[Majorityrights News] Trump will ‘arm Ukraine to the teeth’ if Putin won’t negotiate ceasefire Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 12 November 2024 16:20.
[Majorityrights News] Alex Navalny, born 4th June, 1976; died at Yamalo-Nenets penitentiary 16th February, 2024 Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 16 February 2024 23:43.
[Majorityrights Central] A couple of exchanges on the nature and meaning of Christianity’s origin Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 25 July 2023 22:19.
[Majorityrights News] Is the Ukrainian counter-offensive for Bakhmut the counter-offensive for Ukraine? Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 18 May 2023 18:55.
When nostalgic Brexiteers look back to the ‘good old days’, the summers were warmer, the food was tastier, and the dogs and people were friendlier. They have convinced themselves that it was a Golden Age before we joined the old Common Market in 1973. They have forgotten about the strikes and confrontations, the poor productivity, and the years of stagnation.
Some of them believe that the British Empire was destroyed by conspiracies but history tells a different story. When the Japanese won their war with Russia in 1905 they showed that the European powers were vulnerable, and when they took Singapore from Britain in 1942 they proved their point to the subject peoples of Asia and Africa. We fought colonial wars in Malaya, Kenya, Aden, and Cyprus but there was no stopping “The Wind of Change.” Within thirty years of WW2, all that was left of the Empire was a few outposts like Gibraltar and the Falklands.
Those of us born in the last days of the British Empire are proud of our achievements. We built roads, railways and bridges all over the world and bequeathing a civil service, a judiciary, and a parliamentary system to our colonial subjects. The British Empire was a force for civilisation and progress, but it was also the source of cheap food that damaged our agriculture, the producer of cheap cotton goods that destroyed our textiles industry, and the supplier of immigrants that undercut our wages and conditions. We discovered the hard way that commerce overrules sovereignty and that people follow goods across borders. In the days of Empire we recruited workers from the West Indies; as members of the EU we signed up to its rules and conditions, and if we are swallowed up by the United States we will import contaminated food and commit our troops to ‘perpetual war’.
Capitalism has been global since the days of the East India Company. We fought the Chinese to force them to buy our opium; we fought the Afrikaners for their gold and diamonds, and we fought the Turks to steal the Arabian oilfields. But the days of trade enforced by bayonets are over. We belong to NATO and our armed forces are under the command of General Curtiss Scaparroti, Supreme Allied Commander Europe. We are members of the United Nations and subject to the International Court of Human Rights. We belong to the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. If we leave the EU we will operate under the World Trade Organisation. And the majority of our immigrants come from outside the EU, mainly from Africa and Asia.
We pro-Europeans believe in beneficial access to markets, incoming investment, and peace in Northern Ireland. And, realising that the Empire has gone, we see our future in terms of European co-operation. We also know that wages are far too low and that immigration can only be controlled by international agreement.
These arguments have been thoroughly debated but the decision to leave the EU was largely emotional. Abstract ideas of ‘sovereignty’ were more important than economics. In fact, some on the Brexiters are happy to accept a lower standard of living for the illusion of sovereignty.
As for immigration, the Brexiteers don’t regard West Indians, Africans and Asians as foreigners, after all, they play cricket and most of them speak English. They are happy to admit our former colonial subjects but they are determined to stop the Poles.
Neither side has a monopoly on patriotism but some people are fond of shouting “traitor” at the opposition. That’s unfair because we all want the best for our country. People are not traitors because they have a different opinion, and shouting abuse at foreigners does not make one a patriot. We are entering uncharted waters and time alone will tell who is right and who is wrong.
The BBC
John Reith 1889-1971 photo credit BBC.
The British Broadcasting Corporation is a state-owned media empire that was founded by the brilliant Scottish engineer and radio pioneer John Reith in 1922. His original intention was for the service to be educational as well as entertaining. Left-wingers accuse it of being right-wing and right-wingers accuse it of being left- wing. The truth is that it supports the establishment, not necessarily the government of the day but the overriding liberal-capitalists consensus.
