Neoconservative Jewish Pundit Bret Stephens Sees the Writing on the Wall

/14 Comments/in , /by

Bret Stephens built his career advocating for American military interventions abroad, but now the Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times columnist is telling Jews to retreat inward and abandon the institutions that have defined Jewish advocacy for a century.

There is an unmistakable anxiety in Bret Stephens’s recent public appearances. The Jewish columnist who once radiated confidence while calling for American military interventions across the Middle East now speaks with the urgency of a man watching the ground shift beneath his feet. On February 1, 2026, standing before an audience at Manhattan’s 92nd Street Y to deliver the 46th annual “State of World Jewry” address, Stephens made an admission that would have been unthinkable from the neoconservative establishment just a few years ago.

“The fight against antisemitism, which consumes tens of millions of dollars every year in Jewish philanthropy, is a well-meaning but mostly wasted effort,” Stephens declared. “We should spend the money and focus our energy elsewhere.”

When asked what he would do if he led the ADL or similar organizations, Stephens apologized to ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt, who was sitting in the audience, and said, “if it were up to me, I would dismantle it.” He compared the money spent on fighting antisemitism to “those scenes of people in the Wolf of Wall Street, just tossing a hundred-dollar bills into garbage cans.”

Some of the most salient points Stephens raised in that speech were that Jews should stop trying to disprove hatred through achievement and that Jewish survival depends on building independent institutions rather than seeking broader acceptance. He called for redirecting resources toward building more Jewish day schools at “Catholic-school tuition rates” and strengthening Jewish identity from within.

Stephens pointed to polling data showing that “one in five millennials and Gen Zs believe the Jews caused the Holocaust” as evidence that decades of Holocaust education had failed. Greenblatt responded that Stephens’s thoughts on Jewish identity were “powerful and provocative” but called his critique of antisemitism-fighting efforts “misguided,” noting the ADL’s work in collecting hate crime data, training synagogues in security, and running a Center on Extremism that has helped “intercept and prevent plots.”

Stephens’s stance on Tucker Carlson has undergone a dramatic evolution. In March 2019, when recordings surfaced of Carlson making controversial statements about Iraqis, Stephens tweeted approvingly of a David French quote — calling it “astute as usual” — defending the principle that society should “rebut ideas” rather than “destroy careers.”

By late 2025, however, Stephens’s tone had hardened. In a November 2025 New York Times column titled “Meet the New Antisemites, Same as the Old Antisemites,” Stephens wrote about Carlson’s interview with nationalist podcaster Nick Fuentes, noting that “antisemitism was supposedly banished twice from the conservative universe” by William F. Buckley Jr. only to return through figures like Carlson. He highlighted the irony that Carlson himself had once criticized Pat Buchanan for “needling the Jews” in 1999 and had now become the very figure he once denounced.

In his State of World Jewry address, Stephens grouped Carlson and Candace Owens together with Nick Fuentes, Alice Walker, and Roger Waters as “the out-and-out Jew-haters and their sly enablers.” He noted that “Tucker Carlson’s popularity and influence as a podcaster have only soared as his bigotry has become more blatant.”

Yet in a February 2026 i24NEWS interview, Stephens argued that the ADL’s approach of condemning these figures is counterproductive. “When the ADL focuses on condemning figures like Tucker Carlson or Candace Owens — or other antisemitic enablers — it’s often worse than useless,” he said. “These individuals feed off condemnation from groups like the ADL. That doesn’t help build thriving Jewish life in the United States.”

In the same interview, Stephens made remarks about Carlson’s children and grandchildren that sparked fierce backlash. He argued that history will judge Carlson harshly and that the stigma will extend to his family legacy, much as the descendants of notorious figures bear reputational consequences. George Galloway called Stephens’s statement “hard to overstate how offensive, even obscene” and noted it invoked “one crime, three generations” logic. Chris Menahan of Information Liberation described it as Stephens endorsing “Vile blood guilt targeting children.”

Stephens has written extensively about the impact of October 7 on American Jewry. He coined the now widely referenced term “October 8 Jew” in a New York Times column shortly after the attacks. In his 2026 speech, he revised the definition. Rather than a Jew who “woke up to discover who our friends are not,” the October 8 Jew “was the one who woke up trying to remember who he or she truly is.”

In his December 2023 column “Why I Can’t Stop Writing About Oct. 7,” Stephens wrote intimately about his mother, who was born in Italy during World War II to a Jewish family that had fled the Nazis. His mother told him, “I was born in hiding. I don’t want to die in hiding.” He documented how hate crimes against Jews had “surged fivefold” from October 7 to December 7, 2023, compared to the same period the prior year.

In his October 2023 Sapir essay “We Are Alone,” Stephens excoriated left-wing Jewish intellectuals who had championed anti-Zionist causes, writing that “Jewish progressives are being massacred by [reality], if only metaphorically.” He described the October 7 attacks as “the single most murderous day in Jewish history since 1945” and argued that the post-Zionist Jewish left had provided “moral cover to outright antisemitism.” His overarching message, sharpened over subsequent years, was that Jews needed to stop seeking validation through progressive causes and instead “lean into our Jewishness as far as each of us can, irrespective of what anyone else thinks of it.”

Stephens’s insistence on Jewish self-reliance is not merely an intellectual posture. It is rooted in a family history shaped by pogroms, exile and survival. Stephens was born November 21, 1973 in New York City into a secular Jewish family. Both his parents were Jewish. His mother was born in wartime Italy to a family that had fled the Nazis, and his paternal grandfather fled the Kishinev pogrom in Moldova. He was raised in Mexico City and is fluent in Spanish. He attended Middlesex School in Concord, Massachusetts, then earned an honors degree from the University of Chicago in 1995 and a master’s in comparative politics from the London School of Economics.

Stephens began at Commentary magazine as an assistant editor in 1995. He joined The Wall Street Journal in 1998, later serving as editorial writer for its European edition in Brussels. In 2002, at just 28 years old, he moved to Israel to become editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post, leading the paper through the worst years of the Second Intifada. He has said one reason he left the WSJ for The Jerusalem Post was that “Western media was getting Israel’s story wrong.”

He returned to the WSJ in 2004 and took over the “Global View” foreign affairs column in 2006. He won the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary in 2013 for “his incisive columns on American foreign policy and domestic politics, often enlivened by a contrarian twist.” In April 2017, he joined The New York Times as an opinion columnist. In 2021, he became founding editor-in-chief of SAPIR, a major journal of Jewish intellectual discourse funded by the Maimonides Fund, a pro-Israel philanthropy.

Stephens is one of the most prominent neoconservative voices in American media. His core belief is that American global retreat invites disorder, the thesis of his 2014 book America in Retreat: The New Isolationism and the Coming Global Disorder. He was a prominent voice among media advocates for the 2003 Iraq War, writing in 2002 that Iraq was likely to become the first nuclear power in the Arab world. As late as 2013, he continued to insist the Bush administration had “solid evidence” for going to war, despite weapons of mass destruction never being found. Stephens compared the Iran nuclear deal to the 1938 Munich Agreement.

He has written numerous columns calling for or praising military action against Iran. Stephens compared the Iran nuclear deal to the 1938 Munich Agreement, calling it “worse than Munich” in a 2013 Wall Street Journal column. He has written numerous columns calling for or praising military action against Iran, including a 2010 WSJ essay arguing that Iran “cannot be contained” and that containment advocates were dangerously naive, an October 2024 New York Times column titled “We Absolutely Need to Escalate in Iran” calling for the destruction of an Iranian missile complex, a June 2025 column laying out a strategy for Trump to “drop bunker busters on Fordo,” and a February 2026 column titled “The Case for Hitting Iran” arguing that military strikes were necessary because engagement, sanctions and diplomacy had all failed. Now it appears Stephens has gotten his wish. The United States is at war with Iran, with no exit timetable and no indication Washington intends to fully disengage.

And finally, on March 10, Stephens proposed the following:

What, then, should the Trump administration do? My prescription: Seize Kharg Island. Mine or blockade Iran’s remaining ports. Destroy as much Iranian military capability as possible over the next week or two, including a second Midnight Hammer operation to destroy what’s left of Iran’s nuclear capacity and know-how. And threaten the regime with further bombing if it massacres its own citizens, mounts terrorist attacks abroad or returns to nuclear work.

That constitutes the most realistic path to victory at the lowest plausible price in lives, risk and treasure. And for all its admitted dangers, it gives Iran’s people their best chance of winning their freedom. Not bad for a one-month war its critics warned would be another Iraq.

