the attack on Israel.” Dave Rich, head of a Jewish spying agency called the Community Security Trust (CST), has told him that “Anti-Semites are getting excited by the sight of dead Jews” and that “Hamas murdering Israeli civilians has exhilarated them and filled them with joy.” The CST has “had reports of people driving past synagogues shouting ‘kill the Jews’ and ‘fuck you’.”

Cohen goes on to highlight what he calls a “shameful statistic.” He says that “There are only 271,000 Jews in the UK according to the last census. Yet the Home Office says that this tiny group contains the victims of a quarter of all religious hate crimes.” But the progressive anti-racist left ignore these Jewish victims! They also ignore the “inconvenient fact” that “Hamas is a far-right wing clerical fascist movement.” It’s shocking, isn’t it? But Cohen is, of course, ignoring some big “inconvenient facts” of his own. Fascist Hamas is partly a creation of Israel itself. And when Cohen laments Jewish victimhood at the hands of “British anti-Semites,” he fails to describe those anti-Semites in any way. Dave Rich of the CST shares his reticence. Who exactly is “driving past synagogues shouting ‘kill the Jews’ and ‘fuck you’”? Rich doesn’t say. This is because he and Cohen don’t want to admit that Jews have manufactured the very problem they are wailing about. The “British anti-Semites” they’re condemning aren’t British at all, of course. Instead, they’re non-White Muslims imported into Britain against the clearly expressed opposition of the White majority, but with the full approval of Jews.

Ethnocentric Jews in control

In fact, those non-Whites are here only because Jews wanted them here. Mass migration from the Third World into the West has been a thoroughly Jewish project. Kevin MacDonald has shown how the 1965 Immigration Act that opened America’s borders to non-Whites was the culmination of a decades-long campaign by ethnocentric Jews to dilute (and eventually destroy) America’s White Christian majority. Jews have done the same in Britain. When New Labour opened the borders in the 1990s, the party was led by a corrupt and devious gentile called Tony Blair. But he was just a shabbos goy, because the real power rested with Labour’s treasurer, an ethnocentric Jew called Michael Levy. When Levy was forced out by a scandal about underhanded donations to Labour from Jewish businessmen, he was replaced as party treasurer by another ethnocentric Jew called Jonathan Mendelsohn.

Ethnocentric Jew Barbara Roche relates “The British story of migration” at TedX

It’s no surprise, then, that New Labour appointed an ethnocentric Jew called Barbara Roche as minister for immigration. In 2001, Roche told the Guardian that she “entered politics — she still emphasises this today — to combat anti-semitism and xenophobia in general.” In 2003, while urging her party “to promote the benefits of legal migration,” she told the Independent that “My being Jewish informs me totally, informs my politics.” After all, she’s the “child of a Polish-Russian Ashkenazi father and a Sephardic Spanish-Portuguese mother.” In one speech she was clearly gloating about her ability to open the borders. She was the proud descendant of Jews who had been insulted more than a century ago by a xenophobic White Briton. Note how she begins this section of her speech with a blatant lie:

Britain has always been a nation of migrants. There were in practice almost no immigration controls prior to the beginning of the 20th century. The 1905 Aliens Act was a direct response to Jewish immigration and it is difficult to deny that it was motivated in part by anti-Semitism. Major [William] Evans-Gordon, an MP, speaking in support of the legislation, said: “It is the poorest and least fit of these people who move, and it is the residuum of these again who come to and are let in this country… Hon[ourable] Members [of Parliament] opposite do not live in daily terror of being turned into the street to make room for an unsavoury Pole [i.e. Polish Jew].”

I expect Major Evans Gordon would be spinning in his grave if he knew that their descendant would not only be Immigration Minister but would be standing before you today making this speech. (UK migration in a global economy, Draft Speech by Barbara Roche MP, Immigration Minister, London, 11th September 2000)

Roche’s blatant lie — “Britain has always been a nation of migrants” — was taken from Jewish propagandists in the United States. A “nation of migrants” is a complete contradiction in terms, because nations are created by bonds of blood and shared history. After all, the very word “nation” is from Latin nasci, meaning “to be born.” Migration destroys nations, but that’s precisely why Barbara Roche and the other ethnocentric Jews in New Labour opened Britain’s borders to the Third World. This is Roche surveying the effect of her labours after she left office:

Friday rush hour. Euston station [in London]. Who’s here? Who isn’t. A kaleidoscope of skin colours. The world in one terminus. Barbara Roche can see it over the rim of her cup of Americano coffee. “I love the diversity of London,” she tells me. “I just feel comfortable.” (Hideously Diverse Britain: The immigration ‘conspiracy’, The Guardian, 2nd March 2011)

Jews like Roche “feel comfortable” in an atomized society because they no longer stand out as Jews and no longer fear gentile retribution for their bad behaviour. But alas, that Jewish “comfort” is beginning to evaporate. Here’s another ethnocentric Jew, a journalist called Madeline Grant, in 2023:

Britain is finished if Jews no longer feel safe here

Complacent policing and brazen anti-Semitism after Hamas’s shocking terror attack should worry us all

… Across the world, people have rallied in support of Hamas murderers. Hundreds converged outside the Sydney Opera House, chanting “gas the Jews”. Masked Hamas supporters at the Israeli Embassy in Copenhagen removed flowers laid by Danish citizens. Though scarcely the most distressing event of recent days, the callousness of this gesture was striking. They couldn’t even let people grieve.

Following the darkest day in Jewish history since the Holocaust, British nationals gleefully took to the streets to celebrate indiscriminate slaughter. That there are people at the heart of our polity who feel empowered to revel in such desecration, in public, with no consequences, suggests a catastrophic erosion of social norms. Up and down the country, Jewish families will be debating whether it’s safe for their children to attend school; schools already protected by heavy security designed to guard against anti-Semitic attacks. Tragically, it has emerged that Jake Marlowe, a UK citizen missing following the Supernova rave massacre, left the UK for Israel because of fears over the rise of anti-Jewish bigotry. …

We should feel shame at the spate of anti-Semitism within our borders. But above all, we should be afraid. Between a state that apparently cannot, or will not, apply the law evenly and the thousands of people openly broadcasting their hatred for Jewish people, this is a toxic combination with potential consequences too terrifying to contemplate. The authorities must offer Jewish citizens all the protection they can, while clamping down on anyone glorifying terrorism on our streets. If Britain isn’t a place where Jews can live safely, it really is game over for our civilisation. (Britain is finished if Jews no longer feel safe here, The Daily Telegraph, 11th October 2023)

Comfort evaporates: a part-Jewish journalist changes her mind about the joys of “Britain’s multicultural societ

Madeline Grant doesn’t explain that it’s precisely because Jews wanted to “feel safe” that they “no longer feel safe.” Like Nick Cohen and Dave Rich, she doesn’t describe the “British nationals” responsible for the “spate of anti-Semitism within our borders.” Like Cohen and Rich, she doesn’t want to admit the truth: that Jews have manufactured the very problem they are wailing about. When the Conservative party won power again in 2010, it promised to reduce migration and repair the damage done by New Labour’s reckless opening of the borders.

Ehud Sheleg, ethnocentric Jewish treasurer of the not-at-all Conservative party

The Tories were lying. They’ve increased migration and Third-World folk are flooding into Britain in greater numbers than ever. This is because the Tories are funded and controlled by the same ethnocentric Jews as New Labour were. Labour had Jewish treasurers called Michael Levy and Jonathan Mendelsohn (both are now members of the House of Lords). The Conservatives have Jewish treasurers called Sir Mick Davis and Sir Ehud Sheleg. Sir Ehud has condescendingly said this to the British goyim whose destiny he now controls: “I was brought up, albeit in Israel, with the sentiment of very strong ties to Britain. In the family of nations, this has to be my favourite one. Second to my homeland, of course.”

Israel’s Likud party boasts about strengthening Israel’s borders against the Third World (n.b. Hebrew is read from right to left)

Sheleg’s homeland of Israel does not have open borders to the Third World. Instead, it has high-tech fences keeping the Third World out. If Britain is Ehud Sheleg’s “second favourite” nation, why has he remained treasurer of the Conservative party while Britain is flooded with low-IQ tribalists from the corrupt, violent, and diseased Third World? The answer is simple: because he thinks that Third-World migration into Britain is good for Jews. It atomizes society and allows Jews to “feel comfortable.” But Third-World migration into Israel would be very bad for Jews. It isn’t good to atomize society when Jews are the majority. That’s what Ehud Sheleg thinks and that’s why the Conservative party keeps the borders open in Britain, working against the interests of British Whites even as it works for the interests of Israel and its sealed borders.

“Open borders are good for you, goyim!”

Ehud Sheleg is supposedly right-wing, but he has the same attitudes to migration as the left-wing Jew Enver Solomon, who works tirelessly for Third-World invaders as “chief executive of the Refugee Council.” Here is Solomon dispensing his wisdom in the Guardian:

Enver Solomon, ethnocentric Jew and “chief executive of the Refugee Council” (image from ThirdSector)

[Current government policy] is a purposeful move away from the commitment to a shared humanity and multilateralism forged by the international community in the wake of the horrors of the second world war to an insular, unilateralist, more nationalist agenda akin to that championed by the Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni or Marine Le Pen in France.

So we must look behind the government soundbites about Channel crossings and ask ourselves: what sort of country do we want to be? There are basic choices to be made and we must make them — between liberalism and nationalist populism, between humanity and inhumanity, between compassion and cruelty.

Standing up for treating men, women and children seeking asylum with decency, care and understanding, respecting their rights and giving them a fair hearing. That would be a mark of the nation we want to be and the values we want to hold on to. (“We know people seeking asylum die in the Channel, but callous hardline policy kills them too,” The Guardian, 14th August 2023)

That’s the wisdom of Enver Solomon: White nations like Britain should accept unlimited numbers of migrants from the corrupt, violent, and diseased Third World. In this case, Solomon is complaining about the Tory government’s pretence that it will stop illegal migrants crossing the English Channel in small boats. It won’t, of course. Both the left and the pseudo-right are very happy to exchange fiery rhetoric about the Channel crossings, because their fake debate takes attention from the far larger numbers of Third-World folk who are migrating into Britain legally.