[MR editorial note: Nationalists being against corrupt establishment is indicative of what we are calling “Left Nationalism”]
The Corporation is funded by an annual ‘licence fee’ of £147.00. If you watch TV in the UK you must pay the licence fee, even if you are watching a foreign station. This unfair levy is the main source of the BBC’s massive income of nearly five billion pounds. It wastes this money on presenters like Chris Evans who earned £2.2 million last year, Gary Lineker who earned £1,7 million, and Graham Norton who got £850,000. The BBC also has legions of journalists, researchers, and photographers who fly around the world gathering news stories. And it spends a fortune on legal fees and settlements.
The British government is struggling to find money for the National Health Service, defence, education, and almost everything else. But we allow the bloated BBC to waste billions of pounds on broadcasters and bureaucrats. We should stop this madness by selling it off; the TV and radio stations, the buildings, the news service, the sports franchises, and everything else.
And we should not fall for the myths of impartiality and quality surrounding the Corporation. It’s forever congratulating itself on its high standards, but it’s as biased as any other state-owned propaganda outlet, and most of its TV and radio programs are made by independent production companies.
The licence fee should be abolished and the slimmed-down company should be paid for by adverting revenue, with any profits going to the state. Presenters should be paid an industrial wage and the service should be returned to John Reith’s founding principles. The current BBC is a money-gobbling monster that’s out of control. We should sack the lot of them and start again.
Post-Brexit Policies
When we leave the EU the political parties will no longer be able to blame everything on Europe, they will be forced to address our problems. As I write, they are holding their annual conferences and making their promises for the future.
Theresa May is clinging to her Chequers plan despite the fact that it has been rejected by the EU and most of her party. The Tories have abandoned austerity and are promising to build more social housing and increase public spending. They have also promised to reduce corporation tax so an increase in income tax is inevitable.
Jeremy Corbyn expects to win the next general election and he has promised to renationalise the railways, the Royal Mail, and the water companies. His chancellor, John MacDonald has revived the manifesto of the Italian Social Republic to give shares and seats on the board of companies employing more than 250 workers. When Benito Mussolini introduced this policy it was overtaken by events.
Vince Cable pledged that the Lib Dems would lead the fight against Brexit but our ‘first past the post’ electoral system is rigged against them. They have 12 seats at Westminster but under proportional representation they would have more than 50.
Ukip and the various parties of the far-right will lose most of their reasons for living when we quit Europe. But immigration will still be with us because most of them come from outside of the EU. The latest ONS figures show that in the last year 127,000 EU citizens came to the UK and 179,000 from the rest of the world. In fact, if we sign trade deals with China and India we will probably admit more of them.
All of the parties are promising to increase defence spending, but if our economy shrinks we will have even less money to spend. We may have to stop pretending to be a world power and deploy our armed forces for the defence of the UK, instead of getting involved in Afghanistan and the Middle East. That would mean more frigates and destroyers but we would not need two gigantic aircraft carriers and a fleet of nuclear submarines.
Education also needs sorting out. France and Germany provide free education from nursery to university and so should we. We must gear our educational system to provide the doctors, engineers and scientists that we need instead of relying on immigration.
Posted by DanielS on Monday, 24 September 2018 14:30.
It was only after he began attending New College of Florida that Black began to question his own point of view. Previously, he had been home-schooled, but suddenly he was was exposed to people who didn’t share his views, including a few Jewish students who became friends. Black’s new friends invited him over for Shabbat dinner week after week. Gradually, he began to rethink his views.
NPR, “How A Rising Star Of White Nationalism Broke Free From The Movement”, 24 Sept 2018:
Derek Black was following in his father’s footsteps in the world of white nationalism until he had a change of heart.
As the son of a grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, Derek Black was once the heir apparent of the white nationalist movement.
Growing up, he made speeches, hosted a radio show and started the website KidsStormfront — which acted as a companion to Stormfront, the white nationalist website his father, Don Black, created.
“The fundamental belief that drove my dad, drove my parents and my family, over decades, was that race was the defining feature of humanity ... and that people were only happy if they could live in a society that was only this one biologically defined racial group,” Black says.
It was only after he began attending New College of Florida that Black began to question his own point of view. Previously, he had been home-schooled, but suddenly he was exposed to people who didn’t share his views, including a few Jewish students who became friends.
Black’s new friends invited him over for Shabbat dinner week after week. Gradually, he began to rethink his views. After much soul-searching, a 22-year-old Black wrote an article, published by the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2013, renouncing white nationalism.
