Covenant Theology and God’s Chosen

/4 Comments/in , /by

Introduction

Within the alt-right community there is a continual call to advocate traditional, Northern European paganism. Inherent in both the published and online literature is the view that the fall of Europe can be traced to the abandonment of its roots in the Norse religion and that Christianity looted paganism of its intellectual treasures.[1] Though alt-right Christians like me can be found, there seems to be a rising consensus in the alt-right that is critical of Christianity. This is understandable since the New Testament is the prophetic fulfillment of Judaism, which has a history of plundering nations and, especially since the medieval era, has become a morally debased religion practiced by a generally evil people. In this brief article, I hope to reinvigorate interest in the Christian story among the alt-right by providing a theological consideration for why God chose the evillest race in history to be his people in the Old Testament. I’ll begin by proffering covenant theology as the historic alternative to dispensationalism (and its Zionism), as the interpretive lens through which we should understand the biblical meta-narrative. I’ll conclude by examining how the incarnation of Christ and God’s pattern of salvific election can better help us understand the character of God and his choice of the Jewish people in the Old Testament.

Abrahamic Blessing and Covenant Theology

The Jews have wreaked havoc on Western civilization. This is one of the first realizations one has when she starts to dive into alt-right literature. Their mode of operation has sometimes been described as parasitic, as they attach themselves to a host nation and destroy that nation from the inside. Yet, many Christians in America believe that the Jews are God’s special and chosen people. Guided by a theology called dispensationalism, they eagerly defend the Jewish people in all internal and foreign affairs: they defend their presence in any nation, they defend the state of Israel and their cause in any conflict, they defend U.S. foreign aid (both financial and military) to Israel, and they support any political policy that lifts up the Jewish people, even to the detriment of another people. Writes one Christian Zionist, “With the world rightly united against the use of nuclear weapons, let us empower Israel—and stand ready ourselves—so that Iran’s regime grasps a simple truth: We will not hesitate to defend ourselves or our allies. True peace hinges on strength, and we must exhibit both in earnest, today and always. And just as strength is not a precursor to war, neither does bombing Iran start a never-ending conflict; in fact, it stops the war that started the day the Islamic Republic was born.”[2]

What could drive a Christian to speak so casually about bombing another nation? It all starts with the covenant promise that God made to Israel. In Genesis 12, God says to Israel’s patriarch, Abraham, “I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you” (2–3). Evangelicals receive this verse as a mandate to support God’s Abrahamic people in the form of modern Israel to whatever violent end and at whatever financial or human cost. However, if the reader of Scripture progresses, he’ll find that the nature of this covenant is framed in conditional terms. Leviticus 26:3-4 uses the if/then grammatical structure of a subjunctive conditional: “If you walk in my statutes and keep my commandments so as to carry them out, then I shall give you rains in their season, so that the land will yield its produce, and the trees of the field will bear their fruit.”

But Israel did not keep their end of the covenant, and God, in his loving patience, decided to give them chance after chance, renewing their covenant at various points in Scripture. In the book of Joshua, He reaffirms His covenant with Israel and reiterates His warning against disobedience. Joshua says on behalf of Yahweh, “If you abandon the Lord and worship foreign gods, He will turn against you, harm you, and completely destroy you, after He has been good to you” (24:20).

Within the Abrahamic covenant then, there is a two-fold promise: The unconditional promise that through Abraham all nations will be blessed. This is an allusion to the coming of the Messiah whose line will persist through the Jewish people no matter what. Yet there is the conditional promise of general blessings; the material blessings of rain for the harvest, protection from enemies, and God’s provision of Holy Spirit-led guidance and sense of fatherhood over the nation of Israel as his children.[3] In other words, God promised to keep his Messianic promise of blessing to the Jews and that promise was kept through Christ. When Christ the Messiah did finally come, he came through the Jewish people. The gospels of Matthew and Luke even provide a genealogy of Jesus with Matthew going back to Abraham and Luke going all the way back to Adam.

But the Jews have rejected the Messiah. Acts 4:11 says, “Jesus is ‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone.’” So, God sent his gospel to the Gentiles through the Apostle Paul and engrafted them into the salvific tree of Israel. The promises that were meant for Israel have now been transferred to the Church. Whoever trusts in Christ for salvation becomes a citizen in God’s chosen spiritual nation — the Church. Circumcision, which in the OT was the sign and seal of the covenant that God made with his people to make them his own has been replaced by baptism. It serves the same purpose as circumcision as it is understood as setting someone apart from the world and bringing them into the covenant family of God’s people which is now the Church, not Israel.

Theologians have long called this observation supersessionism, which is directly informed by covenant theology. Covenant theology is a helpful interpretive guide to the meta narrative of the Bible. The Bible’s story unfolds in “chapters” of covenants. God made a covenant with Noah not to destroy the natural world even though he knew sin would continue to spread among it. He gave Noah the sign of the covenant in the form of a rainbow. He made a covenant with Abraham to bless his offspring materially and spiritually if his people would not follow other gods. The sign and seal of this Abrahamic covenant is circumcision, which is seen as a ceremonial act of cleansing and purification; a way to set the Israelites apart from her neighboring nations. He made a covenant with David that his kingship would be eternal. The sign and seal of this covenant was the throne, on which Christ now sits at the right hand of God the Father. In the New Testament, God made a covenant to anyone through Jesus Christ to be their God, if they abandon their false gods and idols and trust in Him through Christ alone.

The sign and seal of this new covenant is baptism. This is why Christians baptize their babies — It replaces circumcision as the ceremonial rite of induction into God’s covenant community. In this way, covenant theology makes a common-sense observation of the chronology of biblical salvific history. Zionist disagree with this way of viewing the whole Bible, and instead insist the Bible’s narrative unfolds in ages called dispensations. They believe that there are several ages in the salvific story and that we are currently in the “church age.” According to dispensationalists, there is a final coming age of Zion, where Christ will rule from Jerusalem for a thousand years. This theology gives Israel a sort of sacred status as the future center of God’s kingdom. Zionists angrily denounce covenant theology and its subsequent supersessionsim as “replacement theology”[4], because it replaces the idea of the chosenness of Israel with the chosenness of the Church.

It is confusing that Christian Zionists, while believing along with covenant minded Christians that salvation is found only in Christ, could simultaneously believe that the people who have whole heartedly rejected Christ are his chosen people. If they believe on the one hand that people who reject Christ, including Jews, spend eternity in hell, how could they on the other hand believe that an entire race of people who have rejected the only means of salvific blessings could be God’s chosen? If anything, the very opposite is true. St Paul likens Israel to Pharaoh whose heart was hardened by God before the Exodus from Egypt. It’s quite possible that Israel is under a special spiritual curse, as they continue to reject their Messiah who came through their own faith.

A more comprehensive explication of covenant theology than provided here is needed to fully understand its interpretive implication. However, it should suffice to say for now that dispensationalism is rather new in the history of biblical interpretation. The historic tradition of the church is also an important epistemological factor in discerning the Word of God in Sacred Scripture. The doctrine of the Church is passed on from one generation to the next, preserving the sacra doctrina of the apostles. This is what the Church means in the Apostles Creed when we say, “I believe in the Holy Catholic Church.” As St Vincent of Lerins said, “All possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has always been believed, everywhere, always, by all.”[5] Dispensationalism is as new as the nineteenth century. It does not mean that we don’t see doctrinal developments based on already-evolving truths come in more recent times. But it does mean that the church cannot accept an entire paradigm shift in interpretation. Covenant theology is the historic (traditionally) and commonsense (biblically and logically) method for understanding the whole of God’s Word. So, who are God’s people? The Church. Those who commits themselves to Christ, whether Jew or Gentile, belong to God and are a part of his chosen covenant family called the church. There is no room in the biblical meta-narrative for viewing the modern state of Israel or any ethnic group of people for that matter as God’s chosen people. God made a new covenant in Christ. The old covenant has been fulfilled in him and comes with new terms and conditions. Simply being Jewish does not suffice. As St. Paul writes in Romans 9:8, “In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.” That promise is fulfilled in Christ.

Why the Jews?

However, this still does not answer why God chose Israel from the many peoples of the world to covenant with in the Old Testament. Here is the answer: God’s loving character and desire to save all people, from the worst of all nations and peoples to the best. Would God be God if He only chose the best of humanity? If He chose for Himself a people whom He, in his divine foreknowledge, knew would be the most obedient of all peoples, what kind of hope would that give to the imprisoned, the poor, and all of us who have sinned egregiously against the Lord (and that’s everyone)? What hope would lesser races have, that they too may be forgiven and saved? God chose the Jews, the very worst of humanity, and became one of them through Jesus Christ, that all of humanity, from the worst of us to the best of us might be saved. By taking on Jewish flesh in the incarnation of Christ, he made possible the redemption of those races and peoples even in the very pits of humanity, reconciling anyone who trusts in him to the Father. Referring to the Jews, God tells Moses in Exodus 32:9, “I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people.” But in Christ, God became the lowest form of human, a Jew, so that any one of us may attain salvation in Him and through Him alone. God has made a habit of choosing the worst of us. It is why he chose Paul, a persecutor of Christians to carry the gospel to the gentiles. It is why God chose Peter who denied Christ when asked if he knew him. It is why God chose James though he doubted Christ even while seeing him arisen. God would not be God if only the best had a chance at salvation. He loves the worst of us. But he requires that we repent of our sins and trust in Christ alone.

Conclusion

            Covenant theology is, therefore, the appropriate hermeneutic with which we should approach the biblical narrative. Its merits are easily observed in Scripture. It is believed and practiced in Roman Catholicism, Classical Protestantism, and Eastern Orthodoxy, and has been the prevailing method of biblical interpretation for the history of the church. The American public peers into Christianity and observes the rather loud dispensational voices commenting on current events and therefore believes that the church catholic (the whole church) thinks this way. Christianity, therefore, to the alt-right might seem off putting, given its claims concerning Israel. But it’s important to know that most of the church affirms a more reasonable interpretive method, one that severs the destiny of Israel from the church. It is my hope that if the alt-right understands that dispensationalism/Zionism is actually a minority view in the grand scheme of church history, and isn’t a view taken seriously by most theologians, perhaps they’ll give Christianity another look.

Nick Craig has a B.Sc. Religion, Liberty University and an M.A. Theological Studies, Houston Christian University

Bibliography

Elwell, Walter A, ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984.

Hedrick, Gary. “Replacement Theology: Its Origins, Teachings and Errors .” Shema, October 5, 2012. https://shema.com/replacement-theology-its-origins-147/.

Parker, Sandra Hagee. “Peace Through Strength When It Comes To Supporting Israel and Confronting Iran.” Jewish News Syndicate, February 5, 2025. https://www.jns.org/peace-through-strength-when-it-comes-to-supporting-israel-and-confronting-iran/.

Rea, Robert F. Why Church History Matters: An Invitation to Live and Learn From the Past. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014.

Svarte, Askr. Polemos: The Dawn of Pagan Traditionalism. Moscow, Russian Federation: Prav, 2020.

[1] Askr Svarte, Polemos: The Dawn of Pagan Traditionalism (Moscow, Russian Federation: Prav, 2020), Kindle location 221.

[2] Sandra Hagee Parker, “Peace Through Strength When It Comes To Supporting Israel and Confronting Iran,” Jewish News Syndicate, February 5, 2025, https://www.jns.org/peace-through-strength-when-it-comes-to-supporting-israel-and-confronting-iran/.

[3] Walter A Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984), 277.

[4] Gary Hedrick, “Replacement Theology: Its Origins, Teachings and Errors ,” Shema, October 5, 2012, https://shema.com/replacement-theology-its-origins-147/.

[5] Robert F Rea, Why Church History Matters: An Invitation to Live and Learn From the Past (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014), 36.

Freudian slip: psychotherapist speaks too much truth on woke ideology

/2 Comments/in /by

 

The long march through the institutions is almost complete, with no profession untouched by Cultural Marxist subversion. A few brave workers make a stand for the very purpose of their vocation, against such interference.  Police should be policing, teachers should be teaching, midwives should be delivering babies, librarians provide access to books, and therapists conduct therapy. It should be obvious that practitioners, after training, practise their calling.

Not so much nowadays. Midwives attend to ‘pregnant persons’, police do social work, teachers indoctrinate, librarians empty the shelves of books, all for the agenda of transforming society from traditional mores to the revolutionary dogma euphemistically defined as ‘equality, diversity and inclusion’ (EDI). Now it seems that psychotherapists are expected to prioritise identity politics over individualised therapeutic intervention.

Concerned at this wrong turn in her profession, highly skilled and experienced therapist Sue Parker Hall put her hat in the ring for chairperson of the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP). The process has hardly been fair. The organisation’s blandly conformist journal New Psychotherapy has promoted three stances taken by her rival candidate. The UKCP is making clear who they want to win an election that it should be running without favour.

Most troubling for Sue Parker Hall is a letter signed by numerous members of the body, accusing Sue of expressing ‘far-right’ views, conspiracy theories and harmful misinformation.  The petitioners strive to discredit her and ensure that she is not elected. Indeed, the hostility is so intense to suggest that they want to hound her out of the profession.

Four days ago, Parker Hall decided to publicise her fears for psychotherapy and her victimisation in a You Tube video. Stressing the importance of critical thinking, intellectual freedom and ethical integrity, she criticises the political activism that is diverting psychotherapy from its raison d’être. The unjustified attack on her character is corrupting democratic process, yet the UKCP board has remained silent.

The contrast between what psychotherapy should be doing, and what it is doing instead, is stark. This passage in her monologue is worth reciting: –

‘Intersectionality is at odds with the clinical framework because it prioritises group identity over individual experience. It encourages clients to see themselves through the lens of oppression rather than as whole integrated people. It shifts the therapeutic focus to external social forces, which can be disempowering and discourage self-exploration. It also unhelpfully frames relationships as power struggles, fostering division rather than connection, which runs counter to psychotherapy’s aim of healing relational wounds and deepening empathy.’

Imagine being a White heterosexual male on the couch, with a judgmental therapist blaming you not for your own problems but a legacy of social ills caused by your sex and race. Parker Hall comes across as humane but also a therapist who will challenge faulty thinking rather than build that into a model of systematic discrimination. Words like ‘harm’ and ‘safety’ are weaponised by the radical ideologues in a way that deters therapists from confronting the client’s problematic outlook, which may exacerbate their struggle and maintain cycles of distress.

In the comments below the video there is plenty of support and gratitude. But puritanical conformity is prominent, Parker Hall having committed heresy: –

‘What you call ideology I call human rights.’

‘Whenever someone is worried about EDI, I can’t help but think of Trump.’

‘Maybe some people should be deplatformed after all.’

Typically lacking insight is a comment by Robert Downes decrying Parker Hall’s argument against ‘critical social justice theory’. This is ‘not a thing’, he says; ‘nobody identifies themselves as a proponent of such theory or practice.’  This despite reams of ‘research’ and ‘clinical guidance’ on such balderdash. And this being the same chap who declares that Parker Hall is a right-wing extremist. Free speech for me but not for thee….

The open letter opposing Parker Hall, addressed to the board of trustees, has been signed by over a thousand UKCP-accredited psychotherapists. It begins by stating that Parker Hall appeared in a video on the ‘far-right platform’ Rumble, in association with the World Council for Health, claiming that the Covid-19 pandemic was orchestrated by the authorities, using ‘cultic thought reform techniques’ for totalitarian ends.

The letter accuses Parker Hall of being willing to be publicly associated with conspiracy theories based on right-wing propaganda and lies, including Covid-19 denial, claims of vaccine harm, climate change denial and anti-LGBT narratives. Furthermore, she runs a support group for ‘differently aware’ therapists who are concerned about ‘globalism, great reset, world banking system, nanotech, Russia, transgender issues Palestine and satanic child abuse’.

Such views, the letter argues, are ‘in direct conflict with the UKCP’s core values of inclusivity and ensuring that policies are informed by data and evidence.’

These therapists (with the diverse middle-class names of Hannah, Tara, Phoebe, Tiffany, Holly, etc) would surely regard themselves as following the motto to ‘be kind’. Yet they are acting like a lynch mob. And what is the relevance of climate change or global bankers to a therapists’ ability to do her professional role, whether practising with clients or chairing the council? Do any of these therapists know the evidence that would differentiate the contrived climate crisis from a scam? Is it not appropriate for Parker Hall, as a member of society, to discuss matters of political import?

The letter ends, somewhat confusingly, by urging the UKCP ‘to ensure that members have the information they need to vote for a candidate who reflects the values and aims of the UK’.

If I needed psychological help I’d be glad to have Sue Parker Hall facing me. But not many of her professional peers, who are exposing themselves as frenzied puritans more suited to Maoist cultural revolution than person-centred therapy.

Dr. Niall McCrae
Dr Niall McCrae is an officer of the Workers of England Union and until recently a senior lecturer in mental health nursing at King’s College London.
He has written several books, including The Moon and Madness (2011), Echoes from the Corridors (with Peter Nolan, 2016), Moralitis: a Cultural Virus (with Robert Oulds, 2020) and Green in Tooth and Claw: the Misanthropic Mission of Climate Alarm (2024).
Niall writes regularly for Unity News Network, Conservative Woman, Country Squire and The Light newspaper. 

What Working at a Retirement Home Taught Me About the Elderly and Today’s Healthcare Racket

/5 Comments/in /by

Since retiring a few years back, I’ve kept myself busy by working as a night attendant for a large retirement facility in the mid-West. The two main advantages of the job are that I get to meet some wonderful people as well as walk about seven miles each night which helps to keep me in generally good shape. Hearing the life stories of folks who have been on earth for the past eighty or ninety years and the insight they’ve learned has, at times, been fascinating and I’ve enjoyed it immensely.

Over the past few years, however, I’ve discovered many truths about our corrupt and broken Heathcare system, including just how badly uninformed enormous numbers of elderly people are about nutrition and the medical industrial complex that has largely taken over their lives.

Thanks for reading Ambrose Kane ! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

The following are my observations and opinions based on numerous conversations with elderly residents. I don’t claim to be novel or innovative in my criticism of the contemporary Healthcare system. Nothing I’ve written here hasn’t also been said or written by someone else in some form. But this doesn’t make it any less true, and I hope some will be encouraged to rethink their opinion of doctors and the corrupt medical system that we’ve been subjected to.