The increasingly volatile rhetoric from Bret Stephens serves as a stark barometer for the pervasive anxiety currently gripping the American Jewish establishment in the wake of October 7th. As Jewry’s veneer of civility dissolves in this new judeo-skeptic environment, what remains is a defensive, hyper-tribal reaction to a perceived loss of cultural hegemony across the West.

Should this anxiety continue to escalate, it is highly probable that figures like Stephens will abandon the rhetoric of liberal pluralism in favor of state-sanctioned repression, using hate speech legislation to insulate their interests from public criticism. Such a transition would serve as a clarifying moment for the American public, revealing the extent to which these alien actors prioritize their specific communal survival over the fundamental constitutional norms of the nation.

The First Novel to Explore England’s Muslim Grooming Gangs Scandal: “Bothelford’s Gone” by Edward McLaren

/3 Comments/in /by

Bothelford’s Gone
Edward McLaren
Maldon Press, 2026

From the publisher: Edward McLaren is an academic, journalist, and novelist living in Oxford. He draws upon a wide range of influences, blending myth, politics, and romanticism.

I don’t tend to read many novels, but Edward McLaren’s Bothelford’s Gone is a rare exception. I couldn’t put it down. The euphemistically termed “Muslim Grooming Gang Scandal” may count as the most serious crime committed against the English people in their entire history. As the prologue to the novel points out, between the 1950s – when Muslims began coming to England in significant numbers – and today, over a million under-age English girls have been groomed, often via the use of drugs, into becoming sex slaves for Muslim men.

The details of what has happened and its causes – such as the infiltration of the authorities, including the police, by leftists and Muslims, the pathetic conformism of English people and their desperation not to be called “racist,” and a related materialistic culture that turns us all into disconnected drones with little to live for – is so painful that, for many people, the easiest thing to do is to put it out of our minds. It is something that happens to “Chavs” – the British term for “White Trash” – and they are so genetically incompetent and sexually incontinent that they somehow deserve it.

It is for this reason that Mr McLaren’s idea of exploring this on-going attack on the English people in the form of a short novel is so compelling. It allows us to understand the different kinds of characters involved in this scandal; to enter their minds and feel what they do. Bothelford is a fictional every-town, seemingly somewhere in the north of England. Its name is an allusion to the lost town of Bothelford in Cumbria, a town which disappeared from the record in the Middle Ages. Mr McLaren, a Gen Z author himself, describes the ancient history of the town, its pagan roots, and even how its central church is haunted by a plaintive female ghost. Until very recently, the people of Bothelford had a strong connection to the ghosts of its past, but this has been broken by the soul-annihilating decadence of the modern world: binging the internet via smart phones, vile and foreign takeaway food, mass non-White immigration making the town unrecognisable, ethnic divisions even within classrooms, and the degree to which, like most of the characters in Nineteen Eighty Four, most people just want a quiet life and will tell themselves lies in order to achieve this internally and cope with living through the self-caused destruction of their birthright; they are so materially wealthy, and emasculated by the female-run education system, that they don’t feel the urge to fight.

Mr McLaren takes us through each of these reasons: “There was also a third power involved: denial. For it was always easier for the sorry, pale victims of these spirits to turn to their phones, to consuming and making porn, than ever to acknowledge their displacement and the on-going colonisation of Bothelford. . . . Few allowed themselves to imagine that the black mother with three babies who passed their window, followed by an older white mother with only one, might mean something overwhelmingly significant.”

The central character, a 15 year-old school boy called Jack Grundon (an Anglo-Saxon name meaning “green hill”), is highly intelligent, to the extent that his school thinks he might be capable of one day attending Cambridge. Even his conformist mother understands that school was a safer and more pleasant place when she attended it, but, like the donkey in Animal Farm, is an expert at forcing herself to ignore or play down what she sees with her own eyes, if only to maintain her sanity. In moments of awareness of the invasion, “Mary remembered Hitler, she remembered Enoch Powell, the secular sin of white racism, and tried not to think about it.” Jack, in return, wonders why he is “condemned” to “live alongside terrifying young men” who have nothing in common with him and will prey upon him when his mother “as a child dealt with nothing of the sort.”

Slowly, Jack has an awakening to the full horrors of what is happening in his town and in particular to his friend Agatha. Matrix-like, the superficial and dysfunctional town of Bothelford falls away to reveal the reality: his friend Agatha has been groomed, raped and passed around Bothelford’s Muslim community. Even with the names of the characters, Mr McLaren is determined to always peel back the connection to a deep history that English people all share, and has Jack muse on the meaning of the name “Agatha” for this reason.

As in some real-life cases, Muslim police officers and teachers are complicit in Agatha’s torture, Muslim school children are much older than they seem, and the lie is given to the nonsense cliché that “We’re all human.” Jack realises that they are simply not like us. They think like Mafia dons and the humiliation of colonialism has left them with a visceral hatred for White people. For them, the “grooming gangs” are an act of war, a righteous vengeance on White people who have allowed women – and thus suicidal concern with empathy and unmet maternal feelings – to dominate their society and, so, allow Muslims in by the millions. Mr McLaren does a particularly impressive job of allowing his Muslim characters to articulate how they feel; why they are treating under-age English girls so horrifically.

Without giving away too much of the plot, the book culminates in an inspiring call to arms. What should Jack do after the terrible things his investigation has put him through? When our ancestors settled England, or even as recently as World War II, the notion that the English would permit themselves to be dominated by shrill women and displaced by Muslims was something that danced around only in the mind of a madman; yet it has come to pass: “After all, the world we live in now was once nothing more than a madman’s dream!” Likewise, those who suggest now that the current Clown World can be reversed are widely dismissed as “mad.” For Mr McLaren, the English shouldn’t be too downhearted. The madman’s dream came true once, so why shouldn’t it again? Only this time it will involve the English reclaiming and fighting for at least part of their inheritance.        

The Hebraic Hidden Hand behind Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

/9 Comments/in /by

There is a peculiar species of power broker that Washington has always nurtured but rarely named. He does not appear on the Sunday programs. He does not issue statements. He surfaces, briefly and reluctantly, before Senate committees, and then retreats once more behind the institutions that shelter him. Stephen Andrew Feinberg belongs to this species. He is, in the language of his own trade, a distressed asset turned strategic acquisition, a man who built his reputation on acquiring broken things and extracting maximum value before the walls came down.

He was born in the Bronx in 1960, the son of a steel salesman. When he was eight the family relocated to Spring Valley, a suburb north of the city, where young Feinberg distinguished himself not on athletic fields but across chessboards and tennis courts, ranking nationally in the former while competing fiercely in the latter. He arrived at Princeton and studied politics, producing a 94-page senior thesis titled “The Politics of Prostitution and Drug Legalization,” a topic that suggested a mind drawn to contested economies and irregular markets. He captained the tennis team, briefly joined the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) before departing it, and graduated in 1982 with a degree and very few illusions. His net worth today is approximately $5 billion.

Feinberg did not drift into finance so much as locate its pressure points immediately. After a stint at the now defunct Drexel Burnham Lambert, where junk bonds and legal exposure arrived in equal measure, he moved to Gruntal and Company and then, at 32, made his decisive move. In 1992, with a partner named William Richter and $10 million in seed capital, he founded Cerberus Capital Management. The name was chosen deliberately. In Greek mythology, Cerberus guards the entrance to the underworld, permitting entry but refusing exit. The metaphor, for those paying attention, was not accidental.

What Cerberus became over the following three decades was something the financial press struggled to classify. It was a private equity firm, yes, but one with an unusual appetite for distressed and politically sensitive assets. It acquired National and Alamo rental car, Albertson’s grocery chain, Air Canada, a controlling stake in Chrysler, and GMAC, the financing arm of General Motors. It hired former Vice President Dan Quayle as a chairman in 1999 and former Treasury Secretary John Snow in 2006. It trained soldiers through its military contracting subsidiaries and financed hospitals through its health care acquisitions. By 2024, it managed somewhere between $60 and $70 billion in assets.

Feinberg himself remained almost entirely invisible throughout. In 2007, he reportedly addressed Cerberus shareholders with a warning that has since become something of a founding legend in private equity circles: “If anyone at Cerberus has his picture in the paper and a picture of his apartment, we will do more than fire that person. We will kill him. The jail sentence will be worth it.”