Derek Black’s “awakening” is the subject of Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Eli Saslow’s new book, Rising Out Of Hatred. Saslow also interviewed Black’s father and other leaders in the white nationalist movement.
Interview Highlights
On the “rebranding” of white supremacy, led in part by Derek’s father, Don Black
Derek Black: My dad popularized the term “white nationalism” ... when he founded Stormfront and called it a white nationalist community, and he saw the distinction between white nationalism and white supremacy as being one that he didn’t want anything bad for anyone else — he just wanted everybody to be forcibly put in different spaces, and that that was not about superiority, it was just about the well-being of everybody. ... Looking back on it, that is totally irrational. How exactly do you think you’re going to forcibly separate everybody and that that’s not supremacy?
Eli Saslow: They believed America was founded as a white supremacist country. ... Their job was just to give people a space to say racist ideas in a more explicit, proud, confident way. ...
White nationalism, I think, effectively identifies a movement of people who are actively pursuing an end cause of separating races into different homelands. White supremacy, unfortunately, is something that’s much more endemic, and much more structured into what the country is.
On Black’s usage of white nationalist talking points in a campaign for the West Palm Beach County Republican Committee
Black: I knew from the time that I was a child that white nationalism, as long as it was not necessarily calling itself white nationalism, could win campaigns. So I did things like run little Republican county elections [to] demonstrate that I could win with the majority of the vote [using] white nationalist talking points in a very normal South Florida neighborhood.
I ran training sessions on how people could hone their message to try to get that audience, not freak people out and just tap into things like, “Don’t you think all these Spanish signs on the highway are making everything worse? And don’t you think political correctness is just not letting you talk about things that are real?” And getting people to agree on that would be the way forward.
On how President Obama’s election motivated white nationalists
Saslow: I think a lot of white nationalists saw President Obama’s election as a huge opportunity for their movement. Because what white nationalists have done, with dangerous effect, is play to this factually incorrect sense of grievance that exists, unfortunately, in large parts of white America.
Polls consistently show that 30 to 40 percent of white Americans believe that they experience more discrimination and more prejudice than people of color or than Jews, which is factually incorrect by every measure that we have, but by feeding that sense of grievance and by playing to these ideas of your country is being taken away, things are changing, this is turning into a place that you don’t recognize. We don’t need this kind of immigration. We don’t want these signs in Spanish — that has a huge effect with a lot of voters, and it’s what got Derek elected [he was unable to serve in office], and it’s what has gotten other politicians elected in our country as well.
On the responsibility Black feels for racially motivated violence that was inspired by the white nationalist beliefs he once espoused
I said things that tried to energize racist ideas and get people to be more explicit about it. And then people who listened to that and who believed it, some of them committed horrible, violent acts.
...That is a moral weight that is very difficult to reconcile.
Derek Black
Black: I spent so many years rationalizing that that was not us. We were not responsible for that. We were not advocating violence, so therefore when people committed violent acts who had all the same beliefs as us, that that was not us. That was the media portraying us in a way that attracted psychopaths, and that we were somehow not responsible for that because it was not clear how to tangibly connect what I was saying and what I was promoting to the actions that those people took.
And now I look back on it and I said things that tried to energize racist ideas and get people to be more explicit about it. And then people who listened to that and who believed it, some of them committed horrible, violent acts. And what is my culpability and responsibility for how these things went out into the world and they continue to bounce around in the world, and I can’t take them back? That is a moral weight that is very difficult to reconcile.
On how the actions of various students Black met at college helped him move away from his white nationalist beliefs
Saslow: In addition to being the story of Derek’s transformation, the book is also the story of the real courage shown by a lot of students on this campus who invested themselves in trying to affect profound change. And they did that in a lot of different ways. There was civil resistance on campus by a group of students who organized the school shutdown, and shut down the school, and sort of cast Derek out, and made it clear to him how awful, and how hateful, and how hurtful this ideology was.
And it was also students like Allison, eventually his girlfriend, who won his trust, built a relationship, but [who] also armored herself with the facts, and sort of like point by point went through and showed how this ideology is built on total misinformation.