The first thing I’ve learned is just how naively trusting the elderly are of their doctors. They really do view them as their ‘savior,’ almost godlike in a sense. To think their primary care physician may have ulterior motives other than the improvement of their personal health would come as a shock to a good many of them.

This is somewhat understandable, of course, since the doctors might have improved their health or even saved their lives in some instances. There are, indeed, good doctors out there, but even the best ones are caught up in a corrupt medical matrix that far too often places profit above the health of their patients. This is because America’s $4.5 trillion healthcare industry is a business, and their primary motivation is to make large profits for their investors and to raise enormous sums of money to pay staff, employees, maintain tech equipment and facilities.

Having talked to many of the residents, none of them from what I could determine view themselves as being their own health advocates. The notion is completely foreign to almost all of them. They wholly trust their doctors without question. They don’t challenge their physicians even when there are valid reasons for doing so. They don’t seem do any medical research on their ailments, despite there being a plethora of books, internet articles, and social media platforms that might address their particular disease or symptoms. They seem to know nothing about alternative medicine, the benefits of quality supplements, or holistic treatments. They don’t even think in such terms. Again, they completely trust all of what their doctors tell them and place full faith in the medical establishment.

This may be due to the era and culture out of which they have lived for many years, a time in which every institution, including the federal government, was trusted without question. The majority of their lives were spent in a high-trust society which contrasts sharply with our current no-trust society that we live in. Those days, however, are long gone, and there is every reason now to challenge and to question the contemporary medical system that we live under.

Trusting completely in medical doctors might be a good idea if our physicians were infallible, but they’re not. In fact, medical errors, including mistakes in prescriptions, cause a considerable number of deaths each year. Granted, it may not be the third leading cause of death as reported by some publications, but there can be little doubt that much of it is the direct result of human error, wrongful diagnosis, mistakes in pharmaceutical prescriptions, and sheer incompetence.

According to the National Library of Medicine, “Health care is not as safe as it should be. A substantial body of evidence points to medical errors as a leading cause of death and injury. Sizable numbers of Americans are harmed as a result of medical errors. Two studies of large samples of hospital admissions, one in New York using 1984 data and another in Colorado and Utah using 1992 data, found that the proportion of hospital admissions experiencing an adverse event, defined as injuries caused by medical management, were 2.9 and 3.7 percent, respectively. The proportion of adverse events attributable to errors (i.e., preventable adverse events) was 58 percent in New York, and 53 percent in Colorado and Utah. Preventable adverse events are a leading cause of death in the United States. When extrapolated to the over 33.6 million admissions to U.S. hospitals in 1997, the results of these two studies imply that at least 44,000 and perhaps as many as 98,000 Americans die in hospitals each year as a result of medical errors. . . . In terms of lives lost, patient safety is as important an issue as worker safety. Although more than 6,000 Americans die from workplace injuries every year, in 1993 medication errors are estimated to have accounted for about 7,000 deaths. Medication errors account for one out of 131 outpatient deaths and one out of 854 inpatient deaths” (‘To Err is Human: Building a Safer Healthcare System’).

The second thing I’ve learned is that almost every resident is on a plethora of pharmaceutical drugs. One elderly gentleman proudly told me that’s he on fifteen separate medications each day, including four different blood pressure pills! Another woman told me that her doctor prescribed her nineteen separate pills that’s she’s required to take with her breakfast each morning. To many of these elderly folks, swallowing large numbers of pills each day is seen as perfectly normal which is a clear indicator of just how insane things have become in the Healthcare world.

In my opinion, some physicians intentionally load their elderly patients with more medications than they actually need as a way of meeting the prescription quotas required by their hospital. This is another way that big bucks are brought into the system. How about the flu shot? Ever notice how pushy nurses and doctors get or even annoyed when you refuse a flu shot? They take it so personally. I doubt that it’s because they care so much for your health. The real answer probably lies in the loss of revenue that occurs when patients refuse it.

According to a PBS News article,

In the Byzantine world of health care pricing, most people wouldn’t expect that the ubiquitous flu shot could be a prime example of how the system’s lack of transparency can lead to disparate costs. The Affordable Care Act requires health insurers to cover all federally recommended vaccines at no charge to patients, including flu immunizations. Although people with insurance pay nothing when they get their shot, many don’t realize that their insurers foot the bill — and that those companies will recoup their costs eventually. In just one small sample from one insurer, Kaiser Health News found dramatic differences among the costs for its own employees. At a Sacramento, Calif., facility, the insurer paid $85, but just a little more than half that at a clinic in Long Beach. A drugstore in Washington, D.C., was paid $32. The wide discrepancy in what insurers pay for the same flu shot illustrates what’s wrong with America’s health system, said Glenn Melnick, a health economist at the University of Southern California. (‘The Hidden Costs of “Free” Flu Shots,’ by Phil Galewitz, 11/19/2019)

Primary care physicians get angered when they’re accused of being legalized pill pushers, but what else are we to think when so much of what they do each day involves writing endless prescriptions? And to think that most doctors are going to carefully sift through any possible contraindications for the medications they prescribe is laughable. The doctors are too busy, and they have very precise time limits they are allowed for each patient.

Are there exceptions to what I have written here? Of course! But the few exceptions only serve to prove the general rule.

Dr. Uma Pisharody, in a recent article, concedes that this model of care has not been effective for either the patient or the doctors’ captive to it. She has urged her colleagues to move away from this ineffectual and outdated framework:

Infants are now prescribed strong medications for spitting up, equating their regurgitations with adult heartburn and reflux. Older children are being diagnosed with hypertension, ADHD, sleep disorders, anxiety at alarming rates and then suffering the consequences of the side effects of the polypharmacy that we prescribe. Kids are medicated more than ever before. If one drug doesn’t work, we suggest trying another. If a pill fails, we try an injection, and if that fails, we try invasive procedures and surgeries followed by even stronger medications. Let’s face it, most doctors are trained to be pill-pushers. Tell us your symptoms — we will medicate you. We love prescribing medications, which essentially work like applying band-aids to external symptoms because we don’t understand how to prevent, treat, or reverse chronic disease. We simply don’t understand diet and lifestyle intervention. We were never taught this in medical school. (KevinMD.Com., ‘A Call to Action for My Medical Colleagues,’ 5/10/2022).

The doctors, as noted above, largely treat their patients in terms of symptoms only, and do not think in terms of the root cause of their ailments. Thus, modern physicians are locked into a system of treatment as health management or pain management rather than one that actually seeks to cure or end the problem. This works out beautifully for the medical industrial complex because it maintains a steady stream of lifelong patients whose medical complications are forever managed, but which never go away.

This creates enormously staggering profits for the hospitals, and the corporations that own them, including the pharmaceutical companies they are wed to. As the old saying goes, “A patient healed is a customer lost.”

It’s also important to understand the mindset of today’s doctors. There is little doubt that they are intelligent because completing the academic rigors of medical school requires an IQ well above average, at least until DEI took over. Many of them are well-meaning and genuinely want what is best for their patients. However, they tend to also be compliant types which means few of them are going to challenge the system nor rethink what they’ve been taught since medical school. Some of them, as others have noted, are arrogant and unteachable. The entire way that society looks at medical doctors only serves to reinforce the ‘god complex’ of far too many of them.

These same doctors know that if they deviate from mandated protocols regardless of how ineffective they may prove to be, they will be penalized and may lose their medical license as a result. Few physicians, understandably, are willing to fight the medical system and jeopardize their salary, status and medical license. Thus, they are caught up in a system that inevitably burns them out and leaves them disillusioned.

The third thing I’ve noticed is that few, if any, of the residents that I’ve talked to seem to know anything about what constitutes a healthy and balanced diet. They actually believe their dining hall feeds them good meals because it’s required by government guidelines from the sorely outdated food pyramid. What is not known by the residents is just how many chemicals and harmful additives are included in their meals. From what I could gather, the food is mostly cheap and highly processed as it likely is in every other Independent and Assisted Living facility. I very much doubt that the corporations who own such retirement centers scattered throughout the nation dictate that only organic and non-GMO ingredients are used in their food. This would be enormously costly, and I know of no corporation involved in elder care that does it.

The retirement facility that I work in provides a bakery and cookie store for the residents. The residents, of course, love it and I can understand why. Yet, I’m inclined to think that our well-intentioned sweet shop has only exacerbated the rates of dementia and Alzheimer among our residents. And believe me, almost every person living at our facility has some form of serious memory decline which sugar and grains only make worse when they are metabolized in the body. Not only are desserts offered on the lunch and dinner menus, but any resident entering or leaving the facility must pass by the bakery and cookie store. Few can resist the temptation to stop in and buy something sweet. In other words, the very thing that contributes to and exacerbates memory loss is constantly offered to the elderly residents. I doubt that any of them have been told by their physicians that completely eliminating sugar, high fructose corn syrup and grains from one’s diet has, in many reported cases, gradually caused their memories to improve over time. This is why some have referred to Alzheimer’s as Type-3 diabetes. It all depends, of course, on just how bad one’s dementia is but studies have shown marked improvement in memory when sugar is totally eliminated.

It’s not just the residents who are uninformed as to proper nutrition, but so are the greater numbers of doctors. Doctors in medical school are usually given one or two courses on nutrition, and that’s about it. And what little they do teach to their students is based on what the nutritional establishment thinks is a healthy diet which is largely wrong and outdated. This is government advice, the kind we probably don’t want or need.

The medical establishment places little importance on one’s diet as the source of so many health complications. This explains why most doctors during a routine checkup rarely inquire as to what their patients eat on a regular basis. The doctor has not been trained to think in this way, and so he assumes that diet plays little role in one’s overall health. It’s completely irrational and unscientific, and yet this is the way they think. Their entire paradigm is out of whack. It’s like bringing your car to a mechanic because the engine stalls and sputters and him telling you not to worry about what you put into the gas tank because fuel doesn’t really matter in the overall health of one’s car!?

Strangely, humans are the only species on earth that’s confused about what they should eat. One doesn’t find this in the animal world. Much of this confusion in the U.S. is the direct result of decades-long propaganda by the food corporations. They have manipulated us to consume highly refined franken-foods that are not really foods at all. These same food manufacturers have bribed government officials to look the other way when harmful ingredients are added to their products. They also contribute huge sums of money to hospitals and medical schools which, in turn, influences how these same institutions address the subject of processed carbohydrates, refined sugars, and seed oils.

Our universities and medical schools have in their own way contributed to the obesity epidemic in America by the sin of omission, and by publishing studies that were observational in nature and not based on rigorous scientific inquiry. This is the problem when food corporations are allowed to donate large sums of money to medical schools because it essentially guarantees that they will tread lightly when it comes to warning the American consumer about the health dangers of certain foods and ingredients. The concluding data might also be doctored in order to fit prior assumptions, or to not upset the lucrative gravy train that large corporate donors provide (see Dr. Malcolm Kendrik, Doctoring the Data [Columbus Publishing Ltd, 2015]).

The elderly that I’ve had discussions with seemed to have no awareness that part of the reason they’re required to take so many prescriptions is because of decades of a poor diet — namely, the standard American diet that’s heavy on highly processed food that’s been enriched with chemicals most people can’t pronounce, additives, artificial coloring, emulsifiers, preservatives, excessive carbohydrates and seed oils, refined sugars, and ingredients that cause inflammation and weight gain. Decades of eating such chemically laden slop invariably creates a host of health problems, such as diabetes, chronic kidney disease, heart disease, and different metabolic and autoimmune issues, including various forms of cancer.

The elderly who have shared with me their health concerns have been shocked when I’ve told them that Type-2 diabetes can be reversed and that life-long medication for it is unnecessary because diet alone can rectify the problem. Others have told me that they’re content with receiving medication for insulin resistance because it allows them to continue eating sweets. This is the kind of thing only an addict would say. How strange it is that many persons have little interest in ending their ailments when lifestyle and dietary changes are required.

The common assumption seems to be that taking multiple prescriptions is all part of getting older. Yet, I’m not so sure that this is true or has to be the case. There are, in fact, many people who have avoided medication in their older years by simply watching what they eat, consuming only nutrient dense foods, avoiding sugar, and engaging in regular exercise.

Lastly, almost all of the residents faithfully line up to receive their seasonal flu immunizations, including their Covid shot and boosters. This too, in my view, is a reflection of their complete trust in the medical establishment and by extension the federal government itself. I doubt any of them would believe me if I told them that the Covid pandemic was largely a scam and a diabolical effort by our government to gain total control over the American people. They would probably scoff at the idea that the Covid ‘vaccine’ was foolishly rushed and did not go through the rigorous testing procedures and allotted time that all other vaccines are required to endure. The ‘vaccine’ also proved to be ineffective and even dangerous for many people who mindlessly took the jab thinking the pharmaceutical companies could be trusted.

Moreover, there seems to be little awareness or suspicion among most people, elderly or not, that allowing oneself to be injected with vaccines containing strange concoctions of chemicals might not be all that healthy as we’re repeatedly told by Big Pharma. I can only hope that the following generations of Americans will not be so trusting of their physicians and of the medical industrial complex.

Mentally Unstable Democrat Politician Sterilises Herself to Gain Attention and Praise

/7 Comments/in , /by

Someone got in touch with me last week to tell me that every prediction I’d made in my book Woke Eugenics: How Social Justice is a Mask for Social Darwinism had come true. The reason? A fertile, female, Democrat member of the Michigan House of Representatives had announced that she had sterilised herself in response to Donald Trump being re-elected as president.

The Narcissistic Laurie Pohutsky Posing with Her Favourite Colors

‘My argument in Woke Eugenics was that mutants have taken over Western culture and duly push people in a maladaptive direction. This acts as selection pressure in favour of those who are genetically conservative, meaning that they, and their healthy genes, will be the future. However, the death cult of Woke — where you must resign from the gene pool for the sake of the environment, for example — will also suck in certain psychological types who may be only slightly mutated.

This is what we are seeing with Laurie Pohutsky, the Michigan House of Representatives’ member for the 17th District. Her sterilisation in itself, however, is not an example of “Woke Eugenics” in action. That is exemplified in the fact that, despite being married, she is childless at 36. The sterilisation is indicative, instead, of the kind of personality type that gets sucked into extreme Wokeness.

Laurie Pohutsky, who has strongly campaigned in favour of “Trans Rights” including that the school shouldn’t have to tell parents if their child changes its “gender identity,” announced at a rally on the steps of Michigan state capitol that: “I underwent surgery to ensure that I never have to navigate a pregnancy in Donald Trump’s America.” She claimed to have done this because Trump’s election meant that she was, consequently, uncertain about whether she’d be able to access contraception in the future. I don’t think there’s any question of Republicans banning condoms, the coil or the pill, so we can only assume that “contraception” is a euphemism for “abortion.” It, perhaps, says rather a lot about Pohusky’s attitude to human life that she should, on some level, regard abortion as a form of contraception.

It’s also rather hysterical. When the federal right to abortion was over-turned, the State of Michigan immediately passed a law guaranteeing access to abortion. Pohutsky seems to hold to the paranoid belief that Trump will somehow pass a nationwide ban on abortion. I find it hard to accept that she genuinely believes this. Moreover, Trump will only be president for four years, so why get sterilised at all? The implication is that she is convinced that Trump will institute some kind of, from her perspective, “extreme right-wing dictatorship.”

But, in a sense, this is all irrelevant. Pohutsky is married and is 36 years-old. Realistically, if she was going to have children, if she wanted to have children, she’d have had them by now. Her husband, who is also a political activist, has publicly supported what she’s done. Clearly, he’s not too fussed about having children either. Laurie Pohutsky is also openly bisexual. Indeed, she told reporters that she and her husband, who are both extremely busy with all manner of left-wing campaigning, had decided against having children.

Pohutsky’s Husband, Nathan Triplett, President of the Michigan ACLU.
[Pohutsky:] “I said, ‘I’m sorry, I guess maybe I should have not said this.’”
[Triplett:] “He stopped me, and he said, ‘No, you said exactly what you needed to say. I know why you said it.’”

It is this decision, therefore, that is the example of “Woke Eugenics,” not Pohutsky’s actual sterilisation. Having imbibed the feminist idea that males and females are somehow equal and must both work, she has placed her career well above passing on her genes. Having absorbed the Woke idea that conservatives will destroy the various “marginalised” minorities with whom she identifies, she has put political campaigning above replicating herself. Being hyper-individualistic and self-centred, as we will see, she probably lacks the desire to nurture a baby. They do, after all, make you think about somebody other than yourself. Being highly mentally unstable and so regarding herself as “marginalised,” she identifies with other “marginalised” groups and puts fighting for them above passing on her genes.

Why? Studies have indicated that the moral circle of leftists is very different from that of conservatives. On average, conservatives are group-oriented — they care about the genetic groups to which they belong — so the world becomes a series of circles around self. You love your family more than your kin, your kin more than your ethny, your ethny more than your race, your race more than species, and so on.

And Pohutsky is not alone:

While Republican colleagues of Ms Pohutsky’s in the Michigan legislature have posted snarky comments about her online, several women have reached out in the past 24 hours “sort of relieved to hear somebody else say what they had felt… and what had led them to make their decision around, you know, a surgical option.”

“I was hoping that if there were people who were concerned or sort of on the fence or, you know, just hadn’t heard anybody say, yes, ‘I’ve been there too. This is okay for you to make this decision.’”

Some of those women said they were now calling their doctors to book their own sterilisation.

“So I guess in that regard, it did what I wanted it to do.”

But even for those who do decide to permanently render themselves infertile, finding an appointment may not be easy.

One woman told her that she was unable to book a consultation as “so many people are trying” after Mr Trump’s victory.

Liberals combine being mentally unstable with being individualists; they are adapted to an unpredictable environment in which they are out for themselves. Being Neurotic (high in negative feelings), they fear a fair fight, so they virtue-signal their supposed kindness in order to manipulate their way into power over their group, which they wish to control because they are paranoid. They identify, in terms of their moral circle, with people who are genetically distant from self. This identification allows them to collaborate with outsiders in order to attain power over their own group. Thus, Democrat Whites will care more about Blacks than about other Whites.