A Career in Acquiring Broken Things

The Cerberus ledger assembles a portrait its founder has spent decades trying to keep out of frame. On December 14, 2012, 20-year-old Adam Lanza used a Bushmaster XM15-E2S semi-automatic rifle to kill 20 children and 6 educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The weapon was manufactured by a Cerberus subsidiary. Four days later, Cerberus announced it would divest. It never found a buyer. Some investment banks refused to help with the sale. In the eleven months following the massacre, sales of the Bushmaster rifle surged as politicians debated restrictions on firearms, and Freedom Group posted $94 million in profits compared to just $500,000 during the same period the previous year. Cerberus profited. The company eventually filed for bankruptcy in 2018, burdened by nearly $1 billion in debt that its private equity owners had loaded onto it.

The pattern repeated itself with Steward Health Care. Cerberus purchased a Massachusetts hospital chain in 2010, extracted more than $800 million in profits over the following decade, including a $484 million dividend in 2016 financed by the sale-leaseback of hospital real estate to Medical Properties Trust, and then exited in 2020. What remained was a 31-hospital system saddled with $9 billion in liabilities owed to more than 100,000 creditors. Steward filed for bankruptcy in May 2024. Investigators later documented supply shortages, bat infestations, a patient death attributable to a repossessed medical device, and thousands of unsafe staffing violations.

Tier 1 Group, a Cerberus subsidiary, trained four members of the Saudi royal security detail that would go on to murder Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in October 2018. The training, conducted under a State Department-approved license from 2014 through at least December 2017, included marksmanship, surveillance, and close-quarters combat. The four men trained by Tier 1 were among a seven-person team drawn from the Rapid Intervention Force, an elite unit that answers exclusively to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Cerberus’s DynCorp subsidiary, owned from 2010 to 2020, paid a combined $22.5 million to settle two separate Department of Justice fraud actions — $1.5 million over kickbacks paid by Iraqi subcontractors in connection with a Baghdad property lease, and $21 million over inflated subcontractor billing under a State Department contract to train Iraqi police forces.

The Epstein Ledger

Among the documents released by the Department of Justice in the Jeffrey Epstein files, Feinberg’s name appears in at least 20 entries. Cerberus Capital Management appears in approximately 360. According to NBC News, the business documents spanning 2009 to 2018 involve Cerberus and include Feinberg’s name, with some linked to Deutsche Bank, an institution known to have maintained financial dealings with Epstein during the same period. The Project on Government Oversight reported that emails in the Epstein files suggest Epstein maintained an active business relationship with Cerberus Capital Management. The precise character of that relationship has not been established. At a February 2026 congressional hearing, Representative Becca Balint asked Attorney General Pam Bondi whether the Department of Justice had questioned Feinberg about his connections to Epstein. Bondi declined to answer. Cerberus and the Pentagon have declined to comment as well.

The Ascent

Feinberg’s formal entry into Republican political life came with the 2016 election cycle. He served on Trump’s Economic Advisory Council, donated nearly $1.5 million to pro-Trump political action committees, and co-hosted a $50,000-per-person fundraising dinner for Trump and the Republican National Committee. In 2017, Trump tasked him with conducting a review of U.S. intelligence agencies. From 2018 to 2021, he served as Chairman of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, a position that placed him at the intersection of Wall Street and the classified world without requiring Senate confirmation or public testimony. In December 2024, Trump nominated him as Deputy Secretary of Defense. In March 2025, the Senate confirmed him 59 to 40. He was sworn in as the 36th Deputy Secretary of Defense shortly thereafter and assumed oversight of day-to-day Pentagon operations.

The Hearing and the Hawk

Feinberg’s Senate confirmation hearing in February 2025 produced the only extended record of his public policy views. What emerged was the portrait of a man who had thought carefully about American power and concluded that it was insufficient.

On China, he was unequivocal: “While the United States has all types of threats today, from North Korea to Russia to Iran, by far our biggest threat and most challenging is China. China is the first nation we have ever competed with that has both a great economy and a great military.” He went further, depicting Chinese industrial capacity as a military instrument without parallel: “China’s entire private sector is fully committed in supporting that military development, and as such, they effectively have unlimited funding.”

Iran: The Primary Theater

On Iran, Feinberg’s written advance policy questions to the Senate Armed Services Committee were considerably more forthcoming. He identified five core U.S. national security interests in the Middle East: counterterrorism, the free flow of trade, enabling regional partners and allies, preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and ensuring the defense of Israel. The ordering is worth noting. Iran’s nuclear program and Israel’s security appear together as the fourth and fifth priorities in a list of five.

His threat assessment of Iran was stark:

“Iran poses a significant threat to the security of the United States and its Allies and partners. Last year, Iran launched two major missile and drone strikes against Israel from Iranian territory. In addition to Iran’s conventional military, Tehran also leverages proxy forces to launch kinetic attacks and advance their interests across the Middle East.”

On the nuclear question specifically, he wrote:

“Iran also continues to inch closer to gaining a nuclear weapons capability, which is unacceptable. Iranian acquisition of a nuclear weapon would threaten U.S. interests and partner security, provide Iran a shield behind which they could engage in more aggressive proxy activities, and increase the risk of nuclear accidents or miscalculation.”

He pledged to support Trump’s maximum pressure approach fully, describing his role as ensuring the Pentagon stood ready to present the president with military options while simultaneously supporting economic pressure and diplomacy. He also called for increased cooperation with regional and European partners in countering what he termed the Iranian Threat Network, and specifically flagged the significance of Russia’s strategic partnership with Iran as a compounding regional concern.

Golden Dome, Cerberus, and the Self-Dealing Question

Feinberg now oversees the Golden Dome for America missile defense initiative, a $175 billion program modeled on Israel’s Iron Dome system, involving space-based interceptors, ground-based radar arrays, and potentially directed energy technologies. At his confirmation hearing, he described the program with barely restrained urgency: “I adamantly believe that forcing national security systems to vacate these bands would be detrimental to national security. It would degrade our missile defense capabilities when we should be aggressively pursuing an Iron [Dome]…”

A March 2026 ProPublica investigation found that at least four companies awarded contracts for Golden Dome are owned by Cerberus: North Wind, Stratolaunch, Red River Technology, and NetCentrics Corp. Feinberg pledged to divest his holdings upon taking office, but his ethics agreement permits him to continue contracting with Cerberus indefinitely for accounting, tax, and health care services. Ethics experts described the arrangement as an ongoing and structural conflict of interest. Former White House ethics lawyer Richard Painter said Feinberg’s relationship with Cerberus “creates at least a perception of a conflict of interest that could undermine confidence in the fairness of the contracting process.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) further raised concerns that Cerberus holds approximately 14 percent of the debt and 24 percent of the preferred stock in Ligado Networks, a firm currently suing the U.S. government for $39 billion. As Deputy Secretary, Feinberg could influence the Department of Defense’s legal posture in that suit. The Pentagon has not addressed the concern formally.

The Operator in Wartime

On February 28, 2026, the United States launched Operation Epic Fury, a military campaign against Iran’s nuclear and missile infrastructure, conducted alongside Israel’s Operation Roaring Lion. Feinberg sits in the chain of command as Deputy Secretary. According to the Wall Street Journal, he held weekly operational calls related to Pentagon logistics as the Iran campaign began drawing down American munitions stockpiles, while the White House moved to press defense contractors to accelerate production.

He has not spoken publicly about the campaign. Public statements have come from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Undersecretary Elbridge Colby. Feinberg, true to form, has remained silent. His firm, meanwhile, produces the weapons.

The arrangement is singular in its audacity: a man whose financial empire has been stained by state-sponsored violence, institutional collapse, and proximity to notorious trafficking networks now occupies the second-highest office in the Department of Defense amidst a widening war with Iran. This paradox is not a malfunction of the system; it is its design. Washington has long depended on Jewish figures like Feinberg—architects of capital who treat state power as another distressed asset to be liquidated for strategic gain.

Yet the current act in this political saga reveals a deeper, more calculated reality. Feinberg serves as the Hidden Hebraic Hand guiding Secretary Pete Hegseth, who functions as the expendable front goy for an uncompromising “Israel First” agenda. Should this conflict falter, the political fallout will be contained to Hegseth, the designated fall guy. Feinberg, meanwhile, remains secure in his position, shielded by his Jewish privilege. This pattern illustrates the inevitable catastrophe of a leadership class that abandons its national mandate to facilitate the designs of a Jewish power bloc whose loyalties and goals are diametrically opposed to the welfare of the American citizenry.