And then there were also [Jewish] students like Matthew [Stevenson] and Moshe [Ash] who, in a remarkable act, invited Derek over week after week after week, not to build the case against him but to build their relationship, hoping that just by spending more and more time with them he would be able to begin seeing past the stereotypes to the people and to the humanity. I think it’s important to note that that did not happen quickly, and that they knew the full horror of a lot of the beliefs of this ideology and things that Derek had said.
Heidi Saman and Mooj Zadie produced and edited the audio of this interview. Bridget Bentz, Molly Seavy-Nesper and Meghan Sullivan adapted it for the Web.
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 22 September 2018 09:24.
Social Const….
Greg Johnson discusses his new book, “The White Nationalist Manifesto” with J.F. Gariepy.
I can recommend it only with caveat.
While he does lay out the case for Whites being genocided and recognizes the necessity for raising the perceived legitimacy and consciousness of the need for White Nationalism, he does not see the contradiction in his using social constructionism as an example of social theory antagonistic to that consciousness and practice.
He calls race being a social construct “an entirely bogus idea.” ...This is an expression of his middling (138) I.Q. He’s only smart enough to talk himself out of the eminent utility and truth of the concept.
Social Constructionism (proper) does not say that race, evolution and biological distinctions are not real. What it does, rather, is sensitize our attention to our social connection, indebtedness - which is true (not bogus) - consciousness of which provides for some agency and accountability (coherence and warrant too), at very least in determining how these things come to count.
You would not want to oppose this sensitization to social conscientiousness, agency and accountability (coherence and warrant) if you are looking to build consciousness and conscientiousness of White Nationalism.
Similarly, you would not want to be arguing against THE Left, as he does, given its general enculturation of union type organization, loyalty and compassion to the full group, including those on the margins, full group advocacy against elite and rank and file betrayal, if you want to raise consciousness and loyal adherents to White Nationalism.
Greg Johnson. Typical Right Winger ...with a lisp and a better than average I.Q., which is good, but maybe not good enough.
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 15 September 2018 06:29.
I’ve made love to tousands of women, and I’m doing a favor to ze ozer men by doing zat, because I am making zere women eager for sex; but I never make love to zem in ze ozer ‘ole, even when beautiful women want it, ask me to make love in ze ozer ‘ole, I never give it to zem in ze ozer ‘ole, even if zey want it in ze ozer ‘ole, so ze ozer men can ave ze anus ‘ole, can give it to zem in ze ozer ‘ole.
...Just when you thought JF Gariepy’s subgenius couldn’t be any more insufficient to the task:
...and beating the natives with sticks whenever they don’t work hard enough.
The kind of ruthless racial self-assertion that these Chinks engage in is world-beating. Whites can’t compete with it. Not now that we have sunk into the abyss of altruism.
As Baudelaire said: The world belongs to the one who doesn’t care. These Chinamen don’t care.
It wasn’t that long ago that Whites were as hardcore as these Chinamen. Ask yourself: is the world really a better place now that they’re not?
“Western countries need to study these Chinese techniques and adopt them.”
Not adopt them. Whites need to adapt ruthless ferocity to the ethnonationalist cause. In the two examples, one would be correct, and one would not.
Where Islamic incursions are quelled, that is correct.
Going to an African country, enslaving them, beating them and so on - when it is not sheer self defense - is not.
But of course, such bad advice (e.g., that we should be brutal slave masters over Africans) is typical of right wing reactionaries - to look for a foundation in natural fallacy, in sheer might makes right supremacism beyond the complexity of social praxis. ...and, of course, when praxis is ignored, then broader patterns of nemesis correction are in store for the hubris.
Socially constructing the non-social construction of right-wing, “politically incorrect objectivity.”
Cole-Stein is going to talk about how the porn-industry is “the last refuge of political incorrectness”, how “unlike the ‘Leftist’ controlled media, it simply and objectively caters to the desires of its ‘fan-base.”
Robert Stark: This-is-Robert-Stark. I am joined here with-uh, David Cole. Uh David, great having you back on the show.
David Cole-Stein: It’s a pleasure to be back, Robert! It really is. I enjoyed our first go-round and I’m looking forward to doing it again.
Robert Stark: And I’m also joined here with my ‘Alt-of-Center’ co-host, ah, Mathew Pegus.
Stark seems to provide/be provided with a different kosher co-host every few shows or so.