It is this underlying mental instability which gives us the real insight into Pohutsky’s psychology. One of the ways you deal with being Neurotic is to adopt a Narcissistic “false self” in which tell yourself that you are perfect, unique and, of course, you are entitled. This latter trait reflects the low Agreeableness that is found in both Narcissism and leftism. In an unstable ecology, you could be wiped out at any time; co-operation may not be repaid.  Studies that I explore in Woke Eugenics have shown that Narcissism is correlated with being Woke. You crave Narcissistic supply — being told that you really are wonderful. How do you get this? In a leftist culture, you competitively signal how left-wing you are and people praise you accordingly. This runaway Wokeness can reach a point, naturally, where you declare your commitment in very extreme ways, such as stating, “I will leave America” or “I will sterilise myself.” This Woke ostentatiousness also reassures you, to yourself, that you really are morally superior and just plain perfect.

Of course, if one digs beneath the surface, such declarations are often hollow. The Hollywood actress does not actually move abroad, or, if she does, it’s not very difficult for her because she’s extremely rich and likely has property around the world. The Democrat politician, who has presumably been successfully using contraception throughout her marriage, likely has more money stashed away than if she had children, and she had decided not to have children anyway, so the sterilisation is purely symbolic. In reality, with Pohutsky, what we are seeing is something closely related to Narcissism; Histrionic Personality Disorder. Such people, usually women (80% of sufferers are female), are theatrical, flirtatious, have an excessive need for attention and have a profound desire for approval.

The headline about Pohutsky in the UK’s Daily Telegraph was “I’m a Democrat politician. This is why I sterilised myself after Trump’s election.” Such a headline simply plays into her Histrionic Narcissism. A more accurate headline would be “Histrionic Narcissistic Democrat, Who Doesn’t Want Children Anyway, Sterilises Herself to Gain Attention and Narcissistic Reinforcement.” But, certainly, her resignation from the gene pool, quite independent of the vain sterilisation, would be a prime example of “Woke Eugenics.” Liberals are born traitors and are (relative to conservatives) mentally and physically ill, liberalism is significantly genetic, and liberals are gradually removing themselves from the gene pool. . . . Let us not stand in their way.

On the Possibility of a New Elite

/32 Comments/in , /by

I am perhaps best known for documenting a hostile, highly influential Jewish elite in the U.S. and really throughout the West. But I think things are changing in a good direction. With some important exceptions.

Jews ascended to the heights of American society in several stages. In the early twentieth century they were important enough to get on Henry Ford’s radar. Ford noted their prominence in a variety of fields and their hostility to Christianity — see  my discussion of Henry Ford’s The International Jew published from1920 to 1922. Jews also had prominent roles in FDR’s administration, but it wasn’t until after World War II that anti-Jewish attitudes basically disappeared and they really entered the mainstream. Jews then led the 1960s counter-cultural revolution and became a dominant elite in the 1960s, deeply involved in the passage of the 1965 immigration law that eventually radically transformed the country, as well as civil rights legislation and the general ascent of the left to a position of dominance in American culture. Jewish ascendency was accompanied by the decline and eventual eclipse of the previously dominant WASP east-coast establishment.

The main sources of Jewish power since the 1960s have been: 1.) their ownership of media and their creation of media content as writers and producers; 2) their wealth and willingness to contribute to political causes—funding political candidates and establishing nonprofit organizations and lobbying groups able to influence public policy; 3.) their domination of academic culture, ultimately due to their influence in elite universities and trickling down to lower-tier universities and eventually the K-12 educational system.

Is this Jewish power structure still in place? Yes, but there appear to be important changes.

Media. When I was growing up (a VERY long time ago), there were three TV networks, all owned by Jews (CBS, ABC, NBC). These networks are still owned by Jews and the New York Times is still Jewish and reflects of the mainstream liberal-left Jewish community. But fewer and fewer people care.

If the 2024 election shows anything, it’s that the legacy mainstream media is distrusted more than ever and has been effectively replaced among wide swaths of voters, especially young voters, by alternative media, particularly podcasts and social media. Joe Rogan, a former liberal (wasn’t everyone?) has become increasingly conservative and Tucker Carlson has pushed the boundaries of conservative thinking, such as his interview with Darryl Cooper questioning the sacrosanct World War II narrative and his interview with Curt Mills that touches on the neocons and America’s disastrous wars in the Middle East. Another former liberal, Elon Musk, is gleefully taking a sledge hammer to the entrenched, overwhelmingly Democrat-leaning federal bureaucracy.

Just recently, Trump’s Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth evicted The New York Times, NPR, NBC, and Politico from their Pentagon offices to make room for One America News Network, The New York Post, Breitbart News Network, and HuffPo (which did not ask for representation). All of the ones replaced are decidedly on the left and replacements are conservative except HuffPo. None can be considered legacy media.

Thomas Edsall in the NYTimes has noted that “While both Democrats and Republicans have abandoned newspapers in growing numbers, … the drop among Republicans accelerated much faster than it did for Democrats in 2016, the year Trump first ran for president.”

Bottom line: Newspapers are a key source of information for Democrats but not Republicans.

Of course, a problem is that conservative media is slavishly pro-Israel even as they typically oppose liberal-left domestic political policies favored by the mainstream Jewish community, such as:

  1. promoting high levels of legal non-White immigration, enabling illegal immigration, and stopping deporting illegals because they see them as future voters for the liberal left and diluting the power of White Americans;
  2. promoting so-called hate speech laws and other attempts to rein in free speech on racial/ethnic issues, including especially criticisms of Israel;
  3. advocating easy access to abortion, transgenderism, gay rights, etc.

Jews typically vote overwhelmingly Democrat and basically fund the Democratic Party. In the 2024 election they voted 71–79 percent for Harris, thus supporting the liberal-far left policies favored by the Harris campaign. Even though there was some shift to more conservative voting among groups of Jews, they are still on the left when it comes to domestic issues.

Jewish neocons were a long-time fixture in the GOP but bailed with the rise of Trump because of his professed distaste for foreign wars and likely because of Trump’s stated views on immigration and multiculturalism. Predictably, the neocons seamlessly defected to the Democrats where their liberal-left views on domestic policy fit right in. While in the GOP, they moved the party to the left on social issues while promoting pro-Israel wars in the Middle East and now the Ukraine war against Russia. Conservative media by and large support Trump (he “just keeps on winning”), and are thus anathema to most Jews.

The point being that even though conservative media is obsessively pro-Israel, it opposes the attitudes and policies of the mainstream liberal-left Jewish community on domestic policy. The legacy media, a main power bases of the mainstream liberal-left Jewish community, appears to be in terminal decline.

The rise of alternative media is critical. Under Elon Musk, X is clearly open to conservative  views, and indeed, when I go on there, all I see are conservative and even anti-Jewish posts (e.g., by @NickJFuentes and Ye, although I notice Ye’s recent posts appear to have been removed or limited). I recently returned to X under my real name (@realKevinMacDonald) and so far, nothing has happened. X has become a right-leaning media outlet that attracts young people and many others who reject the legacy media—during the run-up to the election it was great entertainment to see the replies to posts by the Harris campaign.

Funding the Left. What about funding the left? Jewish financial clout is certainly still in place, but we are seeing the rise of a very wealthy class of non-Jewish billionaires, prototypically Elon Musk (who reportedly gave Trump’s campaign north of $290 million). Wealthy non-Jews are thus quite willing and able to finance a competitive campaign like Trump’s. In a previous article I cited a survey showing that as of August, 2024, 21 of the top 25 donors to Trump were not Jews—not including Musk. Overall, Democrats ($880 million) spent about twice as much as Republicans ($445 million) on the 2024 presidential election, showing the Jews remain ready and willing to fund the left. But the Trump campaign certainly had enough money to run a credible campaign and even win despite the deluge of hate emanating from the legacy media.

Jewish money is thus not necessary to win, especially if the richest man in the world is on board. Even if Musk gave $300 million, it’s less than 1 percent of his wealth. Indeed, Musk could finance a presidential campaign all by himself—$1 billion would be more than even the Democrats spent on the 2024 presidential campaign, but Musk could easily afford that. As the Jews have known forever, money is power.

All this wealth supporting Trump 2.0  was apparent at Trump’s inauguration:

Here were America’s tech tycoons, members of his court, in a pantheon at his second Inaugural Address, directly across from the former presidents and in front of Trump’s presumptive cabinet. Many members of Congress, the actual elected government, were relegated to the cheaper seats.

The men who control Americans’, eyeballs and, often, emotions got the choicest seats; several have scarfed up big mansions in Washington to be closer to the Oval.

Elon Musk sat behind the vice president’s mother, pumping his arms and giving two thumbs-up when Trump said he’d put an American flag on Mars, where Musk wants to die (just not on impact).

Google’s Sundar Pichai was near Don Jr. and next to Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez, who were near Ivanka and Jared. Shou Zi Chew, the TikTok C.E.O., sat next to Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s intended director of national intelligence. Tim Cook of Apple was close to Barron Trump. Sam Altman, the head of OpenAI, was also at the inaugural but — perhaps because of his legal duel with Elon — was in the overflow room with Ron DeSantis, Eric Adams and Conor McGregor.

Most of these tycoons are likely just following the power, but this is a huge change from the 2017 inauguration and suggests that they are quite comfortable with the sea changes the Trump is pursuing.

Academia. And then there’s the university—definitely the hardest nut to crack because hiring is rigorously policed to make sure that new faculty and administrators are on the left. Academics who get out of line can expect a lifetime of harassment and hostility, and if they don’t have tenure, they will certainly be fired no matter how good their teaching and scholarship are.

As in other areas, Jews ascended the heights of the academic world after World War II and especially during the 1960s. Once they achieved prominence, they promoted the expansion of departments essentially composed of activists of the left, such as gender studies and various ethnic studies departments for Blacks, Latinos, Asians, Jews, etc., thus expanding the liberal arts faculty and creating a critical mass of leftist activists. This structure is still in place.

Since the Israeli war in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon and Syria, there have been a great many protests on campus, but Jewish power has put a rather quick end to that (see “Massive Decline in Protests from Spring to Fall, 2024”): “The policies ranged from banning the erection of tents on campus grounds to limiting the times and places where students are allowed to hold demonstrations. While free speech experts agree that some time, place and manner restrictions are acceptable, they have branded some policy changes unconstitutional.” At UCLA, pro-Israel thugs were allowed to run amok among protesters while the police stood by. Ron Unz:

Even worse scenes took place at UCLA as an encampment of peaceful protesters was violently attacked and beaten by a mob of pro-Israel thugs having no university connection but armed with bars, clubs, and fireworks, resulting in some serious injuries. A professor of History described her outrage as the nearby police stood aside and did nothing while UCLA students were attacked by outsiders, then arrested some 200 of the former. According to local journalists, the violent mob had been organized and paid by pro-Israel billionaire Bill Ackman.

Obviously, these restrictions are a far cry from university responses to the BLM riots.

As Unz noted,

I’d think that most of these students were absolutely stunned at such reactions. For decades, they and their predecessors had freely protested on a wide range of political causes without ever encountering even a sliver of such vicious retaliation, let alone an organized campaign that quickly forced the resignation of two of the Ivy League presidents who had allowed their protests. Some of their student organizations were immediately banned and the future careers of the protesters were harshly threatened, but the horrifying images from Gaza continued to reach their smartphones. As Jonathan Greenblatt of the ADL had previously explained in a leaked phone call, “We have a major TikTok problem.”

So, yes, Jewish power in academia is alive and well.

The Trump administration is pushing back on the academic left but not against Jewish power in the universities, proposing to deport foreign students and professors involved in anti-Israel protests: “The new attorney general, Pam Bondi, created a task force to prosecute antisemitic acts, including on college campuses. The president’s order singles out last year’s university protests against Israel’s war in Gaza, which it says unleashed a barrage of discrimination against Jewish students. The order targets international students who participated in those protests with deportation.”

There is also a campaign to end DEI at universities. Christopher Rufo, interviewed by Jewish activist and New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg,  stated: “‘If you have the full weight of the White House, the full weight of the Department of Education and a platoon of right-wing lawyers trying to use all of the statutory and executive authority that they have to reshape higher education, I think it could be a thing of tremendous beauty.’ Rufo wants to get rid of DEI in higher education and stop the practice the “‘rampant’ discrimination against white, Jewish and Asian students and faculty members, particularly through D.E.I. programs, which aim to boost the representation of groups deemed underprivileged.”

Trump’s attitude on foreign student protesters will put a further chill into what has already been happening with anti-Israel protests. But fighting DEI at universities will be an uphill struggle against an academic establishment that has devoted huge amounts of money and hired thousands of bureaucrats to administer DEI programs and will likely find ways to continue it even if it is legally prohibited, as they have with affirmative action admissions.

However, of the three main sources of Jewish power, academic influence is least important. Students will notice that DEI jobs are drying up and that spouting and living the old leftist political clichés is not a good route to social and career success. Women in particular are likely to shift political preferences when they see a shift in the status hierarchy, but men will also change their attitudes as they try to advance in the new hierarchy.

*   *   *

Conclusion: There is a real possibility of the rise of an essentially non-Jewish elite centered outside the traditional legacy media and with the financial resources able to mount successful political campaigns and fund compatible NGOs. Whether this could develop into an anti-Jewish elite is a completely different question—unlikely for the foreseeable future because of the deep personal ties and business relationships among elite Jews and non-Jews. Nevertheless, as noted, the domestic policies of the Trump administration for the most part depart dramatically from policies long favored by the mainstream liberal-left Jewish community. Already we see numerous Jewish organizations protesting any end to DEI or the deportations.

Although the present situation is in flux, it is quite possible that in the future the new elite described here could become far more than a possibility. This new elite may realize that Jewish support and Jewish power in American politics is not what it was and that there is no real need to support the policies favored by the mainstream Jewish community. Indeed, this may have already happened—with the important exception of pro-Israel attitudes that also appeal to some sections of the Republican base (e.g., knee-jerk support of Israel by mainstream conservatives and Evangelicals). Some parts of this new elite may be well aware of the role Jews have played in erecting the multicultural disaster that America has become—a position that was common on the American right for decades, at least until neocons pushed out traditional conservatives during the Reagan administration (here,  pp. 16 and 26) and William Buckley purged the conservative movement of critics of Jewish influence. And they may be well aware that the slavish support that America has  given Israel has been enormously costly in terms of lives and treasure without really serving American interests.

Musk is a good example. From a November 1, 2024 article:

Musk is increasingly off the reservation in his tweets: “The damage was done,” [holocaust activist] Deborah Lipstadt remarked about a Musk post on X. “The endorsement of the Great Replacement theory was very harmful.” Lipstadt added that she disapproved of what she saw as any attempt to “mitigate” Musk’s earlier tweet, without criticizing ADL head Jonathan Greenblatt directly. “You can try to mitigate, but once you open the pillow, it’s like chasing the feathers,” she said.

Musk was replying to a user who wrote, “Jewish communities have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them. I’m deeply disinterested in giving the tiniest s— now about western Jewish populations coming to the disturbing realization that those hordes of minorities [they] support flooding their country don’t exactly like them too much.”

Musk responded, “You have said the actual truth.”

Greenblatt joined a loud chorus in condemning that post. Other Jewish groups, including the American Jewish Committee, harshly condemned it. Later in the same thread, Musk went after the ADL itself, saying the group “push[es] de facto anti-white racism.” He apologized for a lot of this and made the mandatory visits to Auschwitz and Israel, but it’s hard to believe that he now rejects these ideas.

As always, I am an optimist. I think that a lot of the figures on the right are quite aware of the deleterious effects of Jewish power and influence on the formerly dominant White America. And as I noted, “it’s hard to believe that [Musk] now rejects these ideas.”

And it’s hard to believe that Jews are able to retain their position as paragons of tolerance and virtue in view of Israeli actions in Gaza and the support these actions have received by the American Jewish community.

We can take our country back.

Piranha Patel and the Highway to Hell: Why More and More Jews Support Donald Trump’s Politics of Hate

/10 Comments/in , /by

“Pretty Vacant” is a song by the Sex Pistols. It inspired the Guardian columnist John Crace to invent the nickname “Priti Vacant” for the politician Priti Patel (born 1972), an Indian Hindu woman who’s high in the British Conservative party. Crace thinks she’s stupid. Apart from our shared passion for the mighty Spurs, I don’t agree on much with John Crace. But he’s right about Priti Patel. She is indeed stupid. You can see her stupidity very clearly in a video that has — we must all hope — hammered a further nail into the electoral coffin of the Tory party.

Priti Vacant on Never Mind the Ballots

On a right-wing podcast called Never Mind the Ballots, Patel was asked to apologize for the way the Tories promised again and again to reduce immigration, then proceeded to massively increase it. She refused to do so, despite the glaring fact of Tory betrayal. In 2019 the part-Jewish Friend of Israel Boris Johnson won a landslide majority with the votes of working-class Whites, former Labour supporters who naïvely believed his promises about lowering immigration. Johnson rewarded those Whites for their trust not by doubling or tripling immigration, but by quadrupling it. If justice is done, he will one day be hanged or receive a life-sentence for that brazen betrayal.

Piranha Patel tells stupid lies on migration to right-wing voters

So will the other traitors in his government, prominent amongst them a certain vacant dindu Hindu. As Patrick Flynn pointed out in the Spectator: “Johnson’s chief lieutenant in creating the highest immigration levels ever was Priti Patel, his loyal home secretary who ushered in a series of liberalising measures in direct contravention of the manifesto promise and broader commitments made during the 2016 EU referendum campaign.” But Patel didn’t merely refuse to apologize for the way the Tories sent Britain zooming down the highway towards a Third-World Hell of crime, corruption and chaos. No, she managed to suggest that it was the Tories who were owed an apology for being criticized. She claimed that, under her guidance, Britain had imported “the brightest and the best.” In fact, Britain had imported masses of unskilled workers from the corrupt, violent and disease-ridden Third World.

Third-World Flood: how fake Labour and fake Conservatives betrayed White voters on immigration

Until they are deported, those workers — and their even more numerous dependants, whom the Tories also welcomed in — will be a permanent burden on Britain’s economy and public services, never a benefit to them. But Patel’s claim about “the brightest and the best” was worse than simply a lie: it was a blatant and easily refuted lie. Unlike a typical Western politician, Patel didn’t train as a lawyer and so she can’t slime and slither her way successfully through a difficult interview.