Irish Politics: Collectivist and Divided

/2 Comments/in /by

Editor’s note: This article resonated with me because it fits well with the material on differences in family structure within Western Europe described in Chapter 4 of my Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition.  As described there, Ireland is outside the famous Hajnal line marking off the individualist family patterns of northwest Europe from family patterns in eastern and southern Europe and “suggests that the northwest European family pattern is fundamentally an ethnic creation of the Germanic peoples.” Ireland thus does not fit the family pattern of the rest of northwest Europe, being more prone to collectivism, as also described in a previous article by Seaghan Breathnach, “The Irish Psyche: Against Democracy and Republicanism.” The present article shows that the relative collectivism of the Irish influences their politics. One of the most amazing things to come out of research on the history of families is the persistence of family tendencies over long stretches of history despite vast changes in other areas, such as the characteristics of the ruling elite (Ireland, for example, was dominated by the English for centuries but did not thereby adopt their individualism). Thus we cannot expect the relatively collectivist tendencies of Jewish and other Middle Eastern-derived peoples to change despite being exposed to Western individualism for very long periods, as in the ancient world when the Middle East was dominated by Greece and Rome but never relinquished its tendencies toward kinship-based collectivism.

A feature of Irish politics is the propensity of political parties to have splits usually resulting in resignations or expulsions. This is a feature of the Irish tendency towards hierarchy and collectivism. In order to function a political party requires a minority faction to accept the will of the majority; and for a majority faction to tolerate the presence of the minority.

Similarly, functional democracies – which are usually only found in Germanic countries – require Governments to allow for an opposition which will oppose them and may replace them, and for oppositions to accept being out of power with the potential to replace the government. The opposite dispensation is where a majority faction does not tolerate a minority and expels them, or where the minority faction is not willing to be powerless and secedes in order to establish its own monolithic party. The greater the tendency for collectivism the greater likelihood of a split.

In Ireland political parties are generally organised on hierarchical and collectivist lines, and therefore majority factions are impelled to expel minority factions or minority factions are impelled to resign. The trend can be seen from Parnell’s “party pledge”, the authoritarian leadership styles of Éamon de Valera, Charles Haughey, and Micheál Martin, and in Sinn Féin’s explicit practice of “democratic centralism”. It can also be observed in the heavy use of the whip across all parties and the regular occurrence of leadership challenges.

This hierarchical and collectivist nature of Irish parties could be seen during the recent Presidential election with both Micheál Martin hand-picking his own candidate and Simon Harris instructing Fine Gael councillors not to nominate another candidate. Fine Gael are unusual in generally tolerating factional differences such as on social policy differences in 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, avoiding resignations and expulsions, and having leadership contests rather than inaugurations, which could be as a result of their having a disproportionate Anglo-Irish and Ulster-Scot membership, though factionalism does expresses itself in the instigation of leadership challenges.

Herein follows a catalogue of splits in Irish parties. The first in modern electoral history can be observed from the first representative party, the Irish Parliamentary Party (IPP) which was one of the first parties to introduce a party whip whereby members were required to sit, vote, and act with the party. This collectivism required loyalty to the leadership and because of the scandal that resulted in the fall of Parnell, the IPP split into as many as four factions.

It was next seen during the ratification of the Anglo-Irish Treaty wherein the minority anti-Treaty Sinn Féin walked out of the Mansion House rather than accept the majority decision. Sinn Fin split again when, following a failed attempt to get the party to end abstentionism, de Valera broke from Sinn Féin to found Fianna Fáil. In 1940 a faction resigned from the Labour Party claiming it was being infiltrated with Communists; they then founded National Labour.

In 1946 Seán MacBride, with Sinn Féin then a moribund entity, formed Clann na Poblachta. In 1970 Sinn Féin split again when a majority voted to become a constitutional party but this did not have the required two-thirds majority. The dissident majority then founded what became the Workers’ Party.

Further splits across various parties have continued, as when in 1972 Neil Blaney was expelled from Fianna Fáil following the Arms trial and founded Independent Fianna Fáil. In 1985 Desmond O’Malley was expelled from Fianna Fáil for voting for the liberalisation of contraception and founded the Progressive Democrats. In 1986 Sinn Fein abandoned its policy of abstention from Dail Eireann which caused Ruairí Ó Brádaigh and others to resign and form Republican Sinn Féin.

In 1989 Dick Spring expelled the Militant Tendency from the Labour Party who then founded their own party, later called the Socialist Party. In 1992, a majority of members of the Workers’ Party voted to reform their party but as they did not have the requisite two-thirds majority, they broke away and founded the Democratic Left.

In 1997 following Sinn Féin agreeing to a ceasefire leading to decommissioning, a minority faction led by Michael McKevitt left and formed “the Real IRA” and its political arm, the 32 County Sovereignty Movement. In 2006 more members of Sinn Féin broke away and founded Eirigí claiming that Sinn Féin were not adequately socialist.

In 2013 Lucinda Creighton and others were expelled from Fine Gael for voting against an abortion bill and subsequently founded Renua. In 2018, Peadar Tobin was suspended from Sinn Féin for six months for voting against abortion legislation and because of which he resigned from the party and founded Aontú.

In 2019 Paul Murphy resigned from the Socialist Party in order to promote a broader left alliance and founded the Rise party. In 2021, members of the Green Party led by Lorna Bogue resigned in opposition to the policies of the Green party in government and formed Rabharta Glas. Also in 2021 the Workers’ Party split into two rival entities – one now calling itself the Workers Party – Republican Clubs.  In 2022 the Communist Party of Ireland saw the resignation of a faction who have founded the Irish Communist Party.

In 2023 the National Party removed Justin Barrett as its leader though there followed two years of rival factions claiming the leadership. Justin Barrett has since founded Clann Eireann. Within the last year the Irish Freedom Party has had a disputed leadership with a majority but not the requisite two-thirds majority seeking to replace Herman Kelly. This led to two factions simultaneously claiming the leadership of the party.

In 2025 a group of members resigned from People Before Profit in protest at it being open to going into government with Sinn Féin. They then founded calling themselves the Red Network. The latest split is in Aontú whereby Aisling Considine has resigned after being suspended after allegations that she dissented from party positions, and her claims that the party is too centralised and hierarchical.

It is therefore clear that Irish political parties’ need for collectivism and hierarchy does not allow them to function with various factions and this therefore has led to situation of constant splits within every political party.

A Short History of Hebrews, Jews, and Christians: How We Got to This Point

/17 Comments/in /by

Let me begin by pointing out a few of the most common misconceptions and the truth that they miss:

  • The Myth: Jews are the genetic and spiritual descendants of the Old Testament Hebrews/Israelites. The Truth: Neither the Jews’s religion nor their DNA traces cleanly back to the OT Israelites, but rather to the Phoenicians/Carthaginians, who were those Israelites’ spiritual and civilizational enemies.
  • The Myth: Christianity teaches that Jews are God’s chosen people. The Truth: Christ, the genetic descendant of the old Hebrews (tracing line lineage back to David, Abraham, etc.) fulfilled OT messianic prophesy and ushered in the New Covenant, negating the Old under which the Hebrews were chosen by God to fulfill a limited role; if the genetic descendants of the Hebrews no longer retain their chosen status, those masquerading as them certainly don’t.
  • The Myth: Christianity has long been a means of making Whites subservient to Jews. The Truth: the kind of cucking Christianity that we are now plagued with was only born in the 19th century as a Christian heresy and only really took off in the 20th; it was the secular Enlightenment’s race-neutral and antireligious principles that allowed Jews to go from a group of co-elites (whom the native elites would kick out once the pressure from their peoples became too great) to the overall de facto rulers of our time.

With that as a summary, let me get into the history of Hebrews, Christians, and Jews. First, let’s talk about the spiritual lineage of the Jews, which traces back to ancient Babylon. In the Old Testament we read that sometime after Solomon died, the monarchy ceased being unified and split between the Kingdom of Israel in the north and the Kingdom of Judah in the south. The north was destroyed by the powerful Assyrian Empire and its Hebrews scattered, their fate unknown (the Ten Lost Tribes). The southern kingdom lasted longer but was ultimately conquered by the even more powerful Babylonian Empire which conquered the old Assyrian Empire and large swaths of the Middle East.

Both empires had a policy of large-scale population transfers, based on the logic that if you are plopped down far from your homeland and among other, disparate peoples you are that much less likely to revolt (similar logic compels our tyrannical elites to import disparate peoples, making us strangers in a familiar land, as it were). The intellectual and skilled labor classes were often taken to Babylon itself to serve the empires’ elites. It was there that spiritual corruption entered the picture.