The Guardian also publishes articles about what Third-World migration will sooner or later create in Britain. This is one of those articles:

It was early afternoon when the mob surged down an alley of neat rose bushes and halted outside Zarifa’s house. The Kyrgyz men broke into her courtyard and sat Zarifa down next to a cherry tree. They asked her a couple of questions. After confirming she was an ethnic Uzbek, they stripped her, raped her and cut off her fingers. After that they killed her and her small son, throwing their bodies into the street. They then moved on to the next house.

“They were like beasts,” Zarifa’s neighbour, Bakhtir Irgayshon, said today, pointing to the gutted bedframe where she had been assaulted. A few pots and pans remained; the rest of the family home was a charred ruin. Zarifa’s husband, Ilham, was missing, Irgayshon said, probably dead. Only his mother, Adina, survived the Kyrgyz-instigated conflagration that engulfed the neighbourhood of Cheremushki last Friday.

The scale of the ethnic killing that took place in Osh — as well as in other towns and villages in southern Kyrgyzstan — was grimly obvious. In the next street were the remains of another victim. He burned to death in his bed. Not much was left, only a jigsaw-like spine and hip. Nearby, Uzbek survivors were retrieving the bodies of seven small children. They had been incinerated, together with their mother, while cowering in a dark cellar. (Kyrgyzstan killings are attempted genocide, say ethnic Uzbeks, The Guardian, 16th Jun 2010)

As the great Chateau Heartiste so often said: “Diversity + Proximity = War.” But in one way there was no diversity in the slaughter and rape of Uzbeks by “Kyrgyz men.” Both sides are Muslim. That article in the Guardian is yet another example of why it is criminally stupid for Western countries to accept migration from Muslim countries. But the Guardian ignores the obvious conclusions of its own reporting. It has the same attitude to Muslim migration as Jews like Barbara Roche and Enver Solomon. That’s why its journalists and editors should one day be put on trial for their role in the crimes committed by Muslims and other non-Whites against British Whites.

As for me, I’m a crazed far-right extremist, so I oppose murder and rape committed by any group against any other group. That’s also why I oppose Third-World migration and the continuing presence of Third-World people in White nations. If things remain as they are, Muslims will one day commit the same atrocities against Whites as they have committed against Jews in Israel and against other Muslims in Kyrgyzstan and Bangladesh. And let’s be honest: if inter-racial war breaks out in Europe and America, then Whites will commit atrocities too. We have psychopaths and sadists of our own. War will create more. The difference is that, unlike Judaism and Islam, the traditional White religion of Christianity doesn’t approve of psychopathy and sadism against outsiders.

Neither Jews nor Muslims belong in the West

Genuine Christianity doesn’t approve of open borders and mass migration either. That’s why the leaders of all mainstream churches should also be put on trial. They have been traitors against ordinary Whites and against the religion they claim to follow. But Jews like Barbara Roche, Ehud Sheleg, and Enver Solomon can’t be accused of treachery. In opening the borders and supporting non-White migration, they’ve simply done what Jews have always done: put Jews first and goyim nowhere. Benjamin Netanyahu and other Machiavellian Israelis did the same when they “helped build up a militant strain of Palestinian political Islam, in the form of Hamas and its Muslim Brotherhood precursors” against Yasser Arafat and the more moderate Fatah party. Netanyahu thought he was helping Jews and harming Palestinians. Now he’s trying to exploit the atrocities committed by Hamas. It’s quite possible that he knew about what Hamas was planning and let it go ahead in order to exploit it. Once a Jew, always a Jew. That’s why Jews don’t belong in Western nations any more than Muslims do.

Fake conservatives like Mark Steyn don’t agree with that, of course. They tell their followers that Jews are good and Muslims are bad. But they don’t discuss the central Jewish role in Muslim migration or the endless support given to Muslims by Jews:

Muslims are only in the West to commit atrocities because Jews wanted those Muslims here. If Muslims and their Jewish enablers don’t leave the West, more and worse atrocities will follow. The Hamas-fans who flooded onto the streets of Western cities are simply more proof of that simple truth.

Women, etc.

/10 Comments/in /by

First we got women priests, then women bishops, and now many clergy would accept a woman as the Archbishop of Canterbury.[1] No doubt some people, such as the women priests and bishops, are actively lobbying for it.

This seems to be connected with the way that in 2020 Donald Trump promised to nominate a woman for the next available place on the Supreme Court, Joe Biden vowed to choose a female running-mate, and Boris Johnson indicated that the Conservatives would seek to make half their members of parliament women, an aim later confirmed by the party’s chairman. The principle seems to be women, women, women. If a top position was never occupied by a woman, it must be occupied by one now. If an important job could go to a man or a woman, it must go to a woman. Men must be prevented from standing for election so that women can be elected.

It’s as though someone thinks that with women in charge, everything would be better. The idea is hardly new. I remember that when a letter appeared in the New Statesman in the 1990s saying exactly this, it struck me as unoriginal. Presumably the magazine only printed it to keep a familiar idea in the public mind.

In those days the idea needed an argument to back it up, so the letter writer stated that women were the gentler and more peace-loving sex, therefore a society run by women would be gentler and more peace-loving. He might as well have argued that society should be run by dogs because then it would have a better sense of smell. Not only is there no reason to think that a leader’s attributes will rub off on the rest of the population, or in this case on its rougher and more war-like half; it is unclear that gentleness and a love of peace are the main things to look for in a leader. What about vision, determination and a willingness to work long hours, or indeed an ability to lead? Nor are female leaders likely to be popular. The most well-established finding in the psychology of the workplace is that both sexes prefer a male boss to a female one. There is also the question of how many women want to be leaders.

Putting women in charge because they are women is not recommended by experience. Cressida Dick as Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police from 2017 to 2022 was more interested in hate speech than in crime, nor would she at any point in her career have been able to perform such a basic task of a constable as catching an escaping burglar and wrestling him to the ground. Dany Cotton, a health-and-safety expert who led the London Fire Brigade from 2017 to 2019 without being qualified to drive a fire engine, had to keep popping into a nearby house to use the toilet when she should have been supervising as a tower block burned down.[2]

How is it then that today many people find it obvious that we need women leaders? It is down to what Bertrand Russell called a Sunday truth, by which he meant a notion few believe but that everyone must profess on pain of being cast out of society.[3] Exploiting the tradition of chivalry, early feminists seeded the idea that women were simply better than men in any way that could matter. Their followers cultivated this as a Sunday truth, and now we all accept it. If women are better than men, it follows that we want them running things, which means that when looking for leaders we don’t need to consider men unless no woman can be found. The search for the best candidate becomes a search for the best female candidate.

Another of our Sunday truths is that Black people are better than White people. This was cultivated by anti-racists at the same time as the feminist Sunday truth was cultivated by feminists, where by feminists and anti-racists I don’t just mean activists but also the average journalist, priest or teacher. As with the feminist Sunday truth, the anti-racist one has led to those it champions being given senior positions, as when a young Black man was made president of the Royal Institute of British Architects recently despite being undistinguished as an architect,[4] and when another, also this year, was made a professor at Cambridge despite being mentally retarded.[5] Presumably they weren’t the best candidates but were thought to be the best Black ones.

On the basis that Black people are better than White people, the police have spent forty years coming up with policies aimed at getting more of them into the force or speeding them up the ranks.[6] Various home secretaries have introduced similar schemes.[7] Illustrating the syndrome, in 2021 the then home secretary unveiled a scheme for fast-tracking non-White police inspectors to the rank of superintendent,[8] despite the fact that a Black chief superintendent had not long before been found guilty of handling indecent images of children, a crime no White chief superintendent had been convicted of.[9] At the very moment Priti Patel announced her initiative, the case of another Black superintendent accused of gross misconduct was being heard.[10] Again, no White superintendent had been alleged to have spent £5,000 using someone else’s credit card during a conference where his allowance was £105, putting the spree down as expenses. But nothing a Black police officer does can threaten the Sunday truth that makes home secretaries want them promoted unnaturally fast.

The feminist and the anti-racist Sunday truths can’t necessarily both be acted on at once, as seen in the fact that Cressida Dick and Dany Cotton, although female, were White, while Muyiwa Oki (the architect) and Jason Arday (the professor), though Black, are male. We have to live with such anomalies because there simply aren’t enough Black women to fill every important post.

When feminism and anti-racism clash, anti-racism wins because it is higher up the politically-correct pecking order. Thus when a woman was killed by a White policeman in 2021,[11] feminists went on for a month about the danger men pose to women, but when a woman was murdered and her body chopped up by a failed asylum seeker from Iraq a few weeks earlier,[12] they hadn’t said a word.[13] If feminism had been the senior ideology, the fact that the chopper-up was non-White would have been trumped by the fact that the body he chopped up was that of a woman. Nor was the value of the victims of the Muslim rape gangs as girls enough to get them into the papers given that their rapists were non-White. The news Blackout went on for decades, during which probably over a million White girls were victimised.[14] Again feminism deferred to anti-racism.

People have been getting jobs on the basis of Sunday truths since the 1990s, when political correctness first came to us. Janice Fiamengo, a retired English professor from Canada, recalls that when applying for her first university post in 1997 she found herself on two shortlists where every candidate was female.[15] She was later to see application after application from brilliant young men thrown into the bin by selectors. At her university, anyone who hired a White man had to explain themselves to the dean.