Hormonal Harpies: Priti Patel and three other high-T Western fem-pols (Nancy Faeser, Julia Klöckner and Mary Butler)

As John Crace says: she’s stupid. So how did she rise to join the elite of the Tory party? John Crace could never explain that, because he would have to discuss two heretical topics, namely, HBD (Human Biological Diversity) and Jewish control of British politics. First of all, although Patel is an atypical politician in not being a lawyer, she is a typical politician in another way. Or she’s a typical female politician at least. Her brain and personality have been shaped by elevated levels of testosterone, as her massive, masculinized face clearly reveals. Accordingly, she has lots of ambition and aggression. Particularly aggression. Her own husband calls her “my personal piranha.” As Home Secretary, she was very good at two things: betraying White voters and bullying White civil servants.

Never Mind the Polaks

After all, White welfare doesn’t matter in British politics. Quite the opposite: politicians are rewarded for harming White welfare. But Patel’s very harsh and unpleasant personality melts most becomingly into servility and sycophancy when she deals with a group whose welfare most certainly does matter in British politics. And which group is that? You won’t need any guesses. As I described in “A Shameless Shabbos Shiksa” back in 2017, Patel did something remarkable when she served as International Development Secretary. She performed the goy grovel so gauchely and grotesquely that she had to resign from a government of grovelling goys. Serving Jewish interests is essential for any British gentile who wants to make it to the top of politics, but Patel made her servility too obvious. Accompanied by the very creepy-looking Lord Polak, a veteran director of Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI), she repeatedly had unauthorized and unrecorded meetings with important Israeli officials like Benjamin Netanyahu.

Powerful Polak’s pernicious punim: the official portrait of Stuart Polak, veteran director of Conservative Friends of Israel

The full extent of these meetings is still unknown. What was discussed at them isn’t known at all. But Patel wanted to become prime minister and knew that she couldn’t do it without being certified as kompletely kosher. Now, you can be sure that other Tories have done the same as Patel for the same reason. The difference is that she made her goy-grovel too obvious and had to resign. Compare the more intelligent Suella Braverman (born 1980), another Indian in the Tory elite who wanted to become prime minister. Unlike Patel but like the current Labour prime minister, Braverman trained as a lawyer and, like Keir Starmer again, is much better than Patel at being sly and slippery. This undoubtedly explains another parallel between Starmer and Braverman: they’ve both married Jews. So has Robert Jenrick (born 1982), another lawyer and another wannabe PM in the Shadow Cabinet of the Nigerian Kemi Badenoch, yet another energetic practitioner of the goy-grovel.

Kemi Badenoch performs the goy-grovel at Holocaust Central, Yad Vashem in Israel (image from Jewish News)

Unlike Piranha Patel, Jenrick refuses to defend the Tories’ record on immigration. Indeed, he resigned from Rishi Sunak’s government because, he claimed, Sunak wasn’t doing enough to defend Britain’s borders. The resignation was very interesting, because it showed that Jenrick has aligned himself with a key shift in Jewish thinking on Third-World migration. Whether or not he is Jewish or part-Jewish himself, as I strongly suspect, Jenrick is certainly married to a Jew and is obviously dedicated above all else to serving Jewish interests. He is funded by the Israeli billionaire Idan Ofer and has said that “the Star of David should be displayed at every point of entry to the UK to show” that “we stand with Israel.” That’s why Jews swarmed like wasps to his defence when a hate-thinker criticized his Semito-servility:

Jewish organisations have expressed outrage that a complaint made to the Conservative Party over the language used by a “repeat offender” former minister has been dismissed. Sir Alan Duncan, who served as foreign minister under Theresa May, had been the subject of an official complaint to the party after he said that Robert Jenrick, whose wife is Jewish and was born in Israel, took his “script” from “the Israelis”. …

In April this year [2024], Duncan was suspended by the Conservative Party for telling broadcaster Nick Ferrari on LBC that that pro-Israel group Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) “has been doing the bidding of [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu, bypassing all proper processes of government to exercise undue influence at the top of government”. In July, the JC revealed that he had his membership restored.

Reacting to the latest dismissal of the complaint against Duncan, the Jewish Leadership Council’s chief executive Claudia Mendoza revealed that the organisation had written to the party’s chairman to express concern about his language. She added: “We are deeply disturbed that yet another unacceptable remark has been made by Sir Alan without rebuke by the Conservative Party. His comments lean into centuries-old antisemitic tropes and should not be tolerated.” (“Outrage as Tories ignore Alan Duncan’s remarks on Israel,” The Jewish Chronicle, 18th December 2024)

Claudia Mendoza is using the fascinating new syllogism I explored in “Reality is Racist: Fighting Hate-Logic with Stereotype Denial.” The syllogism runs like this: If reality is racist, all decent people must reject reality. In this case, because the obvious reality of Jewish behavior conforms to negative stereotypes about Jewish behavior, we must reject the reality rather than accept confirmation of the stereotype. Jews want Alan Duncan punished and expelled from the Conservative party not because he is lying about CFI and Jenrick, but because he is speaking the truth. So why hasn’t he been punished and expelled? I’d suggest that the Tories don’t want to make Duncan into a martyr and shed even more unwelcome light on Jewish control of the party.

Hamas is a Gas

Be that as it may, Duncan is absolutely right to say that Robert Jenrick takes his “script” from “the Israelis” and is a slavish servant of Jewish interests. And yet Jenrick has also become an opponent of Third-World immigration. The shabbos goyim Boris Johnson and Priti Patel opened the borders even wider to the Third World under Jewish orders and with full Jewish approval. After all, Jews have long regarded non-Whites, and Muslims in particular, as “natural allies” against the traditionally Christian Whites whom they blame for millennia of unjustified persecution. But that was before the attack on Israel by Hamas in October 2023, which was loudly celebrated by Muslims and other non-Whites currently residing in the West. After watching Hamas-fans marching in cities like New York, London and Paris, some important Jews concluded that Jews need to end their traditional support for non-White immigration and for anti-White ideologies like Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI). That’s why the very philo-Semitic Donald Trump is actually trying to fulfil his election promises in his second term as president. He isn’t defending the welfare of Whites, he’s defending the welfare of Jews.

Robert Jenrick is a British representative of the same shift in Jewish thinking. Yes, it’s axiomatically good to harm Whites, but not if Jews are harmed too. As I pointed out at the Occidental Observer in 2019, the problem is that Muslims and other non-Whites regard Jews as “Hyper-Whites with Hyper-Privilege” and not as a fellow persecuted minority. Some leftist Jews, like the repulsive pseudo-comedian David Baddiel, think that the solution to this problem is to shriek ever louder that Jews are too a persecuted minority. But such shrieks aren’t convincing from rich and successful Jews like Baddiel. So other Jews have decided that the solution is to embrace hyper-whiteness and curtail uppity non-Whites by bringing hate-politicians like Donald Trump to power. That also explains the support given by Trump’s ally Elon Musk to the hate-politician Alice Weidel, the leader of Alternativ für Deutschland (AfD) in Germany.

“Badenoch Out, Jenrick In”

The very ambitious Robert Jenrick wants to ride the same Jewish support for hate-politics in Britain. I predicted at the Occidental Observer in October 2024 that, thanks to her energetic goy-grovelling, the Nigerian Kemi Badenoch would become leader of the Conservative party. I was right. Now I predict that Jenrick will sooner or later replace Badenoch as leader. After all, he’s convincing as an opponent of open borders. Badenoch isn’t. Like Piranha Patel, she whooped with glee as the Tories stamped pedal to the metal on the Highway to Third-World Hell. And she’s proving useless as Tory leader. Yes, she’s more intelligent than Piranha Patel, but it’s not difficult to be more intelligent than Patel. Unfortunately for her, she has more than high testosterone in common with the Piranha. Like Patel she didn’t train as a lawyer and so she’s been no match for the slippery lawyer Keir Starmer. All of this is why I predict “Badenoch Out, Jenrick In.”

Robert Jenrick performs the goy-grovel at Conservative Friends of Israel (image from CFI)

But even with Jenrick as leader, the Tories may not be able to overcome Nigel Farage and Reform, the British equivalents of Trump and MAGA in America or Weidel and the AfD in Germany. I think Farage is likelier to be Britain’s next prime minister than Jenrick. And much likelier than Badenoch. Hate-politicians like Trump, Weidel and Farage are rising all over the West. It would be very naïve to think that Trump and Company are rising despite Jewish power in Western politics and media, rather than because of it. But as Kevin MacDonald has pointed out: White nationalists should agree that a shabbos goy like Donald Trump is vastly preferable to a shabbos shiksa like Kamala Harris (also a lawyer and also married to a Jew). Yes, Jews would still prefer that Western nations were zooming down the Highway to Third-World Hell. It’s just that they’ve realized that Jews will be even less welcome there than Whites will be.

Tucker Interviews Curt Mills: Pushing the Envelop on Mainstream Conservative Foreign Policy

/2 Comments/in /by

This interview pushes the envelop on conservative views on the Middle East, neocons pushing America’s forever wars, the shamelessness of pro-Israel media, Trump’s relationship with Netanyahu (not good), the evangelicals at Fox News, and much else. My excerpt begins with their discussion of these issues. The entire interview is here.

One can only hope that Trump is influenced in this direction. His recent proposal on U.S. taking over Gaza (definitely not an America First idea) does not indicate that he is paying attention to the perspectives discussed here. However, Mills states:

But with the Hook and Pompeo removal from his inner circle, are there is, I think, very credible evidence that Trump’s personal grudges are now blending quite heavily with policy. He doesn’t trust the Iran Hawk old guard. A lot of the Iran Hawk old guard think tanks struck out in getting I transition officials and officials in this government and again circled around this very unlikely Pentagon. Helmed by a guy who has changed his life, it appears in pretty severe ways over the last five years, both ideologically and morally. It is this very new Pentagon that is now being targeted by all the usual suspects. And it is the biggest story in American politics that people are talking.

Tucker [01:11:35] So if I could sum up what I think you’re saying, it is that Donald Trump may have actually broken the grip of the neocons on Washington.’

However, Trump seems to be doubling down on this horrible idea:

Trump Digs In on Gaza Takeover and Palestinian Resettlement

Aides had sought to walk back the president’s proposal, which drew condemnations. Israel’s defense minister said its military would draft plans for Gazans who wished to leave.

…But the plan has evoked celebration on the Israeli far right, many of whom have long promoted what they call “voluntary emigration” as the solution to the conflict with the Palestinians.

Curt Mills bio:

Curt Mills is the Executive Director of The American Conservative, where he previously served as senior reporter and contributing editor. He specializes in foreign policy and campaign coverage and has worked at The National Interest, U.S. News & World Report, Washington Examiner, and the Spectator. His work has appeared in Politico, UnHerd, Newsweek and the Critic. He was a 2018-2019 Robert Novak Journalism fellow. Most recently, he was a consultant at a global macro hedge fund in Los Angeles.

Tucker [00:00:00] So it’s amazing to me that over 20 years after the Iraq war, its architects and supporters are still not fully in control of America’s foreign policy, but certainly influential in it. And it’s shocking to me that two months after Trump’s landslide victory. A race in which he ran against the neo cons. The neo cons are still brazen enough to try and influence and sabotage his nominations. We are days, but less than a week before Tulsi Gabbard hearings. Where are we in the below the radar war between permanent Washington’s national security establishment, the neocons, and the incoming Trump administration?

Curt Mills [00:01:00] I think it’s unclear. So as of this recording ten months ago, Mr. Hegseth, the defense secretary, was just confirmed on the 50 votes. Hegseth is an interesting character, I believe, a former colleague of yours. Yes. He appears to have done a bit of a conversion on his foreign policy beliefs. And the best evidence of that is the people that he’s picked so far. So his cadre is the people that will.

Tucker [00:01:25] Suppose what they’re so what you’re this is relevant to people who know Pete Hegseth from clips on X of him from eight years ago saying things that would lead you to believe. He’s a pretty stout neocon.

Curt Mills [00:01:38] Yeah.

Tucker [00:01:39] But okay, so that’s what you’re referring to?

Curt Mills [00:01:43]  I think the available evidence is that he is like a circa ten years ago was a pretty conventional Republican. Yes. And he has changed his life in more ways than one. Yeah. So he is a question mark. But the early evidence is the people that he has chosen to surround himself are stark departures from the man from ten years ago. And so that’s a big deal. And especially it is a big deal, especially in a place like the Pentagon. Yes. Which is hard to control.

Tucker [00:02:09] Yes. And wants no change under any circumstances except an annual increase in number of four star generals.

Curt Mills [00:02:15] It’s the largest bureaucracy on earth.

Tucker [00:02:16] It is. And it exists to serve itself. It’s got a pretty abysmal record of winning wars, a pretty great record of spending money. It desperately needs reform. And you’re saying that based on the personnel choices you think he’s making, he’s now the defense secretary, by the way, as well, right?

Curt Mills [00:02:32] Yes.

Tucker [00:02:34] That he is like sincerely on board with Trump’s foreign policy.

Curt Mills [00:02:38] Yeah. I mean, he did not need to make these picks. I don’t think he didn’t make these picks to get confirmed. I don’t think he needed this right to win any senators. He is courting, I think, minor controversy now, which is why we’re having this meeting. He did not need to do this. It was it was a move, conviction and belief and principle in his early days in office.

Tucker [00:03:03] So give us an example. Give us him what you’re talking about.

Curt Mills [00:03:06] Sure. There’s going to be this Michael Domino figure who will have the Middle East portfolio. He has been advised throughout the process by another figure named Daniel Coldwell. These are both, you know, people in their 40s or 30s, you know, basically the millennials.

Curt Mills [00:03:22] Yes.

Curt Mills [00:03:23] Who are veterans of the global war on terror. They’re very much in the.

Tucker [00:03:27] So they fought in that.

Curt Mills [00:03:29] Yeah, Dan did. Yeah. And Michael was a CIA agent. So, yeah. Yeah. I mean, it’s these that these are the guys that were hunting down IRGC, Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps people and the Forever wars that Trump and Vance ran on reforming and ending, etc., etc.. And so, you know, they’re very much in the Vance mold of we weren’t they’re not really sure what the point was. And we want to roll back from that somewhat. I think you might have heard this message from Mr. Trump every once or twice in the last ten years.

Tucker [00:04:05] So these I don’t know. Do we know? I know. I know. Caldwell, who I think of as a man of genuine integrity, high intelligence and principle committed to his country. I think he’s proven that.

Curt Mills [00:04:17] Yeah.

Tucker [00:04:18] I mean, honestly, he’s like a wonderful person, but he’s being attacked by people who never served with a long, unbroken track record of destroying America as somehow anti-American.

Curt Mills [00:04:31] Yeah. How does this work?

Curt Mills [00:04:32] Yeah, I mean, I think that the tactics are pretty clear. So. No one reads anything. Says the magazine. Yes, it reads. And you say, Yeah, yeah, okay, you’re right.

Curt Mills [00:04:49] Get a headline out there. Call someone a naughty word. Say they’re anti a country or they are radical. You know, if the anyone sues, this publication will take years and years and years and hope that some club member at Mar a Lago hands this to President Trump. Exactly. And tries to trick him and thinks that Mr. Trump is a stupid man. And this is the approach and this is what they were trying to do at six as a cyclone. I mean, the word has been abused by the.

Curt Mills [00:05:24] Republicans to me.

Curt Mills [00:05:25] Yes, But it is this is actual disinformation. Yes. I hate to use the word, but like what are the publications?

Tucker [00:05:32] Who were the people involved in this campaign of lies?

Curt Mills [00:05:35] Okay. I mean, I’m not familiar and I don’t know any of the people over there personally, but the big story that’s going around on both to me now and I believe Caldwell is from Jewish Insider. And again, no one really wants to be, you know, attacked by something called Jewish Insider. It doesn’t sound very fun. And so they are running headlines against people and they are attacking them. And they what they do is they don’t say anything that is, per se inaccurate, but they totally strip the context for everything.

Tucker [00:06:11] So what? Let’s go one by one. Do you know what you mean?

Curt Mills [00:06:16] Just by correspondence?

Tucker [00:06:17] Okay. And what’s your is this a radical figure, anti-American figure?

Curt Mills [00:06:22] No, this is this is somebody who who wants to pull back, I would say moderately from the Middle East, which I think at this point is basically bipartisan outside of the radicals within Washington, D.C. and the Beltway.

Tucker [00:06:37] Okay. I think that’s a fair assessment. So that the people who want to continue what we’re doing at unsustainable cost, being a bankrupt country, by the way, are sending aid to countries that are not bankrupt. Right. Those are the radicals, I think it’s fair to say. So what are they saying about Domino in this hit piece?

Curt Mills [00:06:55] They are trying to make the reader jump to the conclusion that he is anti-Israeli, that he is pro-Iranian.

Tucker [00:07:02] There’s pro-Iranian.

Curt Mills [00:07:03] Iranian. He is somehow pro radical Islam. You know, he’s he’s pro all the scary people.

Tucker [00:07:09] In radical Islam.

Curt Mills [00:07:10] Sure. Yeah, whatever. It doesn’t really matter. I don’t know the guy. It sounds kind of Catholic to me. Think they think, you.

Tucker [00:07:16] Know, a lot of Shiites called Domino or is that a common name for Persians?

Curt Mills [00:07:20] Not to my information. Okay. And again, I think it bears repeating that this person like was responsible for the tracking of Revolutionary Guard Corps members in Iran, essentially sent some of them to their death. So the whole thing has an opera buffet flavor to it that he’s being attacked as.

Tucker [00:07:37] So what you’re saying is these are people who will say anything. It doesn’t doesn’t matter. They’re kind of from the very white school of journalism, just like you have an objective, something you want to achieve. And whatever it takes to get there is fine. You will say it. It doesn’t doesn’t matter. You’ll call anybody anything if it if it serves your purpose.

Curt Mills [00:07:56] They are very, very willing to destroy this person with absolutely no compunction.

Tucker [00:08:02] Is there any evidence that he’s, quote, anti Israel?

Curt Mills [00:08:04] None.

Tucker [00:08:05] Right?

Curt Mills [00:08:06] None. And in fact, is evidence to the contrary, which he which he praises the the country.

Curt Mills [00:08:10] Yeah.

Curt Mills [00:08:12] So he is critical of aspects of the war.

Tucker [00:08:19] Be critical of other people’s wars. Yeah. Or your own wars. It’s okay to offer analysis of war.