In Babylon, the Hebrew elites discovered pagan mysticism and a religion in which the priestly and prophetic classes were mouthpieces for the state and its ruling classes, in contrast to the way things tended to go in the Hebrew kingdoms, where prophets were likely as not to be killed by mobs and kings for chastising wicked rulers and commoners and demanding that they return to God’s ways. In Babylon they found priests who manipulated their ostensible gods’ words, prophesies, and edicts for their own (and their rulers’) ends—and the more corrupt among them loved what they saw. When they returned, those now-corrupted Hebrew elites began manipulating—in proto-Talmudic form—God’s word, replacing His laws with their own. This became the Tradition of the Elders, which Christ rebuked the scribes and Pharisees for following instead of God in Mark 7:1-8. That was one major source of spiritual corruption that would form the strain that became Talmudic Judaism; but there was another, one directly tied to the Jews’ true genetic lineage. To know that we must focus on a time between the Babylonian Exile and Christ’s time.

By the time of the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage—which at its climax saw the city of Carthage destroyed in 146 BC—the latter had amassed a mighty (mostly seaborne) empire which spanned the Mediterranean. But in terms of their roots, they traced back to the Phoenician cities of Tyre and Sidon just north of Israel. Genetically and historically, those Phoenicians/Carthaginians are the descendants of the Canaanites that the Hebrews displaced and drove north. We hear in Judges 3:1-4 that the Canaanites were not fully annihilated but permitted to survive so that they could serve to test future Israelites in battle (not only militarily but spiritually, as we’ll later see). So by the time of their wars with Rome, there were about four million of those pagan, child-sacrificing Canaanites living in various cities and settlements around the Mediterranean. When Rome destroyed their empire, their old religion took a hard hit—during the siege of Carthage, they sacrificed hundreds of elite children to Baal but he still didn’t save them (go figure!)—and they were ripe for conversion.

In Matthew 23:15 we hear Christ say of the Pharisees: “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.” It seems the already corrupted Hebrews followed the sea trade routes, making converts of the Carthaginians, their Semitic cousins, who were so devastated by their utter defeat by Rome that they were ready to hear their backwater cousins’ prophesies about a coming messiah who would make their nation great again. How we know this happened: as H. G. Wells and later Ron Unz (inspired by Wells) point out,[i] the point in the historical records at which the Phoenicians suddenly and mysteriously disappear is the very same at which we see large populations of Jews in the cities around the Mediterranean where the Phoenicians had been!

But why “twice as much a child of hell”? Well, because it seems that although the Carthaginians knew their old gods had failed them, they weren’t ready to abandon them entirely, even after conversion. Thus the religion that would evolve into Talmudic Judaism was essentially a corruption of a corruption. This is why during the Crusades, Jews fearing that the Christians were going to try to convert them and their children not only killed their children, but called on their god to accept their blood as a sacrifice to destroy the Christians: an atavistic reversion to the child sacrifice of their pagan days. Or why the Kabbalah tells how the chant “The Lord is one!” is not monotheistic but refers to the sexual union of a male and female deity: the Carthaginians had a chief god (Baal) and goddess (Tanit—equivalent to Ishtar), whose sexual union had cosmic significance.[ii]

So spiritually, not only are those we know as Jews following a corruption of an already corrupted Hebrew religion, but beyond that, what is essentially an anti-Christian religion and has been from its beginnings. The Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament is the oldest full version of the OT that we have and is used for biblical scholarship since the true original—which was written in Paleo-Hebrew (which uses a script that looks nothing like the Hebrew most know)—is long lost, and the Masoretic Hebrew text was intentionally corrupted by the Talmudic Jews to make it appear that Christ wasn’t the messiah. Jews scorn the OT, with one of their most beloved Rabbis of any age Shimon ben Yohai writing: “He who occupies himself with Scripture [the Old Testament] gains merit that is no merit. . . . He who occupies himself with Mishnah gains merit for which there is a reward. . . . He who occupies himself with Talmud—there is no source of greater merit than this.”[iii] The Rabbis themselves even admit in the Mishnah that their holiest Talmud has only the most tenuous connection to the Old Testament: “The [Talmudic] laws concerning the Sabbath, Festal-offerings and acts of trespass are as mountains hanging by a hair, for they have scant Scriptural basis but many laws.”[iv]

What does the Talmud itself say about Christ?[v] Oh not much . . . beyond his having been a sorcerer who is now boiling in his own excrement for all eternity for trying to lead the Jewish people astray—well, that and his mother Mary was a whore. Their attitudes toward Christians follow directly from this. As the humanist Jew (who seems to have been a genuinely honest and well-meaning man: he wrote against Israel’s brutal treatment of non-Jews long before such things were well known, Israel Shahak shows in Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years, religious Jews are literally commanded to oppose Christians in every way:[vi]

  • While “the murder of a Jew is a capital offense . . . Jewish religious courts and secular authorities are commanded to punish, even beyond the limits of the ordinary administration of justice, anyone guilty of murdering a Jew.” However, “A Jew who murders a Gentile is guilty only of what talmudic Law calls a sin against the ‘laws of Heaven,’ to be punished by God rather than by man. . . . To cause indirectly the death of a Gentile is no sin at all.”
  • ”Since even the minimal interdiction against murdering a Gentile outright applies only to ‘Gentiles with whom we [the Jews] are not at war,’ various rabbinical commentators in the past drew the logical conclusion that in wartime all Gentiles belonging to a hostile population may, or even should be killed.” In  other words, they should be Gazaed.
  • “Sexual intercourse between a married Jewish woman and any man other than her husband is a capital offense for both parties, and one of the three most heinous sins. The status of Gentile women is very different. The Halakhah presumes Gentiles to be utterly promiscuous and the verse ‘whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue [of semen] is like the issue of horses’ is applied to them. Whether a Gentile woman is married or not makes no difference, since as far as Jews are concerned the very concept of matrimony does not apply to Gentiles (‘There is no matrimony for a heathen’). Therefore, the concept of adultery also does not apply to the intercourse between a Jewish man and a Gentile woman; rather, the Talmud equates such intercourse to the sin of bestiality.”
  • “This does not imply that sexual intercourse between a Jewish man and a Gentile woman is permitted—quite the contrary. But the main punishment is inflicted on the Gentile woman; she must be executed, even if she was raped by the Jew.” (Explains Epstein’s ilk rather well, huh?)
  • “According to the Halakhah, Jews must not (if they can help it) allow a Gentile to be appointed to any position of authority, however small, over Jews.”
  • “The Talmud bluntly forbids giving a gift to a Gentile.”

And on and on and on like that.

For well over a thousand years, Jewish communities strongly practiced endogamy (breeding within your race or tribe) even as they lived in the lands of others, and kicked out any who did not conform to their wicked religion (Spinoza[vii] being an example: the Jews wanted to murder him for blasphemy; he was saved only by Christian authorities’ refusal to hand him over). Thus for that long they selectively bred for extreme ethnocentrism and a morality that was bifurcated: one set of moral rules for the in-group, another for the out-group. This is why they scream when you criticize them for killing and raping Palestinians: what we call hypocrisy is their morality—and has been since its being codified in the Babylonian Talmud.

As far as the actual term “Jew” goes, it comes from the Greek term (transliterated) Ioudaios, which in the Bible can mean two very different things. First, it can refer to Judahites—those belonging to the tribe of Judah—and their lineage. They were part of the southern kingdom, the one whose peoples did not disappear into the mists of time, as happened to the members of the northern tribes following the destruction of the Kingdom of Israel at the hands of the Assyrian Empire. Christ is of the line of Judah, that being the reason He uses the phrase intentionally mistranslated as “Salvation is of the Jews,” (John 4:22) which actually reads, “Salvation is of the line of Judah,” i.e., Christ. The ones we refer to as “Jews” are not of any Hebrew line, being Phoenicians. The reason we call them “Jews” is that the second meaning of Ioudaios is one from Judea, a Roman province in Christ’s time: that could mean anyone, regardless of ethnicity—it’s analogous to the term New Yorker, and it is true that many of those converted Carthaginians lived in Jerusalem and Judea at large in Christ’s time—hence they were “Jews” in that sense. Huge trouble has been caused by translating both those from Judea and Judahites as “Jews.”