Clearly, unless the best candidate happens to be Black or female, selecting only from these privileged classes means picking inferior people. To the examples of Cressida Dick et al can be added that of the female theoretical physicist who was given a job at Padua University in preference to a male one whose papers had been cited in the relevant journals ten times as often as hers.[16]

Another effect of the practice is the normalisation of dishonesty. When in 2018 the rejected physicist, Alessandro Strumia, gave a talk at CERN (the European Council for Nuclear Research) demonstrating the degree to which female physicists’ careers are artificially boosted, feminists did not greet it with contrite promises to mend their ways but by condemning Strumia in the strongest terms. So happy were they with their shady practices that they felt entitled to lambast anyone who exposed them. Janice Fiamengo has discussed the anti-man discrimination that has gone on “at the same time as feminists have been complaining non-stop that more needs to be done to hire women into all academic fields”.

Occasionally, those who intend to take affirmative action do not conceal the fact but trumpet it, as Donald Trump and Joe Biden did. “Look at us!”, they say. “We promise not to look for the best person; we’re going to choose a woman!” Apparently they valued the support of feminists more than that of anyone still attached to the old idea of justice.

This is not the place to undertake a comparison of the sexes or the races to see why White men might beat women and non-Whites in fair competitions, but two comparisons of the sexes undertaken by others can be noted. The Island was an American reality show where a group of women and a group of men were left on an uninhabited island to see how they would cope.[17] A girl who described herself as “all about being independent and not relying on men for anything” had to admit that fire was important. She noted that the men had made a dry storage area for their firewood and had everything they needed to cook, whereas the women had been unable to light a fire. Unfortunately there were things they needed from the men, she said. “It’s just so annoying.” What annoyed the men was the way that whenever the women came to them for something, as they did continually, they acted as though they deserved it. Also, when the women reflected on the fact that they had had no sleep or food and were wet and frozen, they blamed the men. When one of them started rolling logs — their intended firewood — into the sea, a man said: “We’re dealing with hormonal, irrational women. It’s not even worth trying to negotiate at this point.” Rather pathetically, the presenter tried to suggest that the experiment told us nothing about the sexes.[18]

In a similar British programme, some women were dropped off on one island and some men on another.[19] The women stayed at their landing point talking about urination before one suggested having a conference. Eventually they went off to find a better beach until one of them saw a snake, screamed and ran away. “You are not going to die”, another told her firmly. “But it came right towards me!” Not having found a beach by nightfall — it hadn’t occurred to them to follow the coast — they stopped in the jungle, where they saw a spider. Again the would-be organiser suggested a planning session. The next day there was a drama. “Guys, we’ve had a fall!” A woman was writhing on a rock. The aspiring organiser said: “Can we form a circle or something so we can have a chat?” Some of the group set out on another expedition to find a good place for a camp and got lost while the others let the fire it had taken them five hours to make go out when it started raining. The woman who had fallen down had a fit of some kind. “Come and sit in the comfy chair”, said another, guiding her to a fallen tree. A woman noticed how every time her group caught a fish there was a great celebration, whereas the men caught fish every day as though they expected to.

Such shows don’t prove anything, but they enable one to see how societies could have evolved to be organised and led by men, whose natural competence would only be increased by the knowledge that the women would blame them if anything went wrong.

An anecdote that brings in race as well as sex concerns a recruitment agency’s experiment with “blind recruitment”, where applicants were shortlisted in ignorance of both characteristics.[20] Only their merit was appraised. The agency abandoned the practice when it “selected an all-White, male field of candidates. All the diverse candidates failed to progress to interview”, wrote the company’s managing director.[21] This wasn’t the desired result, so the agency went back to discriminating by race and sex.

It is said that the reason the Ancient Greeks kept women out of politics is that they didn’t want to bring chaos and destruction down on their societies. Apparently the function of figures like Medea and Clytemnestra in their myths was to remind them what could happen if they weren’t careful. Presumably the reason we insist on pushing women into positions of power no matter how unsuitable they may seem to be, and do the same with Black people, is that we have an unconscious desire to destroy our societies.

Some would say that this analysis is wrong. It’s not our doing: feminism and anti-racism were foisted on us by outsiders. It is true that it was Jews who gave us these ideologies, but as Yuri Bezmenov said — a Soviet propagandist who in 1970 defected to the West, which he tried to warn about the trouble that was coming to it — you cannot subvert an enemy who does not want to be subverted.[22] All the Soviets’ efforts to lead the West to ruin would have been to no avail had it not been going in that direction of its own accord. It stands to reason. If someone tells you to jump off the top of a tall building, why would you do it unless you wanted to kill yourself? The best you could call it, if the person telling you to jump had worked on your weaknesses to make it seem like a good idea, would be assisted suicide.

If warnings about feminism and anti-racism were ever sounded, they were silenced by the feminist and anti-racist media thirty years ago as our professional communicators disseminated and then enforced their Sunday truths. It is too late for warnings now. Women are already in charge almost wherever you look, some in the most unexpected places. Recently the School of Engineering Education at Purdue university was being run by a woman, whose main idea was that rigour was overrated. If less emphasis was placed on it, there would be more female engineers, she argued.[23] CERN is run by a woman, as is the United States Soccer Federation. A snooker referee or chess commentator is as likely to be a woman as a man these days. Feminism’s Sunday truth incorporates the idea that women are just as interested in chess and snooker as are men, so with their general superiority it is natural that they should regulate and pass judgement on the men who actually play the games.

Feminism has met with success not only in engineering education and men’s sports, as well as in such fields as academia, journalism and general punditry, but also in the police and armed forces. In 2018, the following top positions connected with the British police were occupied by women: Director General of the National Crime Agency, head of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, chair of the College of Policing, chair of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, and president of the Police Superintendents Association.[24] It must have seemed obvious to those who gave women these posts that they would be more suitable for them than any man could be. In the spring of 2020, England had two female chief constables out of 46; eighteen months later it had fifteen.[25] Of thirteen male chief constables who retired in that period, all were succeeded by women.

Although the British armed forces shrink all the time, the Royal Navy has room for a female rear admiral and half a dozen female commodores, the Royal Air Force has a female air marshal backed up by seven female air vice-marshals, and the Army has a lady lieutenant general, two lady major generals and a dozen lady brigadeers.

It is only a matter of time before an episcopal cat fight breaks out over the appointment of the first female Archbishop of Canterbury.

[1] The New Culture Forum, Sept. 2nd 2023, “ULEZ: Punishing the Poor. Time for Notting Hill Carnival to End? Is Britain a Christian Nation?”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrIG3F9_cFM.

[2] See Dany Cotton’s statement to the Grenfell Tower inquiry: “Statement of: COTTON, DANY”, Feb. 21st 2018, https://grenfellactiongroup.files.wordpress.com/2019/11/witness-statement-lfb-dany-cotton-met00012492-.pdf, p. 27: “I recall that a very nice couple let me use their loo a few times. … Although there were toilet facilities in the ‘Rest Centre’ it was just too far to keep going backwards and forwards”.

[3] Bertrand Russell, 1950, Unpopular Essays, London: George Allen & Unwin, p. 107, in “An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish”.

[4] History Debunked, Sept. 1st 2023, “Why it is trendy in the modern world to have people of colour in prominent positions”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hquq7mDRgU0. Muyiwa Oki is already calling for more “diversity” in architecture. The industry is far from representative, he finds, and has “significant ethnicity gaps”. He will champion measures to make architecture “fairer, more welcoming and inclusive”.

[5] Jason Arday, a sociologist, didn’t speak until he was eleven and was illiterate until he was eighteen. He has still not attained full literacy. Summarising one of his articles, he wrote: “This paper employs a Critical Race Theory (CRT) a storytelling method, which operates as a counter-narrative in attempting to conceptualise my own professional experiences of negotiating normative Whiteness, diversifying Eurocentric curricula and conceptualising the racial mirco-aggression”. The first few words contain one mistake of grammar and two of punctuation. The sentence makes no sense. How can a theory attempt to conceptualise a person’s experience of conceptualising something? What is “the racial mirco-aggression”? Arday claims that his life was profoundly affected by the news that Nelson Mandela had been released from prison, which happened when he was four. (History Debunked, Feb. 24th 2023, “A boy who could not read and write until he was 18 becomes a professor at Cambridge University”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYwkgmJtBeE.)

[6] In the 1980s they lowered their admission standards for non-Whites after the Scarman report told them to acquire more Black officers (Lord Scarman, 1982 [1981], The Scarman Report: The Brixton Disorders, 10-12 April 1981, Harmondsworth: Pelican-Penguin, Paragraph 5.13. Several officers express their disapproval of the resulting racial discrimination in Roger Graef, 1989, Talking Blues: The Police in Their Own Words, London: Collins Harvill, pp. 134-38.) In 1996 they offered sub-standard young Black men a free ten-week course to help them pass the recruitment tests (Telegraph, Feb. 26th 1996, “Police woo unemployed Blacks”). In 1998 they launched a scheme to “attract, develop and retain minority ethnic recruits, particularly at a senior level” (Metropolitan Police, March 15th 1999, A Police Service for All the People).

[7] For example, Jack Straw in 1999.

[8] History Debunked, Nov. 3rd 2021, “Home Secretary Priti Patel wants police officers promoted for skin colour, rather than aptitude”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDsBRxlVX54.

[9] Robyn Williams (a woman) was convicted in 2019.

[10] In due course Chief Superintendent Paul Martin was found guilty of this and other offences. Non-White police officers have always been investigated for misconduct at a higher rate than Whites, as have non-White solicitors and doctors. (Police: BBC, June 30th 2020, “My 30-year struggle with racism in the Metropolitan police”, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-53224394; solicitors: History Debunked, Dec. 4th 2021, “How increasing diversity and inclusion in professions can lead to undesirable consequences”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BVr8VqDjJE; doctors: Telegraph, Feb. 23rd 1999, “NHS stands guilty of racism too, say doctors”, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1999/02/23/ncon423.html.

[11] Sarah Everard by Wayne Cozens.

[12] Lorraine Cox by Azam Mangori.

[13] Nigel Farage, March 17th 2021, “Why won’t mainstream media talk about this?”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFpQqdfiChE.