Curt Mills [00:08:24] Or to even state that it’s not, In fact, our war as the president, the United States just did on his inauguration day, emphasizing from behind the Resolute desk. Right. That is their war, not our war.

Tucker [00:08:33] So I read something from a guy called David Wurmser, who was one of the architects of of of the Iraq war, not from this country, not really concerned with this country at all. And also, I think it’s fair to say, you know, someone who should hang his head in shame, given a lifetime of destruction that he’s helped bring to our country, but described these policies as anti-American. So, obviously, it takes a lot of balls for someone who has no interest in the United States to accuse someone whose whole orientation is helping the United States of being anti-American. But I’ve noticed this a lot. If you raise the question like, what are we getting out of this, you know, the endless war cycle. We’re getting bankruptcy, obviously, but like, is this good for us? They’ll accuse you. You know, the Constitution kids and also non-American will accuse that wing will accuse you of being somehow woke. And you’re like left wing for you asking these questions. Have you noticed this?

Curt Mills [00:09:30] Yeah. I mean, interesting that you raise some of these figures like we’re going to see all night.

Curt Mills [00:09:35] I’d like to. Hope.

Tucker [00:09:37] There’s no more repulsive group in American life than the people who continue to push death and bankruptcy on the United States. I think that’s fair.

Curt Mills [00:09:47] Can’t recover from death.

Tucker [00:09:48] No, you can’t.

Curt Mills [00:09:49] Yeah.

Curt Mills [00:09:50] So, I mean, I think that they’re hoping that Americans don’t do the reading, hoping or hoping that they’re hoping that Americans read ex-post. Yeah. They’re hoping that Americans watch random cable news hosts. That they’re zoned out and they hear they have, you know, let’s say they have a positive view of, you know, certain aspects of of America’s role in the Middle East. And they start tar and feathering people on the Internet and that there’s no push back on it. At the same time.

Tucker [00:10:25] I have noticed this is because it’s so over the top rather than look, I think a lot of these positions are legitimate. I disagree with them. You know, none of these people are smart people. I know almost all of them. Yeah. And they could make like a straightforward case for their position. Like, here’s why we should affect regime change in Iran or here’s why we should kill Putin. I mean, maybe there’s a case to be made for that, but they never make the case. They attack anyone who stands in their way in the most brutal and dishonest ways. They have no limits at all in their behavior at all. And I just find that repugnant and corrosive. Even if I agree with them. I’d be against that. Like, what is that?

Curt Mills [00:11:03] This is guerilla warfare. The win at any costs.

Tucker [00:11:06] Win at any costs. I know I’m jumping my eyes, I’m exercised. I just watch what’s happening to me called Steve Witkoff Dynasty Book Office. Okay. So he’s a friend of Trump’s. He’s a real estate guy from Newark. I happen to know him. Just four.

Curt Mills [00:11:19] Other people already know him.

Tucker [00:11:20] Pretty well. You know, just personally, I don’t know a ton about his views. I don’t sense that, you know, we probably don’t agree on foreign policy in some ways. But he was tasked by Trump, as you know, to go over, in effect, some kind of cease fire between Israel and Hamas. And he did. And I don’t he’s anti-Israel. In fact, I know he’s not. Whatever that means. And he’s being attacked as somehow an agent of the Islamic Republic of Qatar and like anti Israel. Steve itckoff.

Curt Mills [00:11:53] Yeah.

Tucker [00:11:54] And I happen to really like Steve along for the key. So just like a great guy actually. And he’s really tough and good guy. If you had dinner with him, you’d like him, trust me. But I’m just blown away by the dishonesty rather than, say, hasty work off like I disagree with you or whatever. It’s. He’s working for Qatar.

Curt Mills [00:12:11] No. What? He’s from, like, Long Island. What are you talking about?

Curt Mills [00:12:16] This is the higher profile. I mean, I mean, they’re hoping, again, that that Trump has learned nothing. They insult the president.

Tucker [00:12:23] But these people are disgusting. They’re liars. And like, if there’s one thing the country said too much of is lying, let’s just stop lying. Let’s just be honest.

Curt Mills [00:12:30] I agree. Yes, I.

Curt Mills [00:12:31] Agree. We’ve been corrupted.

Curt Mills [00:12:32] By lies.

Tucker [00:12:32] Completely. The country is about to collapse because of lies, and the people pushing endless war are one of the main vectors for that lying. Like because there’s just no reference point in reality at all. If Steve Witkoff is an agent of the Islamic Republic, then I just give up. Do you really.

Curt Mills [00:12:51] Mean. Yeah. No. Okay. Sorry. Lecture room.

Curt Mills [00:12:55] No, no, no, no. I mean, the work, I think, in some ways is what set the whole thing off. Right, Right. Most reasonable.

Tucker [00:13:02] Moderate person in the world. No, he’s not anti-Israel. He’s just tough.

Curt Mills [00:13:07] I think the work, I think, surprised both sides, though. I would note so. I think so. Obviously you knew him before. Yeah, it was in recent years. Okay. So I think in general, the open source intelligence to use a lame term, but like that I would say, is that the hawks, people who want to say go all the way on Iran did not expect Witkoff to be so pragmatic. And then additionally the realist and restraint camp also did not expect it. They did not accept all the all the reporting from, say, Israeli media, say, Haaretz or Times of Israel. Their work off went in there and sort of with both the incoming Trump administration and, you know, the remnants of the of the Biden administration for Prime Minister Netanyahu into some sort of deal, a deal that he had turned down six months ago in May of 2024, basically identical deal that threw most everybody in the loop for loop. And that has set off, as far as I can infer, a climate of hysteria within Israel itself, at least among the I’m not sure, Sir Netanyahu himself, but at least within the factions of his cabinet that are hard line as hell.

Curt Mills [00:14:23] Okay.

Tucker [00:14:23] So they disagree. You know, they’ve had to give a little. Everyone does in. All I’m saying is when you reach an agreement, everyone gets pinched because that’s just the nature of it.

Curt Mills [00:14:39] Right.

Tucker [00:14:40] And no one likes it, you know, But like tough. That’s what it is. And my read on Witkoff is that he’s just not super ideological. I think he’s pro-Israel. You know, it wouldn’t even question that, but I don’t think he’s an ideologue. He’s a he’s a self-made real estate guy who started with like a single apartment building in Washington Heights. He’s a tough human being.

Curt Mills [00:15:03] Yeah.

Tucker [00:15:04] And I think you need someone who’s practical and tough to affect a negotiation. You don’t want someone who’s captive to all kinds of theories. Trump says, Hey, Witkoff, get a peace deal. You know, get a ceasefire in an intermediate peace deal, a first step toward one. Yeah. And we’re like, okay. And he just shows up and he’s like, Hey.

Curt Mills [00:15:20] You, you. Yeah, you like, that’s what you want, I think.

Curt Mills [00:15:26] I think a lot of Israel was surprised by this. I mean. I mean. I mean this was lost in the absolute cacophony of 2020, 24. Really. But yes, like if you read I read the Israeli press daily and, you know, there were members of Netanyahu’s coalition. So these are members of Prime Minister Netanyahu, people who are not in his party, who are more hardline than him. And they were saying Trump’s really talking about this endless war stuff. This might be a problem. And this was back in October and September and August, and no one was paying attention because it was Brett Summer. And, you know, other things were going on. But this was coming. And the fact that they got it done not even before, not even during the transition itself, also surprised people.

Tucker [00:16:15] And so I’m sensing inflated expectations here. This is a foreign country, obviously an ally, a close ally, the closest ally, I think it’s fair to say. But a separate country. And so, you know, I think realistic expectations would be we get some of what we want. We don’t get everything we want because, you know, we’re not in charge of the United States.

Curt Mills [00:16:35] But okay, there’s there’s a tension here. I mean, so first, the relationship between the president of the United States and the prime minister of Israel is extremely unclear.

Tucker [00:16:47] Yes.

Curt Mills [00:16:47] Yes.

Curt Mills [00:16:48] I don’t think maybe only the two of them, you know, they’ve they have disagreed since at least 2020 over the election, but they probably disagreed beforehand over strikes in Iran. The last time you and I spoke publicly was over the Soleimani strike in January of 2020. And there was since then, reporting in the last five years has come out that the two of them disagreed over that Trump felt that the Israelis didn’t do their part. ET cetera, etc., etc.. So for years, for at least half a decade, the well has been poisoned between Trump and Netanyahu. Doesn’t mean the relationship is done, but there has been an atmosphere of mistrust. And while he’s had that.

Tucker [00:17:33] You know, I’ve watched closely and, you know, interviewed him more than once and, you know, for many.

Curt Mills [00:17:39] Yeah.

Tucker [00:17:39] For, you know what Moving on. 30 years. Yeah. Because he’s been in out of office and he said complicated relations with every president, you know.

Curt Mills [00:17:47] Yeah. I mean I think I think the key thing to understand for your listeners anyway is not. Turning this off because we’re getting into the the depths of Israeli politics here. But Netanyahu’s situation is unstable.

Curt Mills [00:17:58] Yes.

Curt Mills [00:18:00] A simple majority of Israelis want him out. They want him to resign. He does not want to resign because he resigns. He may go to prison. Right. And also. He’s been a power achiever for 30 years. And yes, I’ve noticed that people who do that often don’t quit. I think that’s fair. Yeah. Okay. So he doesn’t quit for both reasons of his freedom and. Yeah. You know, just live his life.

Curt Mills [00:18:25] Yeah. Yes. Okay. So he.

Tucker [00:18:27] Recognizable syndrome?

Curt Mills [00:18:28] I would say Yes.

Tucker [00:18:29] Not confined to Bebe is international.

Curt Mills [00:18:31] Yes, it.

Curt Mills [00:18:31] Is. Okay. So how does he not quit? It’s pretty clear that spectacular circumstances justify his presence is very similar, actually. I mean, there’s been comparisons between him and Churchill. It’s actually fair. Only in wartime can someone like Netanyahu at this point get a position. I get it. The war has to go on. So what war? So they have basically a deal with Hezbollah. I think it’s not like I think that is by far the least likely that they’re going to go back in there. They’re basically two options. One, once all the hostages are exchanged and they go back into Gaza.

Curt Mills [00:19:10] Okay. Or I guess one be Yes. To do the West Bank, which is already going on right now. Or two. What do.

Tucker [00:19:18] You mean? Do the West Bank.

Curt Mills [00:19:20] Evade it and exit? I mean.

Tucker [00:19:23] What about the people who live there? Like what happens to them?

Curt Mills [00:19:25] But Israel’s problem.

Tucker [00:19:28] You’re in the West Bank. I mean, what are you doing there? What is the point of the operation? You know.

Curt Mills [00:19:32] To annex the territory and build developments. I mean, this is this is I mean and, you know, the unstated thing is that through either export, these people will eliminate them. And so it’s pretty terrifying stuff. It’s not light stuff. This is not a light interview. And so the problem is the U.S. is the military underwriter of this. The Israelis probably can’t do this without us selling them weapons. And so while Americans are tuned out and not thinking about this kind of thing, our reputation overseas is one of arms dealer. And over time, that affects your children being able to travel abroad, that affects America’s reputation overseas. It’s dicey stuff.

Tucker [00:20:16] What caused 911, among other things. Right. So, yeah, it has effects for sure.

Curt Mills [00:20:20] Yeah. Right.

Curt Mills [00:20:21] Option two, you know, is Iran. Yeah. Which is which is, as I’ll just quote and I’ll quote the the hard line perspective itself. Is the head of the snake and the conception of the Israeli hard line and also the neoconservative right in the United States. Sure. And so Israel also can’t do Iran, in my view, and also in general assessments without the help of the United States is usually joint US Israeli airstrikes. Or even a solo invasion of Iran by the United States is the ultimate sort of fantasy.

Tucker [00:20:57] I’m going to need more coffee to proceed because you’re blowing my mind. …

Curt Mills [00:22:02] Easy.

Tucker [00:22:26] I think it’s really significant that he’s not a professional foreign policy figure. He hasn’t spent a career at the State Department or negotiating or doing bilaterals for his career. You know, he’s just a smart, tough, competent person who was charged with the task by the president and he got it done. And maybe we need.

Curt Mills [00:22:49] More of that. I mean.

Tucker [00:22:51] You know, there are certain statecraft that, you know, probably helpful to have experience in statecraft, But but some of it’s just pretty straightforward.

Curt Mills [00:22:58] Yeah. You get a ceasefire. Okay.

Curt Mills [00:23:00] Yeah. No, no, no. I mean, I think there hasn’t.

Tucker [00:23:02] Been any one from the State Department have done what Steve Acuff did.

Curt Mills [00:23:04] Do you think?

Curt Mills [00:23:06] No, especially without the without the president’s.

Curt Mills [00:23:08] Format or not. Yeah.

Tucker [00:23:10] But even if Trump had, like, called someone in and been like, okay, Mr.. Career diplomat, can you effect a cease fire?

Curt Mills [00:23:16] It’d be like, well, it’s very complicated. You know, it’s what comes of.

Tucker [00:23:20] The cease fire stop.

Curt Mills [00:23:22] No, it’s the same. I mean. I mean I mean like they international relations has been made into. They have to make it into, like, a pseudo science. Like.

Curt Mills [00:23:30] Exactly. Yeah. Smart. Exactly. Just like everything else. Yeah. Just like everything. Like journalism or. Yeah.

Tucker [00:23:37] Even education. But you can’t teach third grade without a master’s degree.

Curt Mills [00:23:41] Are you kidding? Yeah. So it’s just new. The second requirement is.

Tucker [00:23:43] Do you like third graders?

Curt Mills [00:23:44] Is nothing to do with your master’s degree.

Tucker [00:23:46] The whole thing is it’s absurd.

Curt Mills [00:23:48] Yeah.

Curt Mills [00:23:48] And then, you know, it’s the same thing of. Of academia, which is like people’s theses are increasingly more baroque and like nobody actually just.

Curt Mills [00:23:55] Mr. Obituary.

Curt Mills [00:23:56] Large things like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or at least know it in a way that is applicable in power in real life. And I mean maybe things are changing now, but like also a lot of the foreign policy establishment, it’s different now in the second term but wouldn’t work at the first Trump term, wouldn’t work with their team. And I think that was to discredited the country. I think I think that was I think that did not serve the country well.

Tucker [00:24:22] Of course it didn’t serve the country well. We know the country hasn’t been served because look at the country. And so I think, you know, we can say of all players, they didn’t serve the country and include the media. And there have been times when I didn’t serve the country, like when I advocated for the Iraq war. I mean, we’re all culpable to some extent. But it’s just remarkable to me that people are continuing it. So now instead of telling us that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction or that Osama bin Laden attacked us for our freedoms or whatever the lie of the day was, the new idea is that Iran is, quote, the head of the snake. How many Americans have been killed by Iranian proxies in the United States over the last 20 years? Do you think.

Curt Mills [00:25:00] How many Americans in the United States.

Tucker [00:25:02] Have been killed by Iran sponsored.

Curt Mills [00:25:04] Terrorist? Zero.

Tucker [00:25:05] Right. Run zero. How many have died of fentanyl or these drugs whose precursors come from China?

Curt Mills [00:25:10] No, it’s.

Tucker [00:25:12] More than a million. More than a million? Well, Iran took over Iraq because we took out Saddam Hussein, as I said, in a majority Shiite country. I happened to be there for that. And even I, as a 33 year old moron, was like, wait a second, just a basic interest in demographics. Like, isn’t this going to go to Iran now?

Curt Mills [00:25:45] Yep. Anyway. Yes. Right. Right.

Tucker [00:25:49] But I just find it amazing that there’s been no public conversation about whether or not the United States should go to war with Iran. There’s been no case laid out, At least in 2002, they had the decency to lie to us in a pretty complicated, sophisticated way about weapons of mass destruction. Now it’s just like, shut up. You’re anti-American if you ask questions. And it feels like we’re moving toward a conflict with Iran. Is that a fair.

Curt Mills [00:26:16] I think we have been moving towards one. And, you know, I think the basically the biggest risk of a Democratic administration is a war with Russia. And the biggest risk of a Republican administration is a war with Iran. Yes. So my rule is always that’s why it’s more ethical to be a Republican, because at least the Iranians don’t have nukes yet. So that’s actually, like pretty close to my first principle. Like like just.

Curt Mills [00:26:41] Outright. We have simplified. Yes. Yes.

Curt Mills [00:26:43] But the Iran war would be still like the worst and like not something that we should pursue and look like. Foreign policy experts at this point will chime in on this conversation being like, well, that’s just so unrealistic this that we’re actually we want this is actually this ridiculous externality. But I think it is worth noting that we have done wars toppling governments throughout the region over over the last 25 years. So, number one, it’s happened very recently. Number two, it is kind of the explicit goal of the hard liners. And the hard liners keep moving the Overton Window in their direction. And so while this is perhaps not 100% certain, hardly there is a hard drive towards doing this and picking off Pentagon deputies and allowing leaders like Trump and Vance to be surrounded by hawks and no dissenting voices whatsoever.

Curt Mills [00:27:41] Yes.

Curt Mills [00:27:42] Is absolutely essential towards any road to war.

Tucker [00:27:46] And I have to say, the amount of calculated deception on the right. So all of a sudden, very wise who’s a leftist becomes a conservative because she’s against tranny ism or something. You know, every normal person is against that.

Curt Mills [00:28:02] Yeah. But, you know.

Tucker [00:28:03] It’s pretty obvious that the whole purpose of her organization, the Free Press and her career in journalism is to kind of soften up the right for war with Iran and and to attack anybody and its whole constellation of people or, you know, Neil Ferguson and all these kind of people who had weight to the project, but who really are all kind of paid to flak for war with Iran and attack anyone who’s not with the program. I felt the sting of this or I didn’t really understand how this worked. But then. You know, someone with like thoroughly moderate foreign policy views or only want war with anybody. I’m not against anybody. And all of a sudden you’re like, wow, you know, people are calling you anti-American.

Curt Mills [00:28:45] Well, there’s precedent for this. So what you just got I don’t know. I don’t know any of the people you described personally.

Curt Mills [00:28:50] But you’re saying like.