For most of Christian history there was constant tension if not bloodshed between Christians and Phoenician-derived Jews (with the latter initiating more often than not). Early on these Jews used the pagan emperor Julian the Apostate to try to punish Christians and attempt to rebuild their Temple as a rebuke to Christ—which ended with them giving up after fires kept springing from the ground (that according to the pagan sources, who would have been inclined to use a nonsupernatural explanation if there had been one). When all of Rome became Christian these Jews then began to hate and try to subvert it as well. These Jews readily aided the Persian invasion of the Levant in 614 AD and ransomed captured Christian soldiers for the sole purpose of slaughtering them in the Massacre of Mamilla Pool.[viii]

In the Dark and Middle Ages, the Jews’s power was indirect as they worked with corrupt Christian elites, offering them loans and becoming tax farmers for them—while milking the commoners in every way possible. They became what you might call co-parasites, helping the native elites screw over the population at large. Take the example of England: The Jewish loan sharks granted usurous loans to the minor nobles, accepting their lands as collateral, and then passing the lands of those who defaulted onto the king in lieu of taxes; the king then got to increase his lands without taking them directly. In Eastern Europe they had a monopoly on the alcohol industries (distilleries and taverns) in the rural areas. In the parts of France that bordered Muslim Spain they had a pure monopoly on kidnapping Christian children, castrating them and then selling them as eunuchs across the border (the original Epsteins?). In all areas they had a virtual monopoly on tax farming and usury.

Back then, if their greed and harm to the population got too great, out they went, since unlike now there was no uniparty to keep shifting the blame among, only a king and his Jewish coconspirators: and that former knew that if he didn’t pin the blame on and exile the latter, he’d get blamed and suffer a revolt at best and overthrow (since the Jews were hosing minor nobles as well as peasants) at worst. Back then, the church, while not hostile to Jews for racial reasons, was not about to defend those who rejected Christ if they did too much harm to ordinary Christians. Often it was the king who wanted to defend the Jews and common church officials who wanted to defend the peasantry. The church was especially keen on maintaining the laws that kept Jews from becoming full citizens and prevented their abuses and power from going too far.

It was the Enlightenment that fundamentally altered the dynamic: with its belief in the tabula rasa (blank slate) view of human nature, its secularism and hatred of organized religion in all its parts (unfortunately, the good as well as the bad), and its civic nationalist ideas that uprooted the old laws and allowed the Jews to become full citizens—at which point they started virtually monopolizing the newspapers, taking control of the banking system, bribing government officials, etc. Democracy gave them the opportunity to pay off both sides and keep accumulating their power by using whichever party happened to be in power at the time. They blackmailed Woodrow Wilson with letters to his mistress into making Louis Brandeis a Supreme Court justice, and did something similar to Kennedy to make him take LBJ as his running mate. They used kompromat on the cross-dressing FBI director J. Edgar Hoover to keep the feds from opposing organized crime (which they dominated much more than the Italians). This kind of power would have been unthinkable in the pre-secular age.

The cucking that wasn’t a result of the Enlightenment’s secularism/blank slate ideas was mostly the result of two non-Jews and one Jewish financier. The original godfather of “Christian Zionism” was the dispensationalist John Nelson Darby. Darby appears to have been a Freemason (and possibly Satanist) masquerading as a Christian and making strange, subtle, and often evil alterations to the Bible via translation (e.g., he has Peter address Christ the way only demons do[ix]). He came up with the strange notion of dispensationalism, which has variations but most share these aspects:[x]

  • Earthly time (from Adam to the new heavens and new earth) is divided into seven unequal periods of “dispensations,” during which God changes the way He deals with and judges humanity.
  • Despite Christ’s admonition in John 14:6 that “No one comes to the father except through me,” Jews have a separate means of salvation despite having crucified and continuing to reject Him.
  • The good are raptured to heaven before the seven-year tribulation begins and then return with the Lord seven years later, having skipped all the misery, death, etc. (Yes, this is the part that has otherwise good nominal Christians sitting on their lazy asses or cheering on evil times rather than trying with everything they’ve got to oppose those bringing about those times.)
  • In Christ’s triumphant return He will preside over not all the nations as a universal messiah, but “a restored Jewish monarchy,” under which Gentiles will be “lesser human beings.”

Why would anyone other than Jews believe this tripe? Well, the non-Jewish man who originated it was allegedly a Satanist?

But how did it manage to spread as far as it did?

Well, although Darby planted the seeds of our current, genocidal Jews-worshiping madness, it only massively grew thanks to the Jewish Wall Street financier Samuel Untermyer who found a crooked goy conman and general scumbag named Cyrus Scofield—he was in and out of jail for various scams and even abandoned his first wife and kids—and apparently convinced him to use his fake preacher credentials to put his name on a 100% kosher Bible[xi] which offered Zionist-friendly commentary on every page along with the holy text (most real Christian intellectuals who did write commentaries thought it both tacky and semi-blasphemous to put their words so close to God’s). Untermyer and the other Jewish elites got it published by Oxford University Press (Jew-owned) and paid for its widespread distribution around the time of the Balfour Declaration and the beginning of the massive Jewish immigration to Palestine.

The post WWII cucking has much more to do with the churches not wanting to lose their tax-exempt status, Jewish media domination (they controlled all of the major networks and many of the radio stations), and their strategic use of the phony Holocaust legacy than Christian doctrine.

Beyond that, even earlier, around the beginning of the 20th century, communists in general and Jews in particular had made an effort to infiltrate the seminaries in the U.S. to subvert the Christian religion. This was concerted, intentional subversion, not by misguided do-gooders but by the open enemies of Christianity.

And as far as Catholics go, while in 1904 Pope Pius X may have told Theodor Herzl and the other Zionists where to shove it when they tried to get him to back their project to take over Palestine—a decision that made them more determined to make use of Protestants (hence, why Scofield and his phony Bible became even more important)—by the time of WWII the Vatican was cooperating with the OSS (precursor to the CIA) and there was enough internal rot to allow the Jews to rewrite salvation history via Vatican II, which added Catholics to the ranks of the Jews’s cucks: once seen as self-blinded fools who crucified Christ and continue to reject Him, the Jews now became “elder brothers in the faith,” which as I’ve shown earlier is dead wrong for a number of reasons. Vatican II was a textbook case of Jews pulling strings (albeit far less openly than Netanyahu does now): as Lawrence Erickson puts it, “Cardinal Bea, John XXIII’s choice for preparing the new Jewish documents, appears to have mostly outsourced this job to a leading Rabbi of the American Jewish Committee.”[xii] Again, this was the result of power translating into (heretical) doctrine rather than doctrine leading to power, with the power in question being that of the WWII triumvirate of the American deep state, organized crime (by that time dominated not by Italians but by Jews such as Meyer Lansky), and America’s economic oligarchs (who were both heavily Jewish and sporting deep state connections—e.g., General Electric, which had very strong CIA ties).

The cancer of elite world Jewry and their corrupt White coconspirators has continued to metastasize to this day, which is why we now have tens of trillions of debt, crumbling infrastructure, a military that spends 13 billion on ships with toilets that don’t work, etc., yet nobody gets sacked and prosecuted—while Jews enjoy the highest income per capita in the nation and we are forced to go to war for the puny, genocidal state of Israel. Nothing even remotely like this happened in the age when Europe was Christendom; rather, it happened when men abandoned their (always weak and often failing) devotion to Christ as their king and made idols out of “equality,” “Holocaustianity,” money (offshoring, anyone?), etc., and it became forbidden to notice, let alone punish, Jewry’s collective sins. As that misquote of Chesterton goes, when men cease believing in God they do not believe nothing, they believe anything. Transubstantiation might seem farfetched, but it’s got nothing in that regard on the modern sacrament of transgenderism—another mostly Jewish project, as Scott Howard has shown (somewhat unintentionally) in his book The Transgender-Industrial Complex.

Humans have to have faith in something. If not God, it will be something entirely stupid, even insane. The logic of atheism is anathema to long-term (that is, beyond one generation) planning, since no one will live that long and there are no consequences for saying “I’m taking what I can while I can—let someone else pick up the bill.” Rather, we should be pushing for a reformed Christianity dedicated to smashing all false idols (including ideologies such as negrolatry, Jew-worship, etc.) and demanding all earthly things be subjected to the acid test of reason; one that has people making sure their children and grandchildren have a country to grow up in that isn’t hostile to them.

[i]Unz, Ron. “American Pravda: Prof. John Beaty and the True Origin of the Jews.” The Unz Review, Ron Unz, 29 Jan. 2024, www.unz.com/runz/prof-john-beaty-and-the-true-origin-of-the-jews/.