[14] When in 2016 Telford joined the list of towns where Muslim rape gangs had been identified, it had 155,000 inhabitants, of whom under two per cent were Muslims. There were thought to be 1,500 victims or ex-victims there at this point. If Telford had an average total population of 150,000 in the conservatively estimated 35 years during which the gangs operated (not that they are likely to have stopped), and had an average Muslim population of 1.4 per cent in that period, then in those years it acquired victims at the rate of 54 for every hundred Muslims. Assuming, as seems to be the case, that Muslim rape gangs operated in every town with an appreciable Muslim population, then at this rate, with an average of 2.3 million Muslims in Britain during those years, in 2016 there were likely to have been 1.25 million White girls who were being or had been victimised by the gangs.

[15] Studio Brule Archive, June 12th 2020, “Anti-intellectualism in Academia with Janice Fiamengo — Coffee with Steve”, https://odysee.com/@StudioBruleArchive:e/anti-intellectualism-in-academia-with:4.

[16] Studio Brule, Nov. 16th 2018, “Fiamengo File #91: Physics Under SJW Attack: The Case of Alessandro Strumia”, https://odysee.com/@StudioBruleArchive:e/physics-under-sjw-attack-the-case-of:4.

[17] Sambo The Deplorable Coon, Sept. 20th 2018, “Island Competition — Women vs. Men”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2ZFDQiP4jM. (Video no longer available. Some of the same material is at Ace Nate, Jan. 9th 2023, “The Survival Experiment That EXPOSED Female Entitlement”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=073u84xczNI.)

[18] Bear Grylls said meaninglessly: “Image or clothes or makeup, whatever our sort of stuff is, you know what? It’s not what we are. What we are is beyond all of that.” Having set up a battle of the sexes, he said: “I’m being quite careful not to make it a battle of the sexes”. Survival wasn’t gender-specific, he opined. Women might approach stuff differently, but really it was about heart and character.

[19] Carl Wassermann, Jan. 25th 2018, “Women try to Survive on an island without men”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCyWOGg_bik. (Video no longer available. This could refer to the same programme: Think Before You Sleep, Dec. 22nd 2020, “Survival: Men vs Women”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzCO0G8AGLU.)

[20] History Debunked, Dec. 7th 2021, “The great ‘diversity and inclusivity’ in employment and education scam; bait and switch in action”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vQU2bKPAWg.

[21] Peridot, no date (accessed 2022), “Blind recruitment? I don’t see it”, https://www.peridotpartners.co.uk/blind-recruitment-process/.

[22] Amit Sengupta, Jan. 9th 2020, “Understanding the Political Scenario of INDIA,CANADA,JAPAN,CHINA,USA, FRANCE etc.”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9TviIuXPSE&t=16s, recorded approx. 1985.

[23] This was Donna Riley. See video embedded in EEVblog Electronics Community Forum, March 1st 2018, “Topic: Feminist Professor Thinks ‘Rigor’ is Evil”, https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/feminist-professor-thinks-_rigor_-is-evil/.

[24] They were, in that order, Lynne Owens, Sarah Thornton, Shirley Pearce, Anne Owers, Irene Curtis.

[25] History Debunked, July 8th 2021, “Women in command; female leaders in the police and army”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i6pBj6dYMw. Including Wales, after another six months there were 19 out 49 (Telegraph, Jan. 9th 2023, “Record 40 per cent of chief constables are now women amid anti-misogyny drive”, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/09/record-40-per-cent-chief-constables-now-women-amid-anti-misogyny/).

Israel Is Not Our Ally

/23 Comments/in , , /by

It is more critical now than ever that we teach our kids and grandkids the importance of our alliance with the State of Israel. They are our most important strategic ally — and they are a dear friend to the United States of America. If we fail to educate our children of Israel’s importance, we risk raising a generation that sees no need to protect our most important strategic ally. Americans must always understand the significance of this land that God has promised to the Israelites; they must respect the Jewish people and the State of Israel; and they must always be on the side of freedom and good, never on the side of terrorism and evil.

Protecting the Promised Land by Gov. Kristi Noem (R-SD)

It is very difficult to be an American Republican. I, for one, will definitely not be teaching my children of Israel’s “importance”; instead, I will teach my children that Israel is not an ally of America and that Jews are not the friends of non-Jews.

*        *        *        *

Recently, Middle Eastern violence and warfare flared up again. After suffering its worst Palestinian violence after Hamas fighters broke out of the Gaza prison and massacred hundreds upon hundreds of Israeli citizens and kidnapped at least a hundred more on October 7, 2023, Israel has pounded the densely populated Gaza territory for the last few days. Obviously, the violence directed at non-combatants is atrocious and I am one degree separated from Israeli families who are dealing with the losses of their loved ones — or their loved ones’ loved ones. No matter what I say below — and this is not a matter of virtue signaling, I do not condone indiscriminate targeting of civilian men, women, and children. For a gentile, I know more Israelis than the average American — by a longshot. My views are not directed at them as much as they are directed at their country, which is an international menace. Moreover, this is no defense of Islam. I have a very dim view of the Islamic world and Islam itself. It is an ugly and pathological religion that confines its adherents in a glorification of violence against the non-Muslim. That I want to see international law, which itself is a creation of European values, vindicated has little to do with the fact that the victims of Israel’s failure to abide by it are Muslims.

To be sure, I do not wish to overstate what happened in Israel on October 7, 2023. Everyday throughout the world, civilians are subject to political violence. It is a terrible thing, but that what happened in Israel is fresh in our minds — as if it is the only place on the planet where such violence happened — is because we have been literally bombarded with non-stop coverage in what can only be described as victim pornography. That doesn’t minimize the horror of what happened in southern Israel that day, but when the editorial choices of what we see and read are dictated by people who want us to focus singularly on Israeli victims, we see that our obtuseness towards political violence in, for example, Armenia or Nigeria is not so much a defect in us as it is a consequence of what we are shown or not shown.

*        *        *        *

In the United States, we hear repeatedly and stereophonically that Israel is “our greatest ally and friend.” We hear it in unanimous bipartisan fashion, and we never hear it challenged. Of course, to challenge it, even obliquely, is to be susceptible to the charge of antisemitism, which, in the United States, is no walk in the park. Setting aside antisemitic conspiracy theories, if a realpolitik truism is that you are ruled by those who you cannot criticize, then there can be little doubt that we are ruled by Jews and their gentile enablers. This is a statement of fact — whether I agree with it or not is irrelevant. We live in a country that punishes dissent from this orthodoxy.

Political axioms are powerful things — for the average American, certain principles are assumed. How they became assumed, or why they are assumed at all, is never questioned once the axiom becomes a fixture of American life. In that sense, we are a very dull people, but I am not sure we are much different than any other political community, now or historically. The reality is that it takes courage, intelligence, and, most importantly, imagination to question political axioms — to see the world without the mental crutch they provide. It takes moxie to imagine a world in which those axioms were returned to the arena of discourse to see how, if at all, they would fare in the marketplace of political ideas. America’s reflexive and unqualified support of Israel falls squarely within this axiomatic paradigm. The ugly reality hiding in plain sight of this political axiom is that Israel is not merely not “our greatest ally,” our support of Israel directly contravenes the interests of Americans the world over and contradicts the most basic Anglo-American values we hold. Not only should we not support Israel — militarily, economically, or culturally — we ought to treat it as a political pariah. We are very far from doing that, but Israel has become the international monster it is precisely because of the unqualified support from of the United States. Take that away and Israel is in enormous — even existential — trouble. To understand that is to know why Israel’s supporters are as fanatic as they are — a hole in the dike of American support, no matter how seemingly trivial, is something that must be struck hard by Jewish berserkers because the whole house of cards could fall, and they know it.

But let us return to the political axiom of Israel’s status as “our greatest ally.” Let us probe that just a little. Setting aside all other considerations, an alliance between countries is typically driven by three foreign policy factors: reciprocal benefits, cultural/civilizational harmony and symmetrical values, and economic considerations. At the threshold of any alliance between states lies the proposition that each benefit from the relationship — and that benefit must be predicated upon some mutuality. In normal functioning foreign policy, the concept of quid pro quo is a given. The mutuality between countries needed is tied to the civilizational harmony that exists between them; so, the United Kingdom and United States are natural allies because of the shared history and culture between them. For us, more broadly, Western Europe and the United States share a civilization, which makes an alliance not so much a consideration but an outcome of that shared civilization. In fact, that shared civilization is what makes the similarity of values so predominant. At least historically, we valued the rule of law, relative democracy, freedoms of press, association, and religion — and in each of these political values, the United States and Western Europe were largely inline — so much so that we never needed to negotiate these values in order to strike an alliance. To be sure, I am not defending the Enlightenment civilization without qualification that has grown up over the last three or four centuries but only observing that Americans generally share certain political values with their Western European counterparts as a matter of course. The same is true of Islamic countries and their values, and the same is true of Latin American or East Asian countries and their values. Finally, in addition to securing peaceful relations, economic considerations drive foreign policy — trade and economic development are drivers of whom we see as friends and allies. As will be discussed, none of these considerations favor America’s special relationship — financial, military, and diplomatic — with Israel.

What I have written, however, is a hypothetical statement of foreign policy considerations in a multipolar world — and we do not live in a multipolar world. America’s considerations, at least since the end of the Second World War, are imperial and hegemonic. As the world’s leading superpower, the United States has an additional consideration that animates — indeed dominates — its foreign policy considerations — namely, that its status as world hegemon remains unchallenged economically and militarily. Imperial considerations create different foreign policy imperatives, and the United States has played a pernicious role propping up its hegemonic status — overthrowing unhelpful governments by fomenting revolution and attacking others when it saw fit. America’s current role as Russia’s primary adversary in Ukraine can only be understood in the context of its manic attempt to preserve its hegemony. Setting aside the moral considerations of America’s hegemony and taking it for granted as a goal of American statesmanship, the reality is that America’s slavish support for Israel does not assist it in preserving its hegemony.