Mathew Pegus: Great to be here Robert. Thank you for having me.
David Cole-Stein: Speaking of ‘Alt’, I want to apologize to you, Robert; because I know, a couple months ago in one of my Taki-Mag pieces, I kind-of mischaracterized you in my description of you ...and you were very polite about it, you were very nice about it; but I don’t like when I do that, because, number one, I don’t like to make errors in print, but also I don’t like it when people mischaracterize me or affix labels to me that I don’t want or don’t deserve. So I want to just apologize to get things started here, one on one here: I’m very sorry - I think I called you “Alt-Righty.” ...and uh..
Robert Stark: Or like “Extreme Alt-Right” or “Hard-Core Alt-Right.” ...(chuckles)
David Cole-Stein: Uh, Ok. Yeah, rub it in! Go ahead! That, that, here - here’s a man trying to like, grovel; and you take that salt and you rub-it right in! Yes, I made a grievous error, a grievous error! and I apologize for it.
Robert Stark (chuckles): So uh, lets start with your recent article, “Lessons From My Porn-Girl” ..and just as kind of an overall theme, is how pornography is the one area in our culture where one is allowed to be ah, politically incorrect. So by-basically to start things off, by ‘porn-girl’ you’re referencing this woman that you used to know…
David Cole-Stein: Well, a woman who lived with me. A woman whose porn-name is Kirsten Lee; ah, her real name is Kera. That - I’m not outing anybody, she has, she has outed herself. So this is not me, ah doing anything (coughs) like outing or doxxing. Kera lived with me for almost two years and was pretty much my partner in crime. She was twenty one when I uh, met her and uh…and I, basically, my role in her life was to try to help her out of the porn-biz. It’s a business that has never interested me but it was fascinating during that first year that she and I were together before she got out of it because by the second year she was fully out. You know the, the amazing thing about a porn girl is that once you give them free rent and utilities and food, ah they no longer feel the need to seek money; ah and well, they can just get right out of porn at that point - it’s really a miraculous formula; uh, they, they, once they don’t have any needs or bills to pay or anything like that, well getting out of porn seems pretty simple at that point.
The White Left will emphasize this point of social safety net to help prevent mud-sharkery in the first place.
Robert Stark: So, you-you touch on the theme of how pornography is the one, the one uh, aspect of media where politically incorrect content is uh, not only tolerated but promoted; and garners massive amounts of hit-counts in profits. What was the specific case with her and her ah, politically incorrect attitudes about sexual relations in porn.
Cole-Burner Stain
David Cole-Stein
David Cole-Stein: Well I, um, I was amazed, really quite amazed by the people I mixed with during that first year while she was still knee deep, neck deep in the business. Uh, on racial matters, the kind of stuff that is the most taboo for the rest of us to talk about, on racial matters porn is just insanely honest. I’m not affixing a good or bad label to it, or healthy or unhealthy - just saying its incredibly honest: White girl comes in and White girl says, “I’m not going to blow an N-word”, and uh, and the producers of porn companies are like, ‘great, you don’t do the N-word porn’. Um, Kera, my porn-girl, made most of her money doing interracial stuff, because since she was so young and very thin and kind of pristine for lack of a better word; uh, it was kind of rare to have a White girl like that do interracial because ah, normally it was the older women who put on a few pounds who’d do the interracial; uh, but for a blond girl, blue eyes, twenty one years old and looking like she’s just come right-off the fiords, it was, she made a great-deal of money at that.
Note that Cole-Stein is marking a transition, there was a time when this didn’t happen, or not much among working class women and certainly not much in the public space. It is not a time in memorial truth of societal behavior; and it’s not as if it is a sheer discovered fan base - but he’s normalizing and institutionalizing it as a given fact apart from negotiative components of societal incentive - particularly, money and a Jewish anti-White agenda.
His argument - “a fan base”, as in, “this is what people agentively want” - is up against the involuntary high contrast tropism and need to gauge genetic distance and competition, not a mere expression of a ‘fan base’ catered-to. As a high contrast tropism, it is simply harder to ignore highly contrasting sounds and sights such as interracial; and the genetic call to grapple with the incitement to competition and deal with its vast, destructive genetic distance. It doesn’t necessarily mean this is what people want. Furthermore, there are elective, i.e., not merely catered-to, non-interracial taboos that are very popular also which can serve as an antidote to the destructive effects of this “catered-to” tropism.