[ii]Shahak, Israel. “Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years.” If Americans Knew: What Every American Needs to Know About Israel-Palestine, Professor Israel Shahak, 2002, ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/shahak.html?v=202602172144.

[iii]Hoffman, Michael. “What Does Rabbinic Judaism Say About What Makes Jews and Gentiles Different? The Unz Review.” The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection, Ron Unz, 21 Sept. 2020, www.unz.com/article/what-does-rabbinic-judaism-say-about-what-makes-jews-and-gentiles-different/.

[iv]Hoffman, Michael. “What Does Rabbinic Judaism Say About What Makes Jews and Gentiles Different? The Unz Review.” The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection, Ron Unz, 21 Sept. 2020, www.unz.com/article/what-does-rabbinic-judaism-say-about-what-makes-jews-and-gentiles-different/.

[v]Shahak, Israel. “Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years.” If Americans Knew: What Every American Needs to Know About Israel-Palestine, Professor Israel Shahak, 2002, ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/shahak.html?v=202602172144.

[vi]Shahak, Israel. “Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years.” If Americans Knew: What Every American Needs to Know About Israel-Palestine, Professor Israel Shahak, 2002, ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/shahak.html?v=202602172144.

[vii]Joyce, Andrew. “Pariah to Messiah: The Engineered Apotheosis of Baruch Spinoza, Part 1 of 3.” The Occidental Observer, 5 June 2019, www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2019/05/05/pariah-to-messiah-the-engineered-apotheosis-of-baruch-spinoza-part-1-of-3/.

[viii]“Mamilla Pool.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 4 Sept. 2025, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamilla_Pool.

[ix]“John Nelson Darby Version: Doctrinal Changes to the Holy Bible.” Liberty to the Captives, libertytothecaptives.net/darby_doctrinal_changes.html.

[x]“The Folly of Dispensationalism.” The Biblical Worldview Ministries, web.archive.org/web/20190731004215/www.thebiblicalworldview.org:80/folly-of-dispensationalism.

[xi]Perloff, James. “The War on Christianity, Part II: The Abomination and Blasphemy of Christian Zionism.” James Perloff, 31 Aug. 2016, jamesperloff.net/war-on-christianity-part-2/.

[xii]Erickson, Lawrence. “The Smoke of the Synagogue.” The Unz Review, Ron Unz, 20 Mar. 2024, www.unz.com/article/the-smoke-of-the-synagogue/.

 

Democrats Bury Gaza Autopsy That Sealed Kamala Harris’s Defeat

/5 Comments/in /by

For months after the November 2024 election, Democratic operatives insisted that the economy, immigration, and inflation were the only forces that dragged Kamala Harris to defeat. The party’s support for Israel and the devastation in Gaza barely registered in the official post-mortem conversation. That silence was deliberate. It turns out the Democratic National Committee had been sitting on an internal report that confirmed precisely what progressive activists, Arab American organizers, and Muslim voters had been screaming about for over a year. On February 22, 2026, Axios broke the story that ripped the lid off the party’s best-kept secret.

Top Democratic officials who worked on the DNC’s still-secret “After Action” report on the 2024 election had reached the conclusion that the Biden administration’s approach to the war in Gaza cost Kamala Harris significant votes. The finding was not speculative. It was drawn from the party’s own internal data, which had been deliberately buried.

The revelation came through an unlikely channel. DNC staffers compiling the autopsy had held a private meeting in July 2025 with the Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU) Policy Project, a pro-Palestinian advocacy organization. During that closed-door session, DNC officials made a stunning admission. Hamid Bendaas, a spokesperson for the IMEU Policy Project, told Axios that “the DNC shared with us that their own data also found that policy was, in their words, a ‘net-negative’ in the 2024 election.” Axios independently verified that Democratic officials conducting the autopsy believed the Israel-Gaza issue harmed the party’s standing with some voters.

The report itself remains locked away. DNC chair Ken Martin decided in late 2024 not to publish the autopsy, claiming it would distract from the work of winning elections. The IMEU Policy Project has alleged that the suppression is partly motivated by the politically explosive Israel findings. The DNC denies this. But the effect is the same. The party that lost the White House is refusing to share with its own voters the reasons it identified for losing.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) subsequently called on the DNC to release the full report, saying “We need to confront hard truths about how our failure to stop genocide in Gaza cost us support.”

Perhaps the most damning confirmation came from the candidate herself. At a promotional event for her memoir 107 Days, Harris said the administration “should have spoken publicly about our criticism” of how Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu executed the war. In the book itself, she wrote that President Biden’s unpopularity was partly because of “his perceived blank check” to Netanyahu and that this harmed her in 2024.

The most granular evidence comes from a post-election poll conducted by the IMEU Policy Project and YouGov in January 2025. The survey focused specifically on Biden 2020 voters who did not vote for Harris. Among those defecting voters, 29% cited “ending Israel’s violence in Gaza” as the top issue affecting their vote. That placed Gaza ahead of the economy at 24%, Medicare and Social Security at 12%, and immigration at 11%. In the battleground states that flipped from Biden to Trump, 20% of defecting voters named Gaza as their top concern. The state-by-state breakdown was striking. In Arizona, 38% of defectors cited Gaza. In Michigan, 32%. In Wisconsin, 32%. In Pennsylvania, 19%.

By a three-to-one margin, these Biden defectors said they would have been more likely to support Harris had she pledged to withhold weapons to Israel (36% more likely versus 10% less likely). 53% of them said Biden’s support for Israel was “too much.” Only 6% said “not enough.” And 55% of Biden 2020 voters who abandoned Harris believed Israel was committing genocide in Gaza.

Gallup’s 2025 Annual World Affairs Survey documented the broader collapse in American sentiment toward Israel. Only 46% of Americans sympathized with Israelis, the lowest in 25 years of Gallup tracking. Among Democrats, 59% sympathized more with Palestinians, up from 43% the year before, creating a nearly three-to-one ratio over sympathy for Israelis at just 21%. A majority of Americans, and 76% of Democrats, supported an independent Palestinian state.

The warning signs had been visible far earlier. As early as March 2024, Quinnipiac University found that 60% of Biden 2020 voters who were not committed to voting for him again thought he was “too supportive of Israel.” By June 2025, Quinnipiac recorded an all-time low for American sympathy toward Israel and an all-time high for sympathy toward Palestinians. A Cato Institute survey of likely voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin conducted in September 2024 found that 80% of swing state voters supported an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Majorities believed the United States was “too involved” in foreign conflicts.

The Arab American Institute documented a collapse in support that should alarm every Democratic operative in the country. Arab Americans split 42% for Trump and 41% for Harris, a devastating decline from the 59% who had voted for Biden in 2020. In Dearborn, Michigan, the largest Arab American concentration in the United States, Trump won roughly 42% of the vote. Harris received just 36 to 40%.

Michigan tells the story most vividly. Harris lost the state by 80,000 votes, far worse than Hillary Clinton’s 11,000-vote loss there in 2016. The IMEU analysis estimated that roughly 122,380 votes across six swing states were influenced by Gaza, with the highest concentrations in Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin, precisely the states where Trump’s margins of victory were narrowest.

The Harris campaign received repeated warnings. Politico reported that by May 2024, Biden campaign aides were watching poll numbers slip in Michigan because of Gaza. The “Uncommitted” movement in the Michigan Democratic primary attracted over 100,000 protest votes. Yet the campaign chose to court Nikki Haley primary voters in suburban areas rather than signal any shift on Gaza policy. In a move that became a symbol of the party’s dismissiveness toward its support of Israel’s genocidal campaign, Democratic leaders refused to allow a Palestinian American elected official to speak at the Democratic National Convention.

Understanding why Gaza proved so toxic requires grasping the sheer scale of what the Biden administration delivered to Israel while the campaign was underway. Biden oversaw an estimated $22 billion in weapons sales to Israel across his term, with U.S. taxpayers funding roughly $17.8 billion of that total through Foreign Military Financing. The Forum on the Arms Trade documented the staggering volume of transfers after October 7, 2023. By December 2023, the administration had delivered roughly 15,000 bombs and 57,000 artillery shells, including 100 BLU-109 2,000-pound bunker-buster bombs. By June 2024, Reuters documented total transfers that included 14,000 MK-84 2,000-pound bombs, 6,500 500-pound bombs, 3,000 Hellfire missiles, 1,000 bunker-buster bombs, and 2,600 small-diameter bombs.