Simply stated, Israel is not an ally of the United States in any meaningful sense. It is a drag on the moral and economic wellbeing of the United States. Moreover, by propping up the mendacious policies of the Israeli government, Americans and American interests are made less safe and less prosperous as a result. It is time that this alliance is questioned — and questioned hard.

*        *        *        *

Before we even address the putative benefits of America’s support of Israel, we should consider those who support it for nonrational reasons. First, there are American Jews, most obviously. While it is alleged — constantly — that to suggest the dual loyalty of American Jews to the United States and Israel is tantamount to antisemitism, the fact of their dual loyalty cannot be seriously questioned. Indeed, it is not a dual loyalty at all — it is, almost uniformly, a singular loyalty to Israel that trumps loyalty to the United States. In this way, American Jews are very different from every other ethnicity that has immigrated to the United States. Within a generation or two, every other group that has come here has largely become Americans with proportionately less interest in their native homelands in every generation, but Jews, many who have been in the United States for multiple generations are very different. Israel is not merely something they are interested in — Israel is their chief concern, especially at times like this when Israel is engaged in a military crisis. With the exception of a small percentage of progressive Jews, the vast majority of American Jews view Israel — and American support for Israel — as a defining point of political life. While they are a small percentage of Americans, American Jews are vastly overrepresented in the quartet of modern culture-making powers: (i) media and entertainment; (ii) academia; (iii) government and lobbying; and (iv) finance and banking. Jews, through their ethnic monopolies and propensity for groupthink, are able to use their influence to drive the discussion and policy in a way that tilts overwhelmingly and uniformly in a pro-Israeli way. Indeed, AIPAC, an entity that should register as a foreign agent, is the most powerful lobby in the United States — and single-handedly puts Congress in its pocket. The Jews, through their influence and their lobby, are the single greatest drivers of U.S. support of Israel. A recapitulation of this outsized influence is the subject of an excellent survey written by recognized foreign policy experts John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt in 2007, The Israel Lobby and the U.S. Foreign Policy. Parenthetically, that book answered two questions: does the special relationship between Israel and the U.S. fuel anti-American sentiments in the Middle East? If the uncritical U.S. support for Israel is not driven by either national interest or moral compass, what explains the reason behind “special relationship”? Notably, both authors were accused of antisemitism for writing it. Even if outdated by fifteen years, the book should be read by everyone because the problems it identifies have only gotten worse.

Second, there are American Evangelical Christians, and many Fox News, Newsmax, and OAN watchers fit squarely in the “useful idiot” category. It is beyond the pale of this essay to address the defective dispensationalist theology that has led a significant percentage of American Evangelicals to become rabidly and often blood-thirstily Zionist, but it is what it is. While I am no Protestant, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Huldrych Zwingli, John Wesley, and John Knox would all be very surprised to learn — or even understand — the relatively new Protestant fascination with Judaism and Zionism five hundred years after the Reformation. Suffice it to say, none of the 95 theses nailed to the church door in Wittenberg included a complaint that the medieval Church had been too solicitous of the Jews (even though she was) or that the reformed party believed that a new Jewish kingdom should be formed in the Holy Land. It makes one wonder who coopted them. Thus, a weighty portion of the GOP then is militantly Zionist as a matter of heretical religious dogma, which is not prone to argument.

Third, there is a war party in the United States closely allied with the real-world military industrial complex. It’s a war party that loves Israel because Israel keeps conflict evergreen throughout the world. The ideological component of these people are a subset of mostly Jews commonly known as “neo-conservatives” (like William Kristol, Robert & Donald Kagan, Richard N. Perle, “Scooter” Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Paul Wolfowitz, Eliot A. Cohen, and Elliot Abrams). Needless to say, these are the vilest people in American civic life and not only do these people provide the loudest and most aggressive form of advocacy for Israel, but they are also virtually singularly responsible for the disastrous American wars in the Middle East and America’s current policy of tempting nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine. Unlike an ordinary functioning state — one that wants peace as the normative condition — we have an influential portion of Americans who like war, armaments, and conflict whether it extends American hegemony or not. War hawks, neocons, and Israel sycophants, like the currently insane Senator Lindsay Graham or the deceased Senator John McCain, were not philosemitic on the basis on a religious conviction, but on the basis of their bloodlust.

Fourth, without making any judgments of anyone in particular, the recent Jeffery Epstein affair also makes one wonder how many American politicians and powerbrokers are fanatical supports of Israel for the simple reason of kompromat. Needless to say, the idea that Mossad has pictures and videos of such Americans in compromising positions with underage boys and girls is far from wildly speculative and goes a long way in explaining the seemingly inexplicable pro-Israeli fanaticism seen by some American politicians for ostensibly no reason at all. That, and we cannot ignore simple old-fashioned bribery. There is also the less sexy proposition of simply buying politicians in seemingly legitimate ways. Consider the rabid Israel supporter, former South Carolina Governor, and Republican Presidential Candidate Nikki Haley:

Haley stunned Washington by resigning her role in the Trump administration in 2018, less than two years after taking office. A spokesperson for Haley claims that the family financial troubles had “no bearing whatsoever on Ambassador Haley’s decision to leave her position” and points to a section of Haley’s resignation letter in which she expressed support for “rotation in office.” But the same letter also suggested that Haley may have had money-making ventures on her mind: “As a businessman,” she wrote to Donald Trump, “I expect you will appreciate my sense that returning from government to the private sector is not a step down but a step up.” Indeed. Since then, Haley’s net worth has ballooned from less than $1 million to an estimated $8 million. How did she make so much money in so little time? By following a tried-and-true playbook for politicians looking to cash in on their fame. Speeches to companies like Barclays and organizations such as the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs provided more money in a day than Haley had previously earned in a year. It’s not clear how many talks she gave from 2019 to 2021, but Haley hauled in $2.3 million from just 11 events in 2022. She wrote two books after leaving the Trump administration. A 2019 memoir sold more than 100,000 copies. A 2022 title provided more than $350,000 in advance payments. Haley also offered consulting services, generating more than $700,000 in fees. Then there were corporate boards. She became a director of Boeing in 2019, then stepped down the next year, collecting over $300,000 in cash and stock. Haley remains on the board of the United Homes Group, which has provided her with more than $250,000, as well as the promise of earning much more as equity grants vest down the road.

One might argue that somebody paid handsomely for Haley’s vociferous Israeli support. Taken together, there are several groups within American society that treat American support for Israel axiomatically — Jews, Evangelicals, war hawks, and grifters — such that it can never be a subject of debate. There is no point in engaging with them therefore because Israel can never be discussed dispassionately or constructively given their nonrational basis for Israeli support. That said, a wide swath of American Republicans — Catholics, non-Evangelical Protestants, unchurched — all are theoretically open to such a discussion. Moreover, the quixotic strength of Donald Trump’s appeal, even though he himself was extremely pro-Israeli, is a demonstration that an appeal to America’s citizenry (or a significant portion) on the basis of what it best for this country and its citizens still has appeal. “Make America Great Again” — or America First — was seen as an existential threat to all of the Israel Firsters cited above. That Trump still has significant pull is a sign that America’s wake-up call with respect to Israel is possible, which explains why he was vilified as no politician has ever been vilified. Strictly speaking, it is possible to advocate for this message with some hope of its success.

*        *        *        *

The façade of Israel’s value can be punctured by the simple asking of questions.

What is the basis for our unqualified support for Israel? Initially, we can ask where is the reciprocity, or, stated differently, what does America receive from its support of Israel? Indeed, Israel, a high-income, developed country, is the single greatest beneficiary of American aid. Why? What do we get for it beyond platitudes from the beneficiary and its American supporters? Nothing of value that I can see, and I challenge anyone to state it succinctly. Setting aside the wisdom of American aid to Third World countries — both in its efficacy and as a matter of thrift — at least American aid that goes to Nigeria or Guatemala to build infrastructure, schools, or industry has a moral component. There is no moral benefit — and indeed an immoral detriment, discussed below — to subsidizing Israel. She has not proved to be a loyal partner — indeed, Israel regularly spies on the U.S. and does not act like an ally in practice. Even ignoring the more toxic allegations of the “dancing Israelis” and their involvement in the 9/11 attacks (presumably to empower the American war party), the plausible involvement of Mossad in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (presumably because of his insistence that Israel not develop nuclear weapons) or the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty during the 1967 War that the Israelis started, what have we gained from the billions of taxpayer dollars given to Israel? If we take those allegations seriously — or even inquire about them, which is more than we can say of the entire media establishment — then we might say that we are subsidizing an undeclared enemy of the United States. And even if we set all of that aside, we obtain nothing of value in return for supporting what amounts to a regime of Jews practicing the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians for a century and calling it a country.

One might argue that we obtain — at least potentially — intelligence from Israel about our enemies in the Middle East. Israel is, after all, a technological behemoth that has its electronic fingers in everyone’s pie. But that begs a further question: why do we have enemies in the Middle East in the first place? Would the Muslim world, fractured as it is, hate the United States if it did not subsidize Israel in the first place? Would we have Islamic terrorism in the United States at all? Would we need to be subjected to intrusive security examinations to fly domestically but for our support of Israel and the collective ire it creates in much of the world? Whatever residual benefit the United States receives in obtaining Israeli intelligence is offset by the threshold consideration that the need for such intelligence would be mitigated altogether if we did not support a regime that antagonized the Islamic world as it does. To make it clearer, the United States never had colonies in the Middle East like France or the U.K. There is thus no reason for the U.S. to be a geopolitical foe of these people. But we are, and for one reason: because of our unqualified support of Israel. Take that away and we never, for a variety of reasons, need to worry about another 9/11 (no matter who orchestrated it). Israel is an international albatross around the neck of American interests — our support has an exponentially negative impact in every conceivable way in which a state can have foreign relations. Nothing is gained by supporting Israel and much is lost.