David Cole-Stein (continues): But yet in her private life, she would never do interracial. That was the thing that fascinated me most was how she was able to compartmentalize the racial thing. When she’s at work and she gets $8,000 to go down on a black dude, well that’s just work, she just does it. And then when we’re out in club and some black guy tries to hit on her and maybe comment on her porn, and she’ll let loose just a stream of expletives, ah ‘you friggin’ N-word’, ‘you N-word this and N-word that’ (Stark giggles) uh, there’s, huh, in her mind, its just, hey, I’m at work, I’m at work and my work right now is blowin’ a black guy; and then when we’re out at a club later that night - hey, this is my private time, I don’t want to talk to a black guy…so..
It’s at work, ‘it’s ok then’. As with Hannah Arendt, he is shifting an ethnic basis for discrimination to the abstract, individual basis of “public and private.” He is trying to create a distancing effect, ‘this is play’ - to create a distancing effect from the actual participation of the actresses.
David Cole-Stein (continues): But the whole industry was just sort of honest that way. Ah, most of the women, would - including black girls too and the Latino girls - they were just very honest, ‘cuz you can talk about race in porn in a way that you can’t in real life. It’s, I make the point in my article - where else in American society right now can pay-scale be determined by your race? I mean, if any other business, if Amazon were to say, ‘we’re going to be paying uh, White programmers more than uh, Asian ones’, well of course it would be a huge thing and I’m not advocating that at all. But in porn, White girls who are willing to do black guys make more; uh, White girls who only want to do other White girls make the least. Because that’s, that’s, hell, any White girl will kiss another White girl these days, that’s ...in my day that was barely titillating and I think everyone kind of does that now.
So.. and then the Mexican dudes, there were some Arab dudes - and they get paid different based on race ..eh that doesn’t happen anywhere else. I mean, its kind of astounding when I was looking at it. I spent years writing about racial politics and racial law and discrimination laws. And I’m like, wow, this, this is the wild-west, this is a part of the entertainment industry - and a profitable one - that has yet to be touched by that Leftist hand of politically correct social justice bullshit.
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 16 August 2018 06:16.
Observer, “Mueller Finally Starts to Target Trump’s Israel Ties”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Donald Trump.
Our media has followed the Justice Department’s investigation of President Donald Trump’s ties to Russia closely for more than a year, with each revelation getting granular analysis amid endless television coverage. No news here is too small to avoid hours of talking-head pontification. Yet, it appears that a significant aspect of the inquiry, one that calls the conventional narrative of the case into question, has been missing from public view—until now.
A genuine bombshell dropped yesterday, seemingly out of nowhere. It came in an interview with Simona Mangiante, the wife of George Papadopoulos, the Trump campaign foreign policy advisor who pled guilty last October to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russian agents—especially Joseph Mifsud, the mysterious Maltese professor with suspicious Kremlin ties—during the president’s election campaign. As expected, Mangiante explained that her husband, whom she married just three months ago, is innocent of what he admitted he did, and in no way was working for Russian intelligence.
“George had nothing to do with Russia,” she explained, seemingly in an effort to convince the White House that Papadopoulos lacks any dirt on the president’s Kremlin connections that could assist Special Counsel Robert Mueller in his investigation of Team Trump. However, what Mangiante said next was the real shocker: her husband “pled guilty because [Mueller’s prosecutors] threatened to charge him with being an Israeli agent.”
Wait, what?
According to his wife, who insists that George Papadopoulos has nothing to do with Russia, he was facing criminal charges of being a spy for Israel. An attentive reader of her interview will note that Mangiante at no point denied that this accusation.
The notion is hardly implausible. Before joining the Trump campaign in early March 2016, Papadopoulos was a self-styled energy consultant who was known for taking strongly pro-Israeli positions in print. To boot, during the 2016 campaign, he met with an Israeli settler leader and assured him that Donald Trump, if elected president, would take a favorable view of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
Then there’s the backstory to Papadopoulos’ infamous May 10, 2016 meeting at an upscale London wine bar with Alexander Downer, the Australian high commissioner (i.e. ambassador) to Britain. At that hard-drinking affair, the young Trump staffer informed Downer that Russia possessed derogatory information about Hillary Clinton—a claim the Australian diplomat found so troubling that he shared it with Australian security officials, who passed it on to their American partners, thus officially beginning the FBI’s investigation of Trump’s Kremlin ties.