Tucker [00:28:51] There was you said the problem with voting Republican is you’re more likely to wind up with a war with Iran. And I agree with you, I’d much rather be worth around than war with Russia, but kind of don’t want either one. And it’s just interesting how the the groundwork. I just know because I’ve been in conservative media my whole life also, and all these new people and you’re like, Barry Weiss, are you really conservative or not at all? And what are you doing here? You’re trying to convince me that I’m not allowed to oppose a war with Iran or I’m going to be written out of the conservative movement or something.

Curt Mills [00:29:21] Okay. So a lot of people are comparing Trump to Reagan these days. Yeah. And I think it is an inaccurate comparison. But there are obviously are comparisons that are very different, me being serious in my position. So if you accept that Trump is the biggest cheese since Reagan. Yeah. On the Republican side, what happened in the Reagan years. So the neoconservatives, that is people who came from the left and moved to the right were very, very savvy, effective and reasonable at domestic policy. They were very, very good on the crime issues of the.

Curt Mills [00:29:56] Of the U.S..

Curt Mills [00:29:57] And their periodic periodicals. Gained currency because, hey, actually we should clean up the streets of New York, etc., etc., etc..

Tucker [00:30:05] Etc., etc.. I knew a lot of them and some of them were really smart, decent people too.

Curt Mills [00:30:11] Yeah.

Tucker [00:30:11] And by the way, some of their foreign policy views were not crazy at all. They were. They recognized the Soviet Union was evil, like the first generation neocons. Midge Dichter I mean, I kind of love them. Ejector. I don’t know. I mean, I don’t think that they were all nuts at all.

Curt Mills [00:30:25] Yeah.

Curt Mills [00:30:26] But by the 90s and 2000s. You know, if you believed in, you know, some crime enforcement in New York, you also had to believe towards the march towards regime change in Iraq. And so you know again, I don’t want to.

Tucker [00:30:41] Sound skipping that part of the buffet line. Yeah.

Curt Mills [00:30:44] You don’t go.

Tucker [00:30:45] But I will take the safe city and the thriving economy. I’m going to leave out the Forever War. Is that.

Curt Mills [00:30:49] Okay? Well, I think that is the the essential pitch of this new generation of neoconservatives mean, which of course, does not call itself that. But it is moderation on the social issues. Let’s turn down the volume. Yeah.

Curt Mills [00:31:00] And at the same time, over here in column space over here, a little all news item about what’s going on in the Red Sea and why the U.S. needs to care. And it’s a drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip. And it can go on for months and years and years and years. And all of a sudden, we super care about Houthis in Yemen. We super care about. Iran. And we have to underwrite a war in Israel until every single member from us is dead. And it’s just not clear that the US international, the US national interest is there to put it lightly.

Curt Mills [00:31:41] Yeah.

Tucker [00:31:41] And I guess what I object to is I mean, I’m never offended by people with different ideas. I’m never offended by someone who makes a sincere case, affirmative case for something that I disagree with. Okay. And by the way, maybe he’s right and I’m wrong. I’ve certainly been wrong a lot. The part where I get enraged is the bad faith.

Curt Mills [00:32:01] Yep.

Tucker [00:32:02] And so you ask questions like, Well, is this in our interest when you hate someone’s hate anybody? And I certainly don’t hate that. I certainly don’t hate that country. I like it a lot, actually.

Curt Mills [00:32:11] Yeah.

Tucker [00:32:12] But there’s no room for it. They don’t. They’re preventing discussion.

Curt Mills [00:32:16] Yeah.

Tucker [00:32:17] And and a lot of these people have the gall to describe themselves as, you know, warriors for free speech. Well, of course, free speech is the last thing they want. And they’ve gone out of their way to prevent any kind of open conversation about the most important topics in our collective life. So I’m just I’m just bothered by the lying. There’s too much lying, don’t you think?

Curt Mills [00:32:40] Absolutely.

Tucker [00:32:40] I would say. And by the way, I’ll even go further and say, having worked for Bill Kristol for five and a half.

Curt Mills [00:32:46] Years and Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, that was was the absolute launching point magazine of the Iraq.

Tucker [00:32:52] War, for sure. And I was there. I mean, I started the very first day of the Weekly Standard, August 1st, 1995, 30 years ago. And I thought Bill Kristol, I still would say it was a great boss, you know, interesting, fun to talk to. Funny as hell. Obviously, I think he’s taken a really dark turn in his life, has been kind of a disaster and I feel bad for him. But one thing I’ll say about Bill Kristol circa 2000 is that he would make an actual case for his views. He would say we have to go in and take out Saddam for the following eight reasons. And you you’re right.

Curt Mills [00:33:25] And you said this in 95, 96, 97.

Tucker [00:33:28] I mean, I was there for all of that and I wasn’t paying super close attention because I was dumb and I was focused on other things and I was like, yeah, it’s a foreign policy hobbyhorse, you know, into that stuff. I’m not that into it. I don’t understand the stakes. I don’t really think anything actually when I was a kid. But I always admired and still admire his willingness and that generation’s willingness to to make their case, to write some paper. Here’s what we’re for. That is gone. And now it’s just like, can we censor the people? Can we call them names to the point where they get kicked off social media? So there’s no counterargument.

Curt Mills [00:34:01] Well, even Kristol himself has stopped writing.

Tucker [00:34:04] Well, he could never write. You know, he’s not a genius, I will say. But, you know, an affable, amusing person in meetings. And tireless, you know, And there are good things to be said about Bill Kristol. Obviously, I copy Nazi like a hundred times, but that’s kind of the point. And I’m not a Nazi. I’m not for the Nazis. I just don’t know. I’ve got different views. And that’s the turn that I’m really bothered.

Curt Mills [00:34:32] By.

Tucker [00:34:33] Is just the pure ad hominem. Attempted. That’s just an attempted censorship. Yeah. And and Barry White engages in that like relentlessly behind the scenes, using all kinds of proxies, some of whom I know. And I just want to say it out loud. I just want to say, this is this is deception here. Okay. So I hope people know that.

Curt Mills [00:34:55] I think it makes it impossible for the new president to do what he’s promised to do if he doesn’t solve this conundrum.

Tucker [00:35:03] Well, tell me what you mean.

Curt Mills [00:35:04] So, I mean, if the president wants to send troops to the US border and the and the president wants to rebuild the American economy and the president wants to focus on China. Yes. And the President wants the moral credibility to end the Russia-Ukraine war at some point.

Tucker [00:35:23] Yes.

Curt Mills [00:35:24] Expanding the war in the Middle East. Even with prolonged arms sales, corrodes his political capital.

Tucker [00:35:34] Who’s going to pay for that?

Curt Mills [00:35:35] The United States.

Tucker [00:35:37] Nobody. I mean.

Curt Mills [00:35:38] We literally.

Tucker [00:35:39] Are operating in the red to the tune of trillions of dollars, like how.

Curt Mills [00:35:43] Are you and.

Tucker [00:35:44] What world can we afford that?

Curt Mills [00:35:45] Well, it’s a very complex task.

Tucker [00:35:47] We don’t have any interesting community hospitals left.

Curt Mills [00:35:51] We have the reserve currency and we can keep writing debt until it causes an inflation crisis, which a lot of people thought would happen earlier and did not. And even our inflation crisis in the 2020s was mild by global standards. So accordingly, we’ve got plenty of room for the big enchilada, which is an a war.

Curt Mills [00:36:11] Right?

Tucker [00:36:12] Yeah. So this it just feels like a big deal.

Curt Mills [00:36:15] It’s a big.

Tucker [00:36:15] Deal to me. And it feels like it’s worth. I mean, it certainly if you comment on this, you do ask yourself, is it really worth it? You know, do I want to get into this? By the way, a lot of people I really like and I’m friends with violently disagree. And so you run the risk, which I really don’t want, of rupturing friendships over it. I just the last thing I want ever And and you think I maybe I should be quiet but it does seem like that’s a huge step. And at the very least, the public ought to understand that there are highly motivated people pushing us toward that. Do you think that we will participate in a military action against Iran?

Curt Mills [00:36:56] Well, the big question is right now. So there’s a new Iranian president. So the previous Iranian president died along with his foreign minister in a helicopter accident over the summer. Little mystery.

Tucker [00:37:07] Are you going to use air quotes or an accident or.

Curt Mills [00:37:09] I mean. A lot of things happened last year. It’s very possible. I mean, I don’t think you’re right. Everyone got killed by Iran. There are so many accidents.

Curt Mills [00:37:19] The Iranians, the Iranians, equipment, helicopter equipment is, to my understanding, is old. Yeah. And it is a rough part of the world. And it’s possible that it it’s likely that it just went down.

Curt Mills [00:37:30] Yeah.

Curt Mills [00:37:32] And again, I would say I would.

Tucker [00:37:34] Not fly in a helicopter with Iranian officials and was telling you that.

Curt Mills [00:37:38] Yeah, yeah. And again, if you think it was Israel, the Israelis not pretty pretty much pretty much took credit or didn’t deny all the other assassinations that occurred last year.

Tucker [00:37:48] You know, Hamas leadership.

Curt Mills [00:37:50] Etc., etc., etc..

Tucker [00:37:52] Just for the record, I try to suspend judgment because I know a lot about what countries do. And I do think it’s one thing I’ll say in support of Israel. I do think that it is. You know, it isn’t fair to just single out Israel and say they’re doing naughty stuff like lots of people are doing naughty stuff. That’s just a fact. My only. You know, the only point where I would feel like I want to say something is if the United States gets sucked into it. It’s turn that now. Now we’re talking about our interests, my country or my family’s from. And I think it’s fair to speak up then.

Curt Mills [00:38:25] Yeah. So I guess maybe the 2025 zoom out, you would say there was an election in Iran right afterwards.

Tucker [00:38:33] Yes.

Curt Mills [00:38:35] Okay.

Curt Mills [00:38:35] A lot of people disagree with our perspective. We’ll disagree with this term. But the more moderate candidate people think there are no moderates within the regime, but the the less hardcore candidate won. Yeah, the first time this has happened since Trump left the Iran deal. And this person, it is not clear how much power he has within the system. The supreme leader is old. It’s not clear how old. And there will be a succession crisis to succeed the supreme leader should he die. Yes. So it is this weird situation where every time Iran is in a crisis and their crisis right now, they’re an electricity crisis by all reporting. Again, don’t know if we can trust all the reporting, but they can’t keep the lights on in Tehran fully. And what will they do? And so every time Iran is at a decision point, there is a focus between what I will call the moderates and the hardliners within their government. The hardliners want to go for the bomb. They think we can’t trust anybody.

Tucker [00:39:38] Right.

Curt Mills [00:39:39] We we need to get the bomb. They also recently signed a mutual, you know, a defense pact of just short of mutual defense pact, but a security arrangement with the Russians. So they seem to have a bunker mentality right now. If US intelligence or Israeli intelligence or Western intelligence assesses that they are going for the bomb in a real way so they can either be true or false, but if they assess it, then there will be severe pressure on the new administration to do airstrikes on Iran. Again, if.

Curt Mills [00:40:17] I look, I.

Tucker [00:40:18] Don’t want Iran to get the bomb and or anyone to get the bomb. I’m against the bomb. Okay. But I was around when Pakistan got the bomb.

Curt Mills [00:40:24] Yeah.

Tucker [00:40:25] And Pakistan is, you know, a country with a lot of wonderful people in it, kind of a great country in a lot of ways. We spent from our time there. However, the government of Pakistan.

Curt Mills [00:40:35] Is arguably scarier than us.

Curt Mills [00:40:36] Yeah. You think harbored.

Tucker [00:40:38] Osama bin Laden, etc.. ISI has been, you know, really a source of disorder in South Asia for a long time. And they’ve exported nuclear technology, including to North Korea. So no one’s ever said anything about that. Like that’s not a crisis that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has the bomb. I don’t really get it. I mean, why was that not a crisis? Why do we do nothing to do? Nothing to stop that?

Curt Mills [00:41:02] I guess it occurred basically when the US was still crazy, pro Pakistan over India. And it was that was.

Tucker [00:41:11] A bad bet, by.

Curt Mills [00:41:12] The way. It was a Nixonian event. Actually. He he really he really didn’t like Indira Gandhi. It was basically.

Curt Mills [00:41:17] Okay. Well, it basically was I think we can.

Tucker [00:41:19] Say longitudinally, that was a bad.

Curt Mills [00:41:20] Bet.

Curt Mills [00:41:21] He just didn’t like one person and it didn’t matter.

Tucker [00:41:23] No, that was like betting on Wang computers over Apple. Like it just kind of didn’t turn out.

Curt Mills [00:41:28] Yeah.

Curt Mills [00:41:28] So I am not holding a Wang in my cell.

Tucker [00:41:33] But. But the point is.

Curt Mills [00:41:36] I want to cut that. This is so low. So keeping the weighing in. Yes. Look, I all I’m my.

Curt Mills [00:41:43] Father’s software and computers.

Curt Mills [00:41:44] Did you make it personal? No. Well, then, no.

Curt Mills [00:41:47] This is at one point the top sales in the country.

Curt Mills [00:41:50] When computers.

Tucker [00:41:50] Your father sold some wings.

Curt Mills [00:41:52] Yes. Is this.

Curt Mills [00:41:53] Actually going? It’s actually good. Yes, yes, yes. Yeah. Our eyepiece.

Tucker [00:41:58] Is hitting. Look, all I’m saying is it’s important to maybe dial back a little bit on the moral outrage and assess the world as it is. Assess what you can do. You know, create a hierarchy of priorities. Like we don’t want other countries to get nuclear weapons. I think that’s I’m with the neocons 100% on that. But, you know, in a complicated world that we don’t actually control.

Curt Mills [00:42:21] Right.

Tucker [00:42:21] What will you know, what can we do to the limits of our power, given a lot of other factors like our domestic to our economy, the needs of our people, like you can’t do everything.

Curt Mills [00:42:31] That’s all I’m saying.

Curt Mills [00:42:32] Yeah. No, I mean, so I think Trump should complete the work of his first term, which is he revoked the JCPoA, the Iran deal, and he should do a Trump Iran deal there.

Tucker [00:42:43] She’s sending Witkoff over to do that.

Curt Mills [00:42:44] Yeah. So so we’re the aforementioned not only did what he did with the Israelis, he was promoted for it per reporting. There’s not been confirmed, to my understanding, by the transition or the White House. But per the F.T. and I believe another outlet where Khan is getting, quote, the Iran file within the Trump universe, that’s as much power as the president wants to give it. But as of filming, his role is expanding. And if Trump wants a lasting legacy of peace and prosperity, there needs to be an accommodation with the de facto government of Iran.

Curt Mills [00:43:23] So if he of.

Tucker [00:43:24] Course, there does this is just in. This is totally insane. It’s counter to our interests, I guess, is.

Curt Mills [00:43:29] What I would say.

Tucker [00:43:31] If you were Trump and you say to Steve Witkoff, Hastie would cough, go get a, you know, a cease fire in place. And he comes back like 20 minutes later with a cease fire, wouldn’t you say.

Curt Mills [00:43:42] Okay, we like that pace pick. Wouldn’t you send him to Iran? I would. Yes. Yes. Yeah, I know. I mean, I think I yeah, I mean I mean and this is actually something both Trump and Obama, who apparently get along now at least perfunctorily. Yeah. Agreed on.

Tucker [00:43:58] Well, they both just like Michelle I.

Curt Mills [00:44:00] Think.

Curt Mills [00:44:00] So they remember Obama on the debate stage in eight and he was he was he was how down for this? Whatever you think of Barack Obama said we should meet with the Iranian leaders face to face and Trump did similar maneuvers.

Tucker [00:44:17] Yeah I was sure why wouldn’t.

Curt Mills [00:44:18] You with Kim Jong un, etc., etc.. And again.

Curt Mills [00:44:21] We sucking up to.

Tucker [00:44:22] Dictators.

Curt Mills [00:44:23] Shut up.

Curt Mills [00:44:24] I mean, what I mean was, was North Korea policy more stable from 2017 to 20 21 or 20 21 to 2025? I mean, there was.

Tucker [00:44:31] 25 years of this nonsense killing dictators and watching their countries become more chaotic and more dangerous to the United States and the world, that we have any obligation to listen to people who chirp like that.

Curt Mills [00:44:42] Now and shut up to link it.

Tucker [00:44:45] Anything.

Curt Mills [00:44:46] Actually.

Curt Mills [00:44:47] Some of it. So we started this conversation with, you know, sort of the campaign against these cadres that are now serving century hacks. If the people that are leading it, as far as I can infer, are oftentimes many of the people that were behind the original rock war and so.

Curt Mills [00:45:03] Well yeah yeah.

Curt Mills [00:45:04] So this may seem obvious.

Tucker [00:45:05] I’m 55, so this is driving me completely insane. I thought after we discovered that the pretext, the war was a lie, that those people would, I don’t know, done ashes, I think sackcloth and go like sit on a pillar for ten years.

Curt Mills [00:45:19] I think a lot of Americans assume that they did. So we do this for a living.

Curt Mills [00:45:22] He didn’t pay a lot in the.

Tucker [00:45:23] World Bank and they still run the State Department. Yeah. And Toria Nuland, who was architect of the Iraq war, was an architect of the Ukraine war like this, it just doesn’t end.

Curt Mills [00:45:31] But but most Americans have real jobs and don’t know this. And so these people are disguised or shrouded from public view, and they are still quite effective at driving home an agenda. In fact, I would assume they will win absent pushback.

Tucker [00:45:49] And they’ll definitely win ups and push back. 100%.

Curt Mills [00:45:53] Yeah. So there are there are still if I want an interview.

Curt Mills [00:45:55] Yeah, there’s still has Remnick and even if even if they’re a minority government, so to speak.

Tucker [00:46:02] Yeah. And and I, I’m because I’m, I spent my life in the media. I’m very kind of fixated on their enablers, their agents in the American news media. And one of them who’s working has been working for years on their behalf on behalf of permanent Washington, the foreign policy establishment. Every bad idea is Jennifer Griffin at Fox, the Pentagon reporter who is now, you know, basically texting Domino. Is that the Michael Domino?

Curt Mills [00:46:33] Yeah.

Tucker [00:46:33] Is, you know, running around on behalf of, you know, her sources at the Pentagon doing their bidding, trying to torpedo these guys because the permanent staff doesn’t want to be challenged on anything. And okay, you know, there’s a role for that kind of behavior. It’s called lobbying. But it’s a little crazy that, like, a supposed news reporter would be acting like that. I’m not guessing this is a fact. She’s doing that right now and has been doing that kind of thing for as long as I’ve been paying attention, like a couple couple decades. How does that continue?