Culturally and civilizationally, we have little in common with Israel. That may seem odd — after all, aren’t we a “Judeo-Christian” country? Setting aside religion, what do we have civilizationally in common with Israel? Is it democratic? Does it respect the rule of law? Is it non-sectarian? Does it respect the rights of minorities? Israel is a country that violates international law with impunity — an impunity given to it by the United States’ regular veto in the United Nations’ Security Counci of resolutions critical of Israel or, in the case of the Gaza war, a resolution for a “humanitarian pause.”

In every way, Israel is a very different world from America. It is not democratic if take into consideration that half of the population under its control (the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank) have no democratic rights at all. Israel runs roughshod over the rule of law. It allows settlers to physically remove the native people from their homes and land in the West Bank and has the temerity to call this practice, “the redemption” of the land of Israel. It allows unfettered immigration of Jews to Israel — all with a generous subsidy — while it keeps the it has stolen from Palestinians in successive wars. It has — increasingly — theocratic tendencies such that the Jewish religion is favored at the expense of other religions. And all of that says nothing of the Jewish proclivity to spit — literally — on the Christian pilgrims who visit the holy sites within Israel.

From the perspective of international law, Israel is an apartheid state. According to Amnesty International:

Apartheid is a violation of public international law, a grave violation of internationally protected human rights, and a crime against humanity under international criminal law. The term “apartheid” was originally used to refer to a political system in South Africa which explicitly enforced racial segregation, and the domination and oppression of one racial group by another. It has since been adopted by the international community to condemn and criminalize such systems and practices wherever they occur in the world. The crime against humanity of apartheid under the Apartheid Convention, the Rome Statute and customary international law is committed when any inhuman or inhumane act (essentially a serious human rights violation) is perpetrated in the context of an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over another, with the intention to maintain that system. Apartheid can best be understood as a system of prolonged and cruel discriminatory treatment by one racial group of members of another with the intention to control the second racial group.

Again, one does not have to like the religion of Muhammed (and I don’t) to understand that the modern state of Israel is founded on the displacement and political neutering of the Palestinian people, carried on by an Israeli state that abets Jewish supremacists and religious bigots. Largely ignored in the American press, Amnesty International issued a damning, nearly 280-page report in 2022 that outlined much of what Israel does towards non-Jews in Palestine. “The Israeli government is committing the crime against humanity of apartheid against Palestinians and must be held accountable.” One need not agree with the politics of Amnesty International, but the reality is that international law should matter for us. International law reflects principles of European civilization that were forged over thousands of years and represent a statement of basic human rights. Millions of Palestinians live under Israeli control effectively as stateless refugees on their own land without the right to vote or travel freely. The Gaza territory, home to 2.3 million Palestinians, is an open-air prison in which the residents live in deplorable conditions. If a concentration camp is a confined geographic space in which a population is compelled to live within with severe restrictions on liberty and human rights, Gaza is a modern concentration camp. At the very least, it is an internment camp. And this is what we are subsidizing?

It is even worse than the report outlined above. In what is one of the most compelling books ever written on Rabbinic/Talmudic Judaism and Israel, Israel Shahak’s Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years, demonstrates the various and systematic ways that Israel dehumanizes the “other” in law and in other ways. A dispassionate examination of what Israel has done, and is doing, demonstrates that Israel’s values are starkly at variance with American political values in the broadest and most fundamental sense.

There is an argument made not infrequently that America “owes” the Jews support because of the Holocaust. Setting aside the question of the scale and extent of the Holocaust, in what moral universe does harm sustained by one party allow that same party to inflict harm on an unrelated third party with impunity? Whatever we can say about the Palestinians, they have no culpability for the Second World War. Why should they bear the reparations — in land and in human rights — to Jews who were allegedly harmed by another? What is the moral basis for displacing them? More to the point, why should we subsidize that harm? The United States does not owe the Jews anything with respect to the Second World War — not under any calculus. Simply stated, there is zero moral imperative on the part of Americans to support Israel on account of what transpired during World War II. Whatever happened, it was not the fault of Americans, and it was not the fault of the Palestinians.

*        *        *        *

Israel is a grotesque country. Not only do we not receive anything in compensation for our support, but American interests are also damaged as a result of our support for Israel. There is no moral imperative to support Israel. There is no shared civilization or values between us. Israel is a pariah state that is propped up by American support. Compromise that support and Israel would face an existential threat given the terrible things that it does and the lack of international support it has sans America. While my own politics tend towards non-intervention generally such that I lament American imperial pretensions, I am not immune to human suffering beyond the borders of my country. To be sure, I denounce the murder of civilians in any conflict — whether they are Israeli or Palestinian or whether they are Rwandan, but it is not my business — or my country’s business — to fix it as a matter of foreign policy. Whether or not it is too late in the game to address the enormous cost of America’s immoral and stupid support of Israel, these things must be said.

Israel is not our greatest ally — not by a long shot.

*        *        *        *

Post-Script: The asymmetry between Hamas and Israel militarily — and the showering of bombs and missiles upon Gaza — make one feel as if there is no stopping Israeli power in the Middle East. That is, at least in my opinion, a misreading of the situation. Israel is in very big trouble — and its problems are internal as opposed to external. Israel’s demographics demonstrate that she has already moved from democratic and liberal pretensions to something that is more decidedly religio-fascistic. Israel’s Labor Party, the country’s equivalent to the American Democratic Party, is dead. Likud, its equivalent to the Republican Party, is a now a minority party propped up by outright fascists and theocrats. Within a generation or two, Israel will drop the façade altogether of any commonality with Anglo-American values of political liberalism. The internal restraints on the worst Israeli behavior are breaking down irretrievably. What I predict is that “normal” Israelis are likely to flee the country as it continues down its path towards a Jewish Taliban, which will only hasten its transformation. A Jewish theocracy will be next to impossible to support, even for American stooges, and that theocracy is inevitable as a demographic certainty. In due time, as a matter of when, not if, Israel will become an openly illiberal theocracy that says the quiet parts out load — one that will openly and defiantly persecute non-Jews inside the state. Theodore Herzl’s experiment of Zionist nation-building is not likely to make it a century before it all comes tumbling down.

Interview: Is Russia Run By Incompetents or Traitors? An Expert Analyst Weighs In

/4 Comments/in /by
I’d like to introduce Rusty to the Stalkers over at Slavland Chronicles and to anyone else who might pick up and read this story. We haven’t had an interview in a while.Yes, Rusty is a fake name, but the man behind the man is very real. We’ve known each other for awhile, but unlike me, Rusty is a successful, handshake-worthy man making a living working with the Russian government whereas I’m on someone’s bad list, clearly. His specialization is in analysis of military technology and strategy and he has been doing a lot of work analyzing both the real war and the cyber war in Donbass. He also works with specialists in Syria; the Middle-East used to be his particular forte.

The last time that I was in Russia was about a month into the Special Military Operation [SMO], and I was very optimistic that things would be wrapped up sooner rather than later and that all would be well when the dust settled; Ukraine and Russia reunited, the Liberalizers kicked out of Moscow, much-needed political reforms carried out, and that a “Russkiy Mir” cultural renaissance awaited us. He, in contrast, informed me that the SMO was a complete circus and that the situation was very grim indeed politically, economically and militarily for Russia. I remember teasing him for his doom and gloom pessimism in front of like-minded friends. He bore it all with a stiff upper-lip and, irony of ironies, I ended up with the exact same position as he has is but half a year later — the black sheep of the Russia analyst community.

As dedicated fans of the blog know, I only started coming around to the “doomer” view in autumn of last year and now believe that the situation has only dramatically worsened since then. Rusty has access to information that I don’t have, although most of it is technical in nature. That means he knows a lot more about hardware capabilities and shell reserves than I do, but he doesn’t know what Putin had for lunch.

Overall, the interview was definitely worth sharing, even though it re-trods ground that should be familiar for diligent readers of the blog. For ZAnoners though, it should be a wake-up call. But then, these people are mostly lost cases.

Without further ado, let’s dive in.

*   *   *

Welcome and thanks for talking to me. This interview has been a long time coming. So you work for a think tank now? I didn’t know Russia had those. They certainly didn’t when I was around.

Yes, thank you. And yes that is true, this is a new development for Russia. We used to rely simply on government sources of analysis and information gathering, but as the SMO continued, the government started hiring groups like the one I work for now to provide a secondary perspective on things. We provide realistic assessments about Russia’s capabilities and Ukraine’s capabilities and then provide common-sense suggestions.

Sometimes, we are even listened to by the relevant ministries.

Is it fair to say that the private sector was brought in because the Kremlin realized that they couldn’t trust their own bureaus and ministries and employees?

Well, they realized that they needed a second opinion, let us just say that. Also, the Americans use such a system and if the Americans are doing it, then the issue is settled. [He means the Kremlin likes to copy Washington in everything].

Also, we are often told that nothing is done in Russia without a bark [an order]. That Russia has no civil society. The last year is proof that this is not the case. We organized privately around private investors and then secured government contracts for our work. And we are far from the only example. If we are talking about civil society and private initiatives like my think tank, or even private armies like all the NGOs or PMCs [Private Military Companies, like the Wagner Group] that have been created, we have to state that the government does not resist these developments.

In America, they have had this system for a long time, but they have another problem now, which is that they only listen to information that they want to hear. The customer is always right — that kind of mentality. They say what the customer wants to hear.

For example, the Ukrainian counter-offensive in summer.

I remember reading one of the big names, Ben Hodges, on the topic. The analysis was totally wrong, but he continues to get paid very well for spreading it. They claimed that Russia had nothing but demotivated conscripts and that Ukraine had an army of pros. But nothing worked out for them, as we well know.

Not to defend him, but many people thought that [Minister of Defense] Shoigu would give the order to retreat again without putting up a fight. The Americans seemed fairly confident that Russia wouldn’t put up much of a fight. I think that informed their optimism just as much as any faith in the UAF [Ukrainian Armed Forces].