The administration bypassed Congress twice through emergency declarations to rush arms sales, invoking a rarely used provision of the Arms Export Control Act in December 2023 to push through $106.5 million in tank ammunition and then $147.5 million in artillery components. In August 2024, while Harris was the presumptive nominee, the administration notified Congress of a proposed $20.34 billion package that included 50 F-15 fighter jets. The Washington Post reported that only 2 of approximately 100 foreign military sales to Israel since October 7 were made public, with the rest falling below Congressional notification thresholds.

Every one of these actions was attached to Harris by association. Every arms shipment, every refusal to say “ceasefire” was a message to young voters, progressive voters, Arab American voters, and Muslim American voters that the Democratic Party valued its relationship with Netanyahu more than their lives and their votes.

The broader pattern is now undeniable. The Biden-Harris administration’s Israel policy alienated young voters, progressives, Arab Americans, and Muslim Americans at levels well beyond what exit polls captured through the “foreign policy” category alone. The DNC’s own internal data, now confirmed through the Axios report, corroborates what dozens of pre- and post-election polls had already shown. Unconditional support for Israel’s military campaign in Gaza was an electoral liability that contributed to a preventable Democratic defeat.

The DNC has the report. It knows what it says. It has chosen not to share it with the voters, the activists, and the communities that it expects to show up again in 2026 and 2028. The party that spent 2024 telling Arab Americans and Muslim Americans and young progressives that their concerns about a genocide funded with $22 billion in American weapons were not important enough to warrant a policy shift is now telling those same voters that the evidence confirming they were right all along is not important enough to warrant transparency.

These findings presage profound Democratic schisms, with Jews’ erstwhile pets—spanning White progressives to non-White automatons—now straining against their handlers, risking a party rupture and realignment. Meanwhile, Republican dissenters such as Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and Carrie Prejean chip away at Zionist orthodoxy, transforming anti-Zionism into a bipartisan tide that invites an inexorable antisemitic reprisal, a cycle as ancient as civilization itself.

MAGA Without the Jews

/16 Comments/in /by

As we head into the meat of the 2026 midterm election season, things are looking dicey for the Republicans. The news is grim: Trump’s approval rating is at a low point of 36%; among the youth, ages 18–29, it is between 25% and 29%; and “A Third of GOP Voters May Sit Out” if Republicans abandon their usual pro-life policies.  And all this before Iran.

The Israel-Palestine conflict is of notable concern for the GOP.  While they are only 2 percentage points “under water” on this issue among all voters—49% disapprove versus 47% approve—they are in severe trouble with the youth.  It was recently reported that only 29% of American youth side with Israel, and even among Republicans, 41% are more sympathetic to the Palestinian side.

Even Christian fundamentalists are turning against Trump.  Even if they are implicit (or explicit) Christian Zionists, most of them are still, at the same time, “America Firsters.”  It is possible to be both, and yet still put America ahead of Israel or Jewish interests generally—something like “America First, Israel Second.”  This is possible for many.  But not for Trump.  One recent commentator remarked that “the most destructive flaw that has spoiled Trump’s image with his [fundamentalist] base is his unconditional support of Israel’s war on the Palestinian people.”  This slaughter of Gazans, and the simultaneous assault on many Christians and Christian churches, has been ongoing for more than two years now.  Trump’s base “has rightly recognized that Trump is not ‘America First’ but ‘Israel First’.”

And now, of course, with the new war on Iran, what was clear to many is now clear to all:  Trump is an utter stooge, a tool of the Jews and Israelis, and is willing to kill any number of Muslims or Americans to further Jewish/Israeli interests.  This lunatic action against Iran is highly unpopular all across the American political spectrum; in a new poll, just 27% of Americans approved of the attack.  As fuel prices rise and the American death toll creeps upward, we can expect that low level of support to fall even lower.

I would also add here, as an aside, that this criminal action against Iran has wide support in Israel itself.  Despite the many internal disagreements and the broad dislike of Netanyahu, Israeli Jews are almost united in the unprovoked bombing campaign.  A recent headline in the Guardian stated that Israel is “embracing militarism” and that Netanyahu’s war “has few critics” there.  The attack, they add, “was greeted with broad and enthusiastic support…including [Netanyahu’s] bitter rivals.”  Nearly all Israeli Jews, it seems, are happy to unleash an unprecedented assault on a neighboring nation and to kill off its top leadership.  I have yet to see surveys of American Jews, but I would presume a similar widespread acceptance.  So, to those faint-hearted critics who fear blaming “all Jews” for Israel’s murderous belligerence, well, I think we can dismiss such worries from now on.  Yes, my friends, it is, more or less “all Jews” who support these criminal actions; consequently, “all Jews” will have to pay a price.

Worse than Trump being a Jewish stooge is the fact that virtually the entire Congress is beholden to Jewish interests.  We have long known that Republicans get around 25% of all campaign funding from Jewish sources, and Democrats around 50%.  This ensures that Democrats will offer only the meekest of resistance to Trump’s blatantly illegal and monstrously unethical attack on Iran.  They will do nothing of substance because, in the end, their Jewish sponsors like this war, and in fact have been pushing for it for years.  Any Congressman who speaks too harshly against Trump’s crimes against humanity will surely lose his Jewish financial support and face a stiff, well-funded opponent in the next primary.  US Congress: bought, sold, and paid for by the Jewish Lobby.  How’s that working, America?

An Obvious Solution

Trump’s popularity, such as it was, came from those who liked his professed policies:  America First, closed borders, tough on crime (especially immigrant crime), fiscal restraint, ending DEI and absurd politically-correct policies, getting tough with NATO, ending foreign entanglements, and, especially, “no new wars.”  In reality, we got a few tidbits on some of these, but mostly we got dumped on.  We got war on Venezuela, war on Palestine, war on Iran, ongoing proxy war against Russia, and economic war against the whole world.  We got ballooning government spending and concomitant debt: a $1.5 trillion defense budget, and a $2 trillion annual budget deficit, pushing total government debt to $38 trillion.  But hey, the Jews are happy, and that’s all that matters.

If we continue on this track, Republicans will likely get crushed in the midterm elections, when all 435 House seats and 35 Senate seats are on the ballot.  Even with the radical Republican redistricting, if GOP voters are unhappy or unenthusiastic and simply sit it out, Democrats will make substantial gains.  They will spin this victory as a repudiation of all of Trump’s policies, even the good ones, and they will therefore push for a return to “the good ol’ days” of Obama and Biden.  But that would be bad news on multiple fronts.

So, what to do?

All this begs an obvious solution: “MAGA without the Jew.”  In other words, why can’t we have candidates who support all the good things Trumps stood for, without the suicidal attachment to Israel and the Jewish Lobby?  Why can’t we have a Republican candidate—not Black, not Muslim, not Jewish, just White—who endorses (a) strong borders, (b) tough on illegal immigrants, (c) an end to DEI, (d) fiscal conservatism, (e) ending all ongoing wars, and generally, (f) America First?  And that’s it!  Isn’t that good enough to win a crushing victory?

This new movement—call it MAGAWJ—would also take an open and explicit stance: no Jewish campaign funding, no aid to Israel, no wars for the Jews.  After all, perhaps 2% of the American population are Jews, so we clearly have no democratic need to bow down to them, especially when the interests of the other 98% run in the opposite direction.

A good MAGAWJ candidate would continue Trump’s policy on closed borders and would accelerate the removal of illegals.  Simple and obvious actions like (1) strictly enforcing laws against hiring illegals, and (2) making it a serious crime to house an illegal, would have an immediate effect.  Just these two actions would drive thousands of illegals out of the country without having to arrest and detain them.

Our ideal candidate would implement a plan to close down most of America’s 800 or so foreign bases while, at the same time, slashing the military budget in half.  Yes, in half.  Even then, we would still be spending 50% more than the world number two, China.  We would still have the world’s top military, by far.  But we could save $500 billion dollars per year while simultaneously making it much harder for any future presidential tyrant to try to rule the world.

In the present political climate, MAGAWJ is a recipe for certain victory.  The typical Trump voters would jump on board without hesitation, and a large share of independents would happily vote for it.  Even many nominal Democrats, those who consider themselves liberal but are tired of working on behalf of Jewish interests—especially young voters—would switch their votes.  It would be a Republican landslide; it would set the stage for long-term Republican success, long-term national success, and long-term world peace (if we care about that).

MAGAWJ candidates:  We are waiting for you!

Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books and articles on politics, history, and the Jewish Question. All his works are available at www.clemensandblair.com, and at his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com.