Curt Mills [00:47:08] Yeah, I don’t know her personally, but what I was saying, I do know the role of most Pentagon reporters has always struck me since I’ve done this as extremely hierarchical. I mean.

Tucker [00:47:19] What do you mean by her?

Curt Mills [00:47:20] It almost felt like the reporters worked for the Pentagon.

Curt Mills [00:47:22] Well, of course they yeah.

Curt Mills [00:47:23] So, I mean, the only place that I’ve worked that had a Pentagon correspondent and that was only where you stayed in the room.

Tucker [00:47:31] And isn’t this a democracy where we have civilian command of the armed forces and the entire federal government works for the population of the country, its voters, its citizens, its constituents and shareholders now. There’s no sense of that whatsoever in Washington at all.

Curt Mills [00:47:51] Yeah. It’s like.

Tucker [00:47:51] What are you doing here?

Curt Mills [00:47:52] I think it’s fast moving. I mean, I mean, you didn’t see criticisms or skepticism of the military from the right until the very last few years, including from the new president. Including from organs of conservative media. I think it started with with Mark Milley, but also the sort.

Curt Mills [00:48:10] Of some.

Tucker [00:48:11] Of us were out of the fourth.

Curt Mills [00:48:12] Grade. I know. But but in public.

Curt Mills [00:48:14] It was.

Tucker [00:48:14] Considered a fringe position is now.

Curt Mills [00:48:17] Fringe.

Curt Mills [00:48:18] Yeah.

Tucker [00:48:19] You know, I just refer you back to the pivot point in American politics in my lifetime, which was the 2016 debate in Greenville, South Carolina, where Donald Trump, home of the highest percentage of military veterans of any state, famously, and Donald Trump came out against the Iraq war and all the Dumbo’s at the channel I work for and in Washington like, he’s.

Curt Mills [00:48:37] Lost it now. He’ll never get the nomination.

Tucker [00:48:39] He’s offended all the veterans and of course, all the guys whose lives were destroyed fighting these wars, not on behalf of the United States, not to the benefit of the United States. They were filled with many emotions frustration, shame, rage, sadness. And they immediately. Knew what he was talking about and no one in DC.

Curt Mills [00:49:00] I think he just performed his polling.

Curt Mills [00:49:02] So like he was he was polling a certain. He was ahead. And the Bush family came in. That’s when it was it was the last stand for for Mr. Jeb. In February of 2016. And George W Bush campaigned finally for Jeb. And it was like we got to keep in the race. We’re going to make our stand. And he did. The big fat mistake. That is Iraq debate. And I think Trump is up 10 or 15. I think he won by over 20 in that debate doing that. But it was it was it was something like that. He was was right.

Tucker [00:49:33] Before the primary.

Curt Mills [00:49:34] Was over the polling. So not only did he not go down and still won, he went up and then quickly triumphed.

Tucker [00:49:40] That was the moment when I was just, you know, whatever his flaws, I was for Trump, because here was a guy telling a real truth, a hard truth that no one wanted him to tell and was rewarded for it. And I just felt like that was that’s consistent with my principles and beliefs, which is you want to tell the truth and a healthy country rewards people who tell the truth, not people who I.

Curt Mills [00:50:02] This is cynical bet, though. I would say that. And it’s a cynical bet on Trump and it’s a cynical bet on Americans. And it’s a cynical bet on Republicans and independents, which is I’ll just I just it was this is the actual language of center, left or left wing media. It’s a cult. And once the cult leader leaves, we can just go back to 2005 and implant the same old free trade, open borders.

Curt Mills [00:50:34] Maybe.

Curt Mills [00:50:34] Analyst neoconservatism. And actually, the people that are driving the opposition to these selections in the Pentagon agree with President Trump’s critics in spirit and in practice.

Tucker [00:50:52] You know, it’s an interesting analysis. I mean, it’s like MSNBC’s level dumb person analysis, but it’s also like a real analysis. And there is a sense in which devotion to Trump has a religious quality to him, that’s undeniable. I was just in D.C. for the inauguration. I can confirm that. And there are a lot of reasons for that. I you know, I think a lot of voters feel like Trump is the only person who cares about them. He’s their only option. And so they’re on board regardless, because where else are they going? And I think I think that’s true, A, and B, I think that’s a reflection of like how badly the leadership of the country has failed. People will take anything other than that. But I also think saying true things out loud changes history. I think that’s the lesson of history. The only people who actually change history are not the ones who marshal the biggest armies, but the ones who speak the truth out loud. I think it’s a holy act. I think it’s a transformative act. And all of history is the story of that act, actually. And sometimes it you know, it takes centuries for the consequences to unfold. But they do. It’s inevitable. It changes everything, won’t you? That’s why there’s such a almost a crazed attempt to shut down people from speaking. Why? Speaking? They don’t care about violence. They care about talking because they understand correctly that that’s what matters over time. Right? So once Trump has said all this stuff. There’s kind of no going back.

Curt Mills [00:52:13] No.

Tucker [00:52:13] Did you think I mean, that’s my view. I don’t know if.

Curt Mills [00:52:15] I don’t know. No, I don’t I don’t agree with the cynical, but I think it’s a bad bet. Yes. Which is why the tactics are increasingly hysterical and marginal.

Curt Mills [00:52:24] But we’re we’re.

Tucker [00:52:24] Robbed of like a real debate. I mean, I don’t know, you know, if it’s if you think it’s so important to kill the leaders of Iran and get into a full scale war with a real country, which Iran is, which is part of a real coalition.

Curt Mills [00:52:38] They won’t.

Curt Mills [00:52:39] Say full scale. They’ll say, let.

Curt Mills [00:52:40] Me just.

Curt Mills [00:52:41] Say that the ayatollah has to go. And it’s very important to use as scary words as possible is hold the mullahs, the Islamic Republic, emphasize, you know, and again, like basically the bin Laden, whose dad runs a country, even though he’s different ethnicity and a different religion. And so it doesn’t really matter. You’re stupid and you can’t do this again. And like they won’t say an invasion. But again, some of the people pushing this stuff didn’t see an invasion in 1996. They said if they laid this off in the ground.

Tucker [00:53:19] Floor debate on it, I guess that’s the point.

Curt Mills [00:53:21] It wasn’t a debate. I mean, it’s a.

Tucker [00:53:22] Little harder here, too, because on the question of Russia, it’s been surprisingly effective for them to just dismiss all criticism as sponsored by Putin. Like, you don’t think it’s a good idea to prop up.

Curt Mills [00:53:35] Speed is very.

Tucker [00:53:35] Important. This one’s key government. You’re a Putin puppet or whatever.

Curt Mills [00:53:40] You want someone to do something.

Tucker [00:53:41] Can you really call like a white American Christian guy a puppet of the mullahs?

Curt Mills [00:53:46] Probably not. Like, I don’t think that works, right, does it? Because they’re trying it with Steve Witkoff. You’re a you’re a tool of cutter.

Curt Mills [00:53:57] Yes. You’re referring to. So the.

Curt Mills [00:53:58] Shiites, I.

Tucker [00:54:00] Don’t think as a rhetorical matter, it’s quite as easily.

Curt Mills [00:54:03] Addressed the actual allegations. I mean, so we’re kind of I believe Turkey is a real estate firm, took some sort of investment from Qatar. All right. So, first of all, I would say throughout the Trump entourage, a lot of them have worked with Gulf states. And far as I’m concerned, Intel, the real estate business, is rife with investments from Gulf states. And then additionally, as far as I’m aware, this is hardly that man’s love for domestic.

Tucker [00:54:28] I mean, you can’t buy an apartment in New York because there’s so much Chinese money in the residential real estate markets alike. Okay. So the argument is, what? You’re only allowed to invest in your own companies country’s real estate. Okay. Let’s start here. Let’s ban foreign investment in our real estate markets. No, that’s anti-capitalist. Just the whole thing doesn’t make sense. What are they saying?

Curt Mills [00:54:50] What? Well, I’m.

Curt Mills [00:54:52] With the Khazar argument specifically. I mean, I think it’s an unusual place. It was supposed to be the eighth emirate. Know it is separate from the UAE. It is the most conservative of those Emirates, I would say, at least in terms of the government. They have a perspective. They spend money on media. They spend money on press junkets. They have an influence operation, no question. But the idea that this small jetting, you know, largely dependent.

Curt Mills [00:55:24] You know.

Curt Mills [00:55:25] Peninsula controls U.S. foreign policy, hook, line and sinker, top to bottom. If you think that I don’t think.

Curt Mills [00:55:37] You’re experts, I mean, I do think it’s areas it’s.

Tucker [00:55:39] Worth having an honest. I’ve never seen one. There’s never has been one. But an honest conversation about foreign influence on American policy. Think that’s a totally legitimate topic. And, you know, we’ve kind of done a lot of lying and pretending, for example, that Russia has undue influence over American foreign policies. It’s absurd. But but why not have that conversation, too? Are there are there foreign countries that exert influence on American foreign policy whose interests supersede those of American citizens when in the minds of policymakers and, you know, there are some of those, what how would we rank Qatar? You know, in terms of its influence. Maybe. Maybe not in the top three.

Curt Mills [00:56:20] Yeah, I know.

Tucker [00:56:21] Right. So just having lived in D.C., this whole conversation is, like, so infuriatingly false and just silly. I mean, are they running until operations against us? Are a lot of Qatar surveillance and Washington on a Qatar agents running around the Willard Hotel? I don’t think so.

Curt Mills [00:56:43] Well, maybe it’s.

Curt Mills [00:56:45] Very well discussed.

Curt Mills [00:56:47] Like, what are you talking about?

Tucker [00:56:48] I mean, our country’s doing that. Are they hacking the Pentagon’s mainframes? I don’t think. China is doing that. Yeah. Right. Okay. So, yeah.

Curt Mills [00:56:56] I mean.

Curt Mills [00:56:56] Making the allegation, though, is a kind of armor, though. It makes you sound informed. It makes you seem like a sort of a spymaster in, you know, like, I know something you don’t. I’m. I’m more serious than that. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Like. Like. Like, let’s not have a conversation. And it’s very anti-democratic. Small d. It is. It is. It is not agreeing. Disagree. It is not saying we have different values and, you know, shaking each other, hand walking out of the room. It is it is shutting down the spirit of the system.

Tucker [00:57:27] So that’s exactly the complaint that I have. And that’s the problem that I have with very wastes. Problem I have with Jen Griffin is the problem I have with The Washington Post. And just so much of the media coverage of foreign policy is based on insinuation and like the cruelest character destroying insinuations that you’re not loyal to your own country. You know that I’m too.

Curt Mills [00:57:53] Rich for the biggest.

Tucker [00:57:55] Ego, man. They go right for the face. And I just think that that’s beneath a great nation like ours. I think it’s beneath any decent person to be. But if you have evidence of someone selling out his country, tell me what it is. But to start with that, to accuse Steve Witkoff of being a tool of Qatar.

Curt Mills [00:58:13] It’s so over the top.

Tucker [00:58:15] I just feel like it’s important to call out to people doing it and say, You’re disgusting, we’re not listening to you anymore. You have no influence except that that you project through aggression and threats and like. We’re not we’re not playing along.

Curt Mills [00:58:28] And I think a lot.

Curt Mills [00:58:29] Of it is effective in Republican politics because, you know. So you were there for the inauguration I observed a week ago. And, you know, I’ve always observed that is usually when I meet someone from a red state like red state, Oklahoma, Alabama, it’s often the first time in Washington, D.C.. Yes. It’s very like a Roman province visiting Rome for the first. Totally. And I’m.

Tucker [00:58:55] Here from.

Curt Mills [00:58:55] Gaul. Yeah. Show me around.

Curt Mills [00:58:57] Yeah. And yeah, versus I would say blue state America actually has a look. The coasts have a lot more familiarity with D.C.. Yes. Back and forth, etc., etc.. So when they hear the argument going on in the capital, there’s actually a de facto trust there that might be not as much there on the Democratic side. There’s actually there’s actually a more jaundiced cynicism on the Democratic side. There was less effective.

Curt Mills [00:59:25] They assume that the.

Curt Mills [00:59:27] Despite it all, despite all the failures that you’ve announced that you’ve reported on fairly tirelessly, they assume that the people in D.C. know what they’re doing. And I’m not sure that’s the greatest default assumption.

Curt Mills [00:59:40] Well.

Tucker [00:59:40] I mean, I think the track record is pretty speaks conclusively.

Curt Mills [00:59:45] I mean, look.

Curt Mills [00:59:46] Respectfully to the president. I mean, Donald Trump, again, is the only US president who has was not a general or a former statewide official or federal official to get the presidency. And with all due respect to the president, a healthy country doesn’t elect someone like that. It had that level of outsider, that level of outsider.

Curt Mills [01:00:11] Could.

Curt Mills [01:00:11] Only exist within a polity that was deeply sick. And I think he knows that. I think he recognizes that. And the fact that the capital doesn’t imbibe that lesson, I think they’re reviving a little bit more. But it’s like.

Curt Mills [01:00:29] I mean, it’s still bizarre.

Curt Mills [01:00:30] Ten years on. I mean, Trump, June 2015. So in June this year, ten years of Trump, you know, longer than Obama at this point, the Trump era in spirit, I mean, length, it’s like, well, maybe there’s something wrong with this country, but it’s like a 5% recognition. It’s not a it’s not a 95%.

Tucker [01:00:48] I think national I mean, first of all, I agree completely. And I wrote a piece at the very beginning of this whole saga, almost ten years.

Curt Mills [01:00:53] Trump is shocking, vulgar and.

Curt Mills [01:00:55] Right.

Tucker [01:00:56] Well, yeah, he he’s winning because you failed. Simple, you know, obvious. Anyway, I don’t think he gets it. But I also think at this point, Trump is the most powerful president, certainly since Roosevelt.

Curt Mills [01:01:09] Interesting.

Tucker [01:01:10] And the potential for, you know, achieving his promises is really high. America has greater problems than its had since the Great Depression, maybe even bigger than it had then. And we have a chance to address them. Probably not solve all of them, but make some headway on things that could help Americans. Sealing the border, stopping the chaos, just taking a breather so we can figure out how to fix the country. And the only thing that could derail that is, is another foreign war.

Curt Mills [01:01:36] Can’t do it with this stuff. It is an actual choice.

Tucker [01:01:40] It’s an actual.

Curt Mills [01:01:41] We cannot do the border if we do the Middle East.

Curt Mills [01:01:44] So you start, what, 200,000 people?

Tucker [01:01:46] You’re dying of drug loads and no one said anything about it. And endless lectures about Ukraine. And it’s no disrespect to the Ukrainians who I really feel sorry for, but like, that’s so unbelievable that that happened. It’s like a bad dream. And now we’ve woken up from the dream and we have this chance. And I’m sorry. I just you know, with respect to Barry White and Jan Griffin, you can’t do that to us again. It’s just not going to. Not going to go without a fight this time. We have to reorient toward our own interests. That’s no disrespect to any other country, to our allies, who we are well and will help the extent we can. But like the idea that we’re responsible for all these other countries when we’re dying here, not us.

Curt Mills [01:02:25] Is that is.

Tucker [01:02:27] That a radical position? That’s my actual position in my heart. That’s my actual position.

Curt Mills [01:02:30] I agree. But it’s very upsetting not only to leaders of some foreign countries. And this is not just the Middle East. We didn’t even talk about Russia, Ukraine, But like I mean, that perspective is obviously very, very relevant for extricating the United States out of the Russia-Ukraine war. And almost every European capital is unhappy with that. And, you know, you can have a conversation with a nice Danish person and you might agree on immigration or trade or or wine, but you mention like, hey, I’m not really sure the United States should be underwriting a quagmire in Ukraine and like the conversation shuts down. I mean, it is stunning.

Tucker [01:03:10] Well, they’re hell bent on suicide, the Western Europeans and not the Eastern Europeans or Central Europeans, but the Western Europeans are, you know, have decided to kill themselves. And it’s it’s almost like if someone’s standing on a bridge or in a window of a skyscraper and you try to talk them back in, it’s it’s hard. And who knows why that happened. I think there’s a supernatural element at work as my personal view. But whatever you think the cause is, that’s what it is. You destroy it. You blow up Nord Stream, destroy the German economy, and you’re not allowed to say anything about it in Germany. I don’t know that we can help you at that point. You know what I mean? Like, if you’re that intent on self harm, that anxious to destroy your own civilization, make it impossible for your children to live there, then you’re killing yourself. You can’t help someone just want to help himself. Like, go ahead and jump Then that kind of that’s how I feel. But just from an American perspective, like all of this has been bad for us, there’s no way to pretend otherwise except to launch into some very moral lecture about dictatorships and Winston Churchill and Neville Chamberlain. So let’s just shut up, okay?

Curt Mills [01:04:13] The Churchill things, really, it’s played out.

Tucker [01:04:16] It’s played out. I mean, it’s played out in.

Curt Mills [01:04:19] There’s a there’s a there’s a gamble that some of this stuff isn’t played out, though. I mean, there’s there’s a gamble that that I mean, I think people have this country has a generational problem. Right. And the generations don’t get along. I think that.

Tucker [01:04:35] For good reason.

Curt Mills [01:04:36] Yeah. And I think there’s just a bet that a lot of the voters that made the decisions in the 1920s are dumb and don’t care about their kids future and will vote for the exact same thing.

Curt Mills [01:04:51] Clearly don’t. Yeah sorry.

Curt Mills [01:04:52] And will exert pressure on the new administration to do the same thing. And I think there’s a there’s a bat. The the president is a desperate, cynical man who will do whatever it takes when he’s pressured. And I think the early evidence is that it’s untrue. I mean, I don’t I mean, the the the.

Tucker [01:05:13] Evidence is that Trump is less cynical than even his supporters thought he was. I think that’s the truth.

Curt Mills [01:05:18] I mean, there’s there’s I do want to discuss the Pompeo Brian Hook stuff.

Tucker [01:05:25] I would I was just reading the the very wise editorial about how pulling Pompeo’s.

Curt Mills [01:05:30] What she said and read it.

Curt Mills [01:05:32] It’s a great choice. It’s a betrayal of Trump’s promises like.

Curt Mills [01:05:37] That with a free press, right?