Yes, but the Russian army stood its ground. And it is always better to be on the defensive. Even if Russia has not had success with offensives and coordinating combined arms attacks, they still have the ability to defend pre-prepared positions. For once, the Ukrainians were the ones fighting at a tactical disadvantage. And the heroism of the Russian soldiers cannot be discounted. They wanted to stay and fight and to prove themselves and so they did.

I think it is fair to say that the war would have collapsed a long time ago if it weren’t for Russian civil society stepping in, organizing itself and helping out the soldiers. Who paid for our soldiers’ warm clothes, their equipment and their quadrocopters in the early, critical days? Or the info-war initiatives. It was all done by citizen initiatives. By volunteers. Especially in the early days when the Russian army was revealed to be severely unequipped and unprepared.

Hasn’t Shoigu often accused these volunteers of discrediting the army? Hasn’t he threatened arrests, maybe already arrested some in some cases?

I have not heard of this. That it, I do not think it is a systematic policy of suppression. Shoigu and his MoD [Ministry of Defense] may occasionally lash out, but here we have to differentiate between the targets of his ire. There is a difference between volunteering to bring supplies to the front and actively critiquing the MoD and organizing like Strelkov [Igor Girkin] did.

Actually, you sound a lot like Strelkov at times. Who, by the way, was arrested for critiquing the Khan [Sgiugu].

Strelkov? Oh no. He has a kind of nature to him — that is he is a pessimist by his very nature. Maybe I would be as well if I went through what he did. But he was always negative and so yes, he eventually was proven correct. I would say though that his methodology was flawed though. Besides, you can critique the government and provide suggestions, but it has to be done through the proper channels. Public attacks are a different matter. We understand that there are many problems that plague Russia’s war effort, but we are allowed to voice them. So the issue is more complex than you make it out to be. It has to do with politics and how the critique is done, not the content of the critique, which is oftentimes true.

You aren’t a pessimist? Really? Compared to the Western analysts, you sound very dour.

I am neither an optimist or a pessimist. The truth is that we are in a long, protracted war with no solution in sight. Someone like Strelkov would be right to point that out and predict it when he did. There are no clever plans and there won’t be any resounding Russian victory any time soon. But that doesn’t mean that measures aren’t being taken now to prepare for a long war. Strelkov’s claims that Moscow will surrender are more a fear than a reality. From what we can tell, the elites’ backs are against the wall. Western sanctions and rhetoric has painted a target on all their backs. So, increasingly, they are realizing that they have no choice but to resist in some way.

It seems to me that if Russia were serious, they would at least do something about the Western agents of influence who are still active in the country.

Well, we have some improvements with the whole traitor situation. This is also undeniable.

Our economists and technocrats are doing better with the economy. The agents of influence from the West have become less influential. Some have even switched sides because of the sanctions, because they feel like they have no choice at this point, really. We have a lot of civil society stepping up to help the effort and making up for the incompetence in the MoD. You know, even patriots can be incompetent — that is a problem too. It may not be maliciousness in all cases, necessarily.

Are you familiar with the concept of Convergence, whereby Putin and his Liberal occupation government were simply continuing the work started by Andropov to converge with the Western elite into a globalist world government status quo? Do you think it explains the traitor situation?

Well, this is not so much a theory as much as it is history. Putin started his career as a Westernizer. He gave many speeches explaining that he wanted to integrate Russia with the West and his elite is probably more pro-West than even he is. When the Russian government began resisting the West, they were still in negotiations for better terms. This, at least, is the old understanding of the situation. But the SMO has definitely changed a lot in Russia. It does not seem like Convergence is an option anymore. It is an old idea at this point and the sooner the elites wake up to this, the sooner Russia will be able to start effectively resisting NATO.

But if things have indeed changed, why then does the Kremlin continue to pursue such crooked war policies? The bridges remain intact, resources continue to flow and secret deals are made. Why not at least start targeting key Kiev officials?

Look, the situation with the bridges is overblown. Bridges were actually hit in the first days of the SMO, but they were patched up in a matter of days afterwards and traffic was resumed. People think that it is as simple a matter of landing a Kinzhal on a bridge and then, “poof” problem solved. Bridges require sustained bombings and for that you need air dominance and Russian planes have never been able to fly above Ukraine’s skies because of the air defense systems and fears that we would lose many planes and pilots; we did lose some.

In general, large buildings take large amounts of bombs to take out — it’s simply physics, which most people remain ignorant of. Short of using nukes, we cannot simply take out all the facilities that we would like to see gone.

Take the ports — it is impossible to sink an entire port without sustained bombing. And even so, we continue to bomb the Ukrainian-Romanian port. It would take a lot of bombs to totally destroy many key facilities and we do not have that many bombs to spare. We were able to create glided munitions by attaching wings and other such improvisations, which again, proves that we are doing the best we can with the very limited resources that we have. And I know you don’t like the SBU [Ukraine counterintelligence], but we have hit them several times as well. We have hit many official buildings.

The problem is that they are always empty before we hit them.

The Texeira leaks alleged that it was because of spies in Shoigu’s Ministry of Defense telling them where the strikes would hit ahead of time.

It is a war and it is difficult to say such things definitively one way or the other. I would assume that spies are everywhere and on both sides. We get information from Ukraine as well.

You know, many well-meaning Russian patriots have this idea in their head that if Russia wanted to, Russia could easily win the war. They think that Russia is holding back either because of moral considerations or because of traitors in power. They seem to still think that Russia is the USSR, with huge war factories and massive shell arsenals. But those warehouses are long gone. They were sold off years ago. Those factories are rusted-out hulks. We are restoring some of our war potential in manufacturing, this is true, but it will take time. In other words, we are fighting with the means that we have now. The people demanding that Russia ought to stop holding back don’t know what they are talking about. We are at our limit now.

Actually, we are not the only ones with supply problems. With the end of the Cold War, the Americans also scuttled their war production industry. Now they have problems with manufacturing, for example of 155-mm howitzer shells. As a result, they also have supply shortages, and they had to run around the whole world looking for warehouses of supplies to buy and send to Ukraine.

Consider what another mobilization for Russia would entail.

People would have to be pulled out of the economy at a minimum. And what would we equip them with? We struggled to equip the first batch. And the new recruits can’t just be sent in naked. They need support vehicles, artillery support; they also need training and we have a deficit of officers.

This is because the SMO was officer-heavy in the initial days, right? Anyone with a contract was scooped up and sent out leading to severe officer shortages to train new men.

Well, we are making up for the deficit now. We now have enough veterans to train the soldiers instead of having them sit around in the polygons. We also rely on a different system now to make up for the shortfalls of the military. For example, all the PMCs. Why was Wagner called in to take Bakhmut? They didn’t want to be there. The arrangement was that Wagner wasn’t even supposed to exist officially. It is, from a legal perspective, not strictly a legal organization. Here, I want to be careful to not sound like a Western propagandist with what I am saying, but anyway, it was tolerated as long as it operated abroad and did not involve itself in Russia. But then the military showed its inability to defeat the UAF and Wagner had to be asked to come in. They were paid very well for lending their expertise.

That is what Russia lacks the most — expertise and competency.

Say what you will about Wagner, but they had created a structure that was capable of fulfilling the tasks assigned to it. Losing Wagner was a blow to Russia, that is undeniable. But Prigozhin left the Kremlin no choice. They would have killed them all, frankly, back during the mutiny if they could. But then Prigozhin pulled back at the last moment. With the Prigozhin situation — he was given all these resources because there was no one else doing what he was doing. Eventually, he decided that he was stronger than the MoD so he tried to shake things up politically and look what happened to him.

So would you blame incompetence for the mutiny? Specifically Shoigu? It seems to me that the in-fighting was so public and so wasteful. Were there no adults in the room?

Well yes, of course, this is very clear. How was their conflict allowed to reach such public heights with no one stepping in? And then we lost Wagner in the form that it was. What we have now is remnants. All of it a huge waste.

But again, the true reason for this was, at its root, that the military was run very poorly. Wagner was run well and so they started gaining more and more weapons and strength. If the MoD was competently run, Wagner would have stayed in Syria and Africa making deals.

But we can also say that Shoigu got stronger because of the mutiny. Once Prigozhin was eliminated, he was able to consolidate even more strength and resources.

Is it fair then to say that Shoigu simply wanted to steal Wagner from Prigozhin and that this fueled the conflict?

Actually, the situation was more complicated than just Shoigu trying to steal Wagner. Consider the situation where Wagner was just recruiting prisoners (zeks). This was a dangerous situation and an unprecedented one. No one was allowed to do what Wagner did and get away with it. This made many powerful people worry. Wagner became too powerful and stepped over too many lines. Many interested parties did indeed want to tear off a piece of Wagner, leading to its eventual dismemberment. But things were complicated by Prigozhin crossing too many lines himself. He eventually spooked Putin as well.

Didn’t the mutiny prove that the Kremlin was weak and divided? It seems like the West’s plan to foment an elite uprising against Putin makes sense and is viable.

Well, if we look at who did what, we can see that the governors supported Putin. They came out firmly in support of the current leadership during the mutiny. Other members of the elite simply didn’t know what to do. There was confusion and chaos. As for the internal factions within the Kremlin, it is hard to say who is where now. The lines have been blurring more and more as the war has continued. The “economic bloc” of elites [he means the oligarchs and the liberal bureaucrats/politicians and liberal media owned by them] is usually accused of being anti-SMO and pro-West, but they are doing what they are told to do now. The problem for them is that there are no options now. There aren’t really even options for surrender. So they have reinvented themselves and changed their cloaks, many of them. The West simply won’t offer them a deal, so what can they do?

What about Zolotov? I read speculation that he now leads a kind of Praetorian guard around Putin with his newly-reformed National Guard army. They’ve been issued heavy weapons taken from Wagner. It was Zolotov’s personal army that defended Moscow, not anyone else.

Well, this comes back to Wagner. Again, the funny thing about Wagner is that it didn’t really even exist officially. It couldn’t. They wanted Wagner to exist abroad, but had no place for them at home and wanted to make sure of this. So Zolotov was empowered to be a counter-weight to this and to bolster the internal police. But have they become a Praetorian Guard? They were indeed promised heavy weapons, but those may still be in transit or held up by Shoigu. Broadly speaking, this isn’t a new thing actually — the Internal Troops even had their own aviation as well during the Chechen wars. This was taken away from them later and so people have gotten used to the idea that the National Guard does not have heavy weapons and aviation of its own. But because of the needs of the front, they may not get the equipment, so it is pointless to speculate.

I wanted to ask you about whether you think that there will be any offensives from Russia’s side, it seems like the plan is just to hold what they have if they can.

Well, we have a WWI scenario. And we still don’t understand how to fight in these conditions. This is a war in which hundred dollar drones destroy 20 million dollar heavy equipment. No one was prepared for this. I think that any military, even the Americans, would struggle in these new conditions until they figured out how to wage war in a better way. I don’t think that the Russian military performed particularly poorly given this new military reality. Who would perform better?

Look at Kherson and Zaporozhye. There, the Russian army achieved its objectives and did it well. In other parts of the country, the military foundered and was torn apart by the Ukrainians. By the way, this translated into pro-Russian sentiment as well. Where the military performed well, they garnered local sympathy and support. Where they failed, the pro-Russians were marched out of their homes at gun point by the Ukrainians soon after and the locals cooperated with Ukrainian intelligence to give away Russian positions. People always side with the stronger side. So, it wasn’t really a language issue that led to so many problems for our soldiers stationed in Ukraine. In parts of the country where the Ukrainians defeated the Russians, the locals didn’t come out in support of Russia. Why would they? No one sides with the loser.

Syria went well for Russia, so they got complacent. Even American advisors complain that they haven’t been able to prepare the UAF and have any offensive success. Everyone got used to desert wars where you ride around in Humvees and order in airstrikes.

What about Wagner in Syria? Prigozhin said that Shoigu didn’t help, but that Shoigu actually helped the Americans bomb them.

It is true that Wagner was the main ground force. About the betrayal, I can’t say. I would think that it was more complicated than that. The victory wasn’t just achieved by Wagner though, but by Iranian militias, the Syrian army, and support from Shoigu’s MoD. The situation now in Syria is very tough. The economy is even worse than it was during the war. We may see more problems emerge in Syria soon.

Since we are on the topic of the Middle-East, what is Russia’s official and unofficial position on the Israel-Palestine/Gaza situation?

Well, Russia’s position hasn’t changed much. Putin moved the pro-Israel agenda forward a bit by stating that West Jerusalem is Israeli and East Jerusalem is Palestinian. Of course, in reality, this is not a reality. Both belong to Israel and their proxies. And then there is the embassy situation.

Russia isn’t really pro-Palestine. Other countries give more aid and support for Palestine when compared to Russia. Furthermore, some elites in Russia consider Israel their second home. And many others wish that they were part of that club, but they cannot qualify for Israeli passports, sadly. We would never see the Kremlin siding against Israel because of these factors.

It seemed to me that the Russian media came out in favor of Gaza.

No, this is more about addressing the hypocrisy of the West in relation to Ukraine. According to our media, the Israelis have killed more children over the last week than have died in Ukraine because of the war. This is because of how the war is being waged. So it is the hypocrisy that is being addressed by the Russian media. The double standards. Israel can siege Gaza and kill everyone and then demand support and threaten the world with accusations of being anti-Semites. This rankles people. But in Russia there aren’t any rallies in support of Palestine or in support of Israel for that matter either. This isn’t a divisive point in Russian society. Besides, there is a suspicion of refugees and how the situation might unfold.

Putin condemned Hamas and said that they don’t represent everyone in Palestine or Gaza. This is a more nuanced position than what Western officials have voiced when they demand the incineration of Gaza and show the fact that they have no moral ground to stand on when accusing Russia of committing war crimes.

Have you noticed Ukraine’s full-throated support for Israel?

Yes, and there may be several reasons for this. Maybe they want weapons from Israel. Maybe they know that the West expects them to support Israel. They are a beggar-country now. Also, their elite is all Israeli, not Ukrainian.

Ukraine has lost all autonomy. If they have any autonomy left, they will sell that off too. Without Western aid, Ukraine cannot continue functioning. The entire economy and war effort is being carried by the West. Hopefully, the Israel situation will distract some of the West’s attention and resources.

Is that the plan then for winning in Ukraine? Hoping that the West loses interest?

We cannot just sit back and hope that the situation resolves itself. The West is an active agent and they are constantly making moves, but we are just reacting. We need to become proactive. Measures are indeed now being taken, and resolve is building to fight this war out to its end. Suggestions are now being heard and implemented.

Did you hear about Rybar’s head editor dishing it out with Shoigu over basic safety-hangars for exposed Russian aircraft in the field? He demanded Shoigu stop leaving the planes out in the open to be bombed by Ukrainian drones. It seems like many months later, they are taking his advice and building the hangars.

Actually, I would be surprised to hear that rudimentary safety measures like building hangars for aircraft are being taken. As far as I have heard, this still remains a problem.

We should be under no illusions about what to expect going forward.

It will take many years and thousands of lives. Ukraine has many more men to spare and they are even calling on young men and old people to fill in the gaps. Previously, they were lenient towards young professionals and students and allowed them to not be drafted. This is changing now. This is not to say that morale will collapse the army or anything like that, but fatigue is indeed growing. In the early months of the war, the UAF had no shortage of volunteers. They didn’t need to go hunting for recruits because people were enthusiastically signing on to fight the invaders. They were bolstered in this by the early successes of the UAF and the disasters of the SMO offensive in many parts. Also, Washington, which was pessimistic about Ukraine’s chances of holding out for long, decided to fund the UAF and give them a fighting chance because they saw that they were capable of putting up a fight and because of how weak Russia’s military proved itself to be.

Shoigu and others have said that the MoD plan is to weaken the Ukrainians by attrition over many years. They probably hope that the West will get tired of bearing the costs and be dissuaded from continuing the war by Russia’s static defensive lines. But this means many more years of war and many more casualties on both sides. People need to stop believing in clever plans.

This is what victory will look like if it comes.

So the plan really is to just keep the butchery going for a few more years?

Yes, it seems so. What else can they do?

Fine, then I have to ask a burning question that I think cuts to the heart of all this: who lost Ukraine? Wasn’t the FSB tasked with this? How did we get to this point where we are facing a total catastrophe? I think you will agree that hundreds of thousands of Russians on both sides dead is a catastrophe and not a clever geopolitical victory? Just the other week, Lindsay Graham bragged about what a success the war was for Washington. So, again, who is to blame for this?

Well, again, the elites were not thinking in such terms back then. They were more concerned with access to Western capital markets. It is my hope that this war will lead to more competence in the government. We already see progress with this with elites switching sides to defend their own interests if nothing else.

I know you don’t like the FSB [Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation].

But the situation is more complicated than you make it out to be, I’ll just say that.

It seems to me that the main topic of this interview has essentially gravitated to a discussion about whether or not the elites in Russia are simply incompetent or if they are saboteurs. For the most part, it seems that you are saying that we shouldn’t misattribute what could be attributed to stupidity and greed by concluding that there is treachery afoot.

There are undoubtedly both traitors and simply incompetents. We have both. And yes, many traitors still haven’t been taken down from their posts. But the large bulk of the people with power that we are talking about now are simply incompetents with the wrong set of mental tools who are not equipped to face the new geopolitical reality that we face. But this is changing slowly but surely, and the results can be seen in the economy and war production and the seriousness of the statements being made by officials now.

This is not about optimism or pessimism, but about looking at the facts.

Well, I won’t keep you any longer. You’ve given me a lot of your time. Thank you for the answers and let’s do it again some time.

Thank you, happy to talk to you. Yes, let’s.

*   *   *

Regarding the last point and the main topic of discussion of today’s interview, I figured I’d weigh in and add my last couple of thoughts on it. In my mind, there is no difference between incompetence and treachery. This is because I see the world as a series of actions that are pseudo-explained and rationalized after the fact. In terms of results, there is no difference between intentional and unintentional sabotage — a smoldering ruin is the result of a gas line rupturing by mistake as much as if it were an act of deliberate insurance fraud sabotage.

For me, the debate over sabotage or incompetence is a distinction without a difference. Both types should be put against the wall.

But, if you wanted to get into the hazy and mystical world of thoughts, intentions, and best wishes, then I could also argue that allowing incompetents to staff every single high level post in the government is a kind of treachery and a form of deliberate sabotage as well. After all, through the laws of chance, we’d expect at least SOME competents to make their way into positions of power in what is a high-stakes, high-reward professional sphere that ought to select for such types. Instead, it seems that we either have competent traitors or incompetent patriots,  and the results they both produce are largely the same.

In the end, it all depends on how we define terms and whether or not we believe the sputtering explanations of well-fed ministers and public officials and half-public/half-private oligarchs who happened to accidentally make all the mistakes necessary to end up with pockets full of government money allocated for other things, but also made all the mistakes to totally mismanage the Ukraine crisis for the last three decades.

It begs the question: if they are so incompetent at waging a war, why are they so competent at stealing money? Perhaps this isn’t a competency crisis so much as it is a priority crisis? An identity crisis, maybe? How many ministers, oligarchs, and spooks have Israeli or Turkish or Latvian passports? A relevant question to ask, no?

I don’t know about you, but I’ve stopped believing in accidents and coincidence.

Me, I never attribute to bad fortune and incompetence what can more readily attributed to a coordinated conspiracy. The stakes are too high in geopolitics to believe that anything is left up to chance. But hey, a lot of people seem to prefer comforting lies. This SMO has definitively proven that Western peasants prefer to lap up soothing lies about clever plans and secret patriots and believe that end times prophecies are coming to pass.