Tucker [01:05:39] Yeah. That you can’t you’re not allowed. You are required to pay for Mike Pompeo security detail. And I will just say point blank, as someone who has faced greater physical threats than Mike Pompeo, I can promise you that I you know, if I have security, I pay for it myself. Like, why does Mike Pompeo as a private citizen, get to stick me with the bill for his security detail? Like, how does that work? Very wise. And the point is that Mike Pompeo is a faithful servant of the kind of ideas that she is here to push on the rest of us, and therefore, he will be defended at all costs. But but like, let’s just be honest about what’s going on anyway. Sorry. Yeah.

Curt Mills [01:06:16] I mean, details roll off. The government doesn’t usually advertise it.

Tucker [01:06:20] Everyone’s got a detail to foresee as a detail.

Curt Mills [01:06:22] Yeah.

Tucker [01:06:23] Yeah, because he’s in my dog park in Washington. I hear about it.

Curt Mills [01:06:26] I think the interesting thing. So it’s very easy to just glaze over. Trump fighting with officials. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. You know, sort of the other example of this is Trump versus Bolton. And we talk about that and it’s fine, but it’s kind of over, right? It’s not in the mix and or at least of Trump and like.

Tucker [01:06:43] But he’s still got bits of egg and his mustache and I don’t have a cell anymore, so I can’t tell him. But he needs to fix that.

Curt Mills [01:06:49] Yeah I.

Curt Mills [01:06:49] So Pompeo and Hook I mean.

Curt Mills [01:06:55] Look tell.

Tucker [01:06:55] Us who they are.

Curt Mills [01:06:56] Mike Yeah. So Mike Pompeo was the former secretary of state, former CIA director, former Kansas congressman, former West Point valedictorian.

Tucker [01:07:05] Harvard graduate.

Curt Mills [01:07:06] Harvard Law graduate.

Tucker [01:07:07] Joseph Accuser.

Curt Mills [01:07:09] One can try. I’m just. I can make you do.

Tucker [01:07:11] The whole CV here. Okay? Right.

Curt Mills [01:07:12] So. And he was.

Tucker [01:07:15] I’m so bitchy. I’m so sorry I said that.

Curt Mills [01:07:18] It’s beneath.

Tucker [01:07:19] Me. I shouldn’t have said that.

Curt Mills [01:07:20] The. The Bolton Trump feud is all the. The disagreement with Pompeo is potentially quite new. And so by all available information, Pompeo was in the mix for secretary of defense, most likely in the days after the election, so much so that his son, Donald Trump Jr intervened in a sort of online campaign and, you know, other allies within that milieu stopped both Pompeo and the former UN ambassador and South Carolinian governor Nikki Haley from getting administration posts.

Tucker [01:07:57] I had heard about that.

Curt Mills [01:07:58] Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Tucker [01:07:59] Pompeo Patriotic Americans rallied, as they did in Boston in the 18th century to act on behalf of their nation at some personal risk. But they did it anyway. Unsung heroes. One of the.

Curt Mills [01:08:13] Pompeo’s former deputies, Brian Hook, who ran something called the Iran Study Group and had various other portfolios and titles at the State Department. He’s actually someone Pompeo inherited from Rex Tillerson, his predecessor. He kept them on–Brian Hook at various points throughout the transition in the last 100 days, was reported to be running the State Department’s transition at some point then was rumors again, rumors of just rumor. I don’t I don’t post about it. I don’t tweeted out. I don’t write about it. But it was rumored to have been fired. Very unclear. Trump in the days leading up to him taking the Oval Office oath, I. Issued essentially an enormous denunciation, a fatwa against Mr. Hawk. Extraordinary to say not only is this guy not in the mix, hate him, and he said that. So that that occurred. And then additionally, both Hook and Pompeo’s security detail was removed in the last few days.

Tucker [01:09:25] I don’t know that Brian Hook has served in government in for years.

Curt Mills [01:09:28] Why would he definitely has nothing to.

Curt Mills [01:09:29] Do with this for.

Tucker [01:09:29] Security detail paid for by taxpayers.

Curt Mills [01:09:32] Not an expert on who gets Secret Service.

Curt Mills [01:09:35] But can I just I just want to say.

Curt Mills [01:09:36] Actually, I can I can actually directly answer that. Yeah. So the key thing here is that there is an allegation, a belief many in the intelligence community believes this, that there were serious, credible plans by the Iranians to assassinate members of the Trump High Command, as it were.

Curt Mills [01:09:57] So Trump Hawk.

Curt Mills [01:10:00] John Bolton, et cetera, etc., in revenge, principally for the Suleimani, because that’s.

Tucker [01:10:05] Initiating a lot of terror attacks in the United States, you’ve noticed. No, no. That was intense.

Curt Mills [01:10:10] So. Right. And so that is the essential that is the cause is.

Tucker [01:10:14] Just going to have to scoff at all of.

Curt Mills [01:10:16] The causes. Belli for sure. So all the time I think.

Curt Mills [01:10:18] The key thing here is the critique on Trump always was he fired Bolton, but he didn’t understand why. So he just he soured on the guy, but he didn’t change any policy. You know, he didn’t learn this. There’s this this is the sort of pedantic way of looking at the president. But with the Hook and Pompeo removal from his inner circle, are there is, I think, very credible evidence that Trump’s personal grudges are now blending quite heavily with policy. He doesn’t trust the Iran Hawk old guard. A lot of the Iran Hawk old guard think tanks struck out in getting I transition officials and officials in this government and again circled around this very unlikely Pentagon. Helmed by a guy who has changed his life, it appears in pretty severe ways over the last five years, both ideologically and morally. It is this very new Pentagon that is now being targeted by all the usual suspects. And it is the biggest story in American politics that people are talking.

Tucker [01:11:35] So if I could sum up what I think you’re saying, it is that Donald Trump may have actually broken the grip of the neocons on Washington.

Curt Mills [01:11:44] I mean, you control the Pentagon. You control the military. I mean, it’s I mean, it’s.

Tucker [01:11:48] Just seems like this is because there was always this question about Trump. Like, you get up and you give these speeches where you say we don’t want more pointless wars. I believe in peace through strength, if not a worse not Jimmy Carter, but like, you know, you assert American power, but you don’t embroil the country in wars that you can’t win for no reason. It’s a very moderate, sensible, commonsense, I would say, view. So you say those things, but then you hire John Bolton. And the question is why? And Trump would say, I’ve heard him say, well, I heard Bolton.

Curt Mills [01:12:22] I beg your.

Tucker [01:12:22] Pardon? I heard Bolton because he’s a lunatic and he’s a warmonger freak. He’s obviously watching war porn late at night and people can smell that on him. And so when he goes into a negotiation, he scares the crap out of everybody. And then I show up. You know, he’s the heavy and bad cop. He’s become. Mean I’ve heard from say that and I’m. And I didn’t know if I believe that or not, but I’m starting to think that I should’ve just believed him because it sounds like Trump’s actual instincts are what he says they are.

Curt Mills [01:12:54] Yeah, I mean, the Bolton firing itself is against history, but it circled around an issue of policy.

Tucker [01:13:00] So I remember yeah.

Curt Mills [01:13:01] So, I mean, Trump had invited the Taliban, which was then the outlaw, not government of Afghanistan as it is today, to Camp David on 911.

Curt Mills [01:13:13] Which is I mean.

Tucker [01:13:14] So Trump invited the Taliban to camp. He did.

Curt Mills [01:13:16] He literally.

Curt Mills [01:13:17] Did that. I mean, I don’t think I mean, I’m just reporting the facts here.

Curt Mills [01:13:19] So, so mean It’s a.

Tucker [01:13:21] Great sense of Sardar Trump invited the Taliban. So tonight who’s coming for dinner tonight at Camp David All the Taliban will be here.

Curt Mills [01:13:27] Bolton Bolton was wiped out before this meeting never happened, but it was the instigating. Incident for the final breakdown of their relationship.

Tucker [01:13:39] I do think it’s important to just recognize the inherent hilarity of a lot of, you know, just it is in addition to being grave and, you know, historically significant, it’s very.

Curt Mills [01:13:48] Good is quite funny. A lot of it is very sort of funny. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It’s pretty great. Yeah.

Tucker [01:13:54] So you’re you’re very restrained and businesslike and precise as a reporter should be. As an editor should be. But the story that you’re telling, I think I don’t put words in your mouth is a is a is a story of like real change. Yeah. Finally, we actually appear to be getting to like a foreign policy that puts America close to the center of the of the action.

Curt Mills [01:14:16] Yeah. Is that is that what you’re saying? No, I.

Curt Mills [01:14:19] Mean. I mean. I mean, if he sees this through, this is this is the biggest presidency, certainly since Reagan. You look at FDR, I mean, it is moving the ship of state and people are going to try to stop him from doing it.

Curt Mills [01:14:33] Yes.

Curt Mills [01:14:33] But not they’re not going to they’re not going to say that he’s bad, though. They’re good. They’re going to go after him, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Tucker [01:14:41] I just want to counter signaling by saying I think what you’re saying is true. I think it’s real. And I’ve never admired Trump more. I don’t. I don’t think I’m an ass kisser on the drum question, but this is like, America really needs this. It’s super important and it’s not radical at all. It’s not attacking anyone or canceling our ally ship with any country at all. It’s just.

Curt Mills [01:15:05] It’s, you.

Tucker [01:15:06] Know, adjusting expectations for what we can achieve.

Curt Mills [01:15:08] The reason I started covering war on foreign policy principally is that the reality is that US domestic policy is a morass. It’s impossible to get anything done. I know Obama tried to do a health care plan. They did for six years and they couldn’t even get the website working. You know, the country is hard to govern, but externally, our president is imperial.

Curt Mills [01:15:29] His God was.

Curt Mills [01:15:32] Quite literally the most powerful person on earth. And if you want to burnish a legacy real quick, you do big things in foreign policy. Well, that’s what shocking.

Tucker [01:15:42] That’s what all the Republican senators have figured out.

Curt Mills [01:15:44] You do surprising things.

Tucker [01:15:45] For John McCain like you’re, you know, whatever. You’ve got a lot of problems in your personal and public life. But you can bomb around Eastern Europe and get treated like an emperor.

Curt Mills [01:15:54] Right.

Tucker [01:15:54] And feel like you’re doing something you’re, you know, Jim Risch or Mike Rounds or some like U.S. senator nobody’s ever heard of, even in his home state. But when you travel to Romania to tornado base, people like.

Curt Mills [01:16:06] You know, Senator Rich is here. It’s like.

Curt Mills [01:16:10] The Foreign relations.

Curt Mills [01:16:11] Chair. Yeah. So. Right. Yeah. And so that’s a that’s a big.

Tucker [01:16:16] That’s a big motivator for our lawmakers, isn’t it?

Curt Mills [01:16:20] Sure. For sure. I mean, yeah.

Tucker [01:16:27] But, you know.

Curt Mills [01:16:28] Chairman Rich.

Tucker [01:16:29] It makes.

Curt Mills [01:16:30] Me rich. It’s like such an absurd.

Tucker [01:16:33] It’s. Anyway, excuse me. Interesting show. And I interrupted you because I know I can’t control myself. Zero self-control. On the topic of pizza or neo cons, and I’m just out of control. Tell me your analysis of Trump canceling the security details for Brian Hook and Mike Pompeo.

Curt Mills [01:16:56] Well, he seems to have the authentic view that these people can afford it, especially with Fauci, especially with Bolton. He specifically.

Curt Mills [01:17:06] Flagged them. Yeah.

Tucker [01:17:07] And Pompeo, who like who’s now running around being like, I’m actually I’m a businessman.

Curt Mills [01:17:12] He’s on a board of a Ukrainian company as well.

Tucker [01:17:16] And while he’s on, I think more than one board, but he’s certainly running around, including with people I know, saying I’m a really kind of a business guy.

Curt Mills [01:17:23] Look, I mean, to the.

Curt Mills [01:17:24] Pompeo’s things, I mean, is like I mean, it’s supremely interesting because I, you know. I think it’s somebody who probably would have positioned himself to run in a major way had Trump lost. I think it’s somebody who’s not going to quit being president. I think this is not an unintelligent man.

Tucker [01:17:40] This is how he’s smart.

Curt Mills [01:17:42] This is yeah, this is a.

Curt Mills [01:17:43] Real fight, not dumb.

Curt Mills [01:17:44] Fighter. And ah, I don’t want to say he’s part of the cynical back crowd, but he’s making a bet that the Trump thing will pass and I will be able to steamroll people like Vance and even Rubio in the future because I’m more vicious. And in the meantime, I, you know, maybe make some money, influence the debate, etc., etc.. And he’s very impressive if you don’t know. I mean I mean, I like I mean, if you don’t come in with huge foreign policy convictions, as I think you and I do, he can be very persuasive.

Tucker [01:18:17] Just for the record, I had no foreign policy can convictions. I don’t think I’m ideological on the question at all. I just think in general, our foreign policy is for the nation.

Curt Mills [01:18:27] I mean, I mean, like I like I mean, I think that’s what’s very interesting about some of these Pentagon picks and to keep making it back while also the vice president. A lot of people, my generation, the millennials fight in these wars and all of the baby boomers forget it. We’re now old, you know, and we grew up and are quite mad about it. And it’s a it’s a it’s a bipartisan thing. Yeah. Just like a Democrat, you know, anti-Iraq war indie music thing. It’s like young Republican people hate it, too. I hate. And they might hate it more, actually. Which is actually the interesting thing. The and the Republican Party, frankly, might under Trump might be a vessel of anti-war sentiment far more effectively than the Democrats. I mean, I didn’t see a lot of protests for the Ukraine war. The Israel stuff was pretty interesting. And that was probably was number one threat to Biden circa April.

Tucker [01:19:22] Remember that for sure.

Curt Mills [01:19:24] But, you know, if you look at the conversation online, if you look at the sentiments of of younger conservatives, young Republicans, the anti-war stuff is big and it’s not going anywhere. And I think that also drives a sense of a timetable, which is, you know, we’ve got these older people in their 6070s, 80s and 90s. They have a certain beliefs that they’re the people that voted for the stuff in the 90s and 2000s and we got to get this stuff done now before the United States turns you know on both parties on this stuff and this was always this was.

Tucker [01:19:55] How we can’t afford it anymore. And our allies pivot to China and sell even more defense technology to China. Yeah, I do think they’re okay. So with a backbone of support for these wars has been evangelicals, let’s just be blunt about it. It’s everyone, you know, beats up on the neo cons or whatever, these fervent intellectuals in Washington. But really the foot soldiers of this have been Fox News viewers who are not ideological. They’re not intellectuals. They’re not. They’re just normal American, patriotic, heavily evangelical people. And the truth is, I think a lot of them are beginning to recognize that their religion does not support this at all. Yeah. It’s really clear. Genesis six. Why do we have the flood? Why does God kill everything on earth? All the people except no one. His family, All the animals except the ones in the ark. What does he do that spells it right out? Because they’re committing violence, that’s why. So it’s like the idea that, I mean, the Iraq war breaks out and all these preachers like, no, no, no, really, we have to fight Islam and kill all these people. And that’s what God wants.

Curt Mills [01:20:58] That’s not what it says at all.

Tucker [01:21:01] And there’s no mention of any specific secular government in the New Testament. Sorry, guys. And I think a lot of Christians are beginning to realize it doesn’t because you’re Christian doesn’t mean you have a specific political agenda at all, I don’t think. Yeah. But if your political agenda is like violence, that’s prohibited. Sorry. And I have to say, it could not be clearer. It’s on every freaking page. So I don’t know. The deception involved in this was just like, mind boggling that these preachers could get up on Fox News and tell you that like, yeah, killing people is what Jesus wants. No, that’s not true. And I just feel among people I know a growing recognition of that. And I think it’s a huge problem for the war lobby, which has used these people as its supporters. And you see it in the Congress. You know, I’m an evangelical and I’m for another war with somebody. No, you can’t do that.

Curt Mills [01:21:51] And I’m hoping people are zoned out.

Curt Mills [01:21:53] You do think that?

Curt Mills [01:21:55] Yeah, I think there have been many countries old, tired, zoned out, can’t oppose it. And they’re hoping that these initiatives can be achieved piecemeal. You know, start by bombing Iran here, etc., etc.. Maybe the government will collapse, etc., etc., etc. to.

Tucker [01:22:12] Be replaced by what? The same?

Curt Mills [01:22:15] People who.

Tucker [01:22:16] Are in Khadafi and Saddam and the.

Curt Mills [01:22:19] Taliban, I think. Okay. I mean, you take the other side. I mean I mean, the Assad thing is it’s like pretty close to the best case scenario of how that could have gone. I think in Iran, it would go way, way, way worse. It’s a much bigger country.

Tucker [01:22:34] It’s hard to know your own the days, you know, you start killing people.

Curt Mills [01:22:37] Things go.

Tucker [01:22:38] Sideways like you think.

Curt Mills [01:22:39] It’s it’s pretty close to Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Right.

Curt Mills [01:22:42] You had you had.

Tucker [01:22:43] That way to me. You have.

Curt Mills [01:22:44] Urban. You have you have you have the capacity for major urban violence, all Iraq. You have huge cities. The Kabul’s small but you know you have that. And then additionally you have the mountain element. So any. Any outlaw contingent can just flee there. I mean, and we learned this before our southern neighbor. Why is Mexico ungovernable? The mountains.

Curt Mills [01:23:05] The insurgency that you just just.

Curt Mills [01:23:06] Just flee. I mean, the entire coastline.

Tucker [01:23:08] Right. Why is Kentucky ungovernable? Same reason.

Curt Mills [01:23:11] Yeah. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, so.

Curt Mills [01:23:13] Just kidding. No, no. I mean, it’s.

Curt Mills [01:23:14] I mean, it’s hard to. It would be very, very, very difficult. And just ask Saddam Hussein, who tried to invade Iran and it didn’t work out for Mr. Hussein, that a lot of things didn’t.

Tucker [01:23:24] So, no, I agree completely. Well, you have actually given me. I asked you to come for this conversation. It’s late at night. I was very exercised about it. You were nice enough to come and work in a hotel room in some city, but, I thought it was going to be more depressed by the end. But actually, I feel really heartened by what you said.

Curt Mills [01:23:45] Thanks for having me.

Tucker [01:23:47]