That fateful boozy chat was set up by an unnamed Israeli diplomat. This fact, namely that “the meeting came about through a series of connections involving an Israeli diplomat who introduced Papadopoulos to an Australian counterpart,” was reported at the end of last year, “sourced from four current and former American and foreign officials.” This revelation has not been rebutted, nor has it received the attention it deserves. Given that a high percentage of Israeli diplomats serving abroad are spies, this story needs further investigation.
Moreover, there are strange Israeli footprints all over the Trump-Russia story. Quite a few of the shady figures close to the president and his business affairs are American Jews of Soviet heritage who possess connections to Israel. Felix Sater and Michael Cohen are only the best-known of this dubious crew. Those men are also connected to Chabad of Port Washington, a Jewish community center on Long Island that is part of the worldwide Chabad movement—which reportedly possesses close links to Putin and his Kremlin. The recent BBC report that Cohen accepted at least $400,000 from the Ukrainian government to set up a substantive meeting with President Trump last year included the tantalizing detail that this dirty deal ran through attendees of Chabad of Port Washington.
Then there’s the explosive New York Times report just two weeks ago about a hush-hush meeting in Trump Tower on August 3, 2016—less than two months after the other hush-hush meeting there with Kremlin operatives—between Team Trump and George Nader, who reportedly offered Donald Trump, Jr. help with getting his father elected. According to the Times, Nader proffered unofficial (and probably illegal) foreign aid to the Republican nominee’s campaign, including from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
That day, Nader brought with him Joel Zamel, an Israeli expert in several things that were of interest to Team Trump, including social media manipulation. Zamel is known to possess a close relationship with a bunch of former Israeli intelligence officials, and Nader reportedly paid him a large sum, perhaps as much as $2 million, after Trump’s election as compensation for Zamel’s shadowy social media assistance to the president-elect’s campaign in (both men also visited the White House).
Zamel is best known as the founder of Wikistrat, a private intelligence firm that was founded in 2010, ostensibly as a “crowdsourced” geopolitical analysis outfit. Although it’s based in Washington, D.C., as The Daily Beast recently uncovered, “Wikistrat is, for all intents and purposes, an Israeli firm; and that the company’s work was not just limited to analysis. It also engaged in intelligence collection.” For this reason, Wikistrat is under investigation by Team Mueller, whose investigators have interviewed Zamel, while FBI agents have traveled to Israel to dig deeper. Several prominent Wikistrat staffers formerly worked for Israeli intelligence—and some experienced espionage professionals in our nation’s capital wonder if they still do.
Israeli espionage against the United States is a perennially touchy subject in Washington. This issue is admitted frankly in counterintelligence circles—and nowhere else. Israel constitutes a unique case. Although it’s a close ally and intelligence partner of ours—the relationship between the National Security Agency and the Israel Defense Force’s Unit 8200, its Israeli equivalent, is exceptionally close—Israel also spies on America aggressively. Year in and year out, Israel ranks in the Big Four counterintelligence threats to the United States, alongside Russia, China and Cuba. It’s not politic to mention this in polite society, however, so the counterspies know a lot about Israel’s spying on us, keeping mum outside their esoteric realm.
Indeed, some counterintelligence pros in Washington have a rather different take on the Mueller inquiry than most Americans do. While Moscow’s secret role in subverting our election in 2016 is plain to see and is now denied only by the willfully obtuse or congenitally dishonest, detecting a direct Kremlin hand on the Trump campaign is trickier. Trump’s links to Moscow are visible but remain somewhat obscure.
His ties to Israel, however, are much plainer to see. Based on the available evidence to date, Team Trump’s 2016 links to shadowy Israelis appear just as troubling as those to dodgy Russians—indeed, in some cases they are the very same people. As a veteran counterspy in our Intelligence Community whom I’ve known for years recently asked me with a wry smile, “What if the real secret of the Trump campaign isn’t that it’s a Kremlin operation, rather an Israeli operation masquerading as a Russian one?”
That’s a provocative question, but it merits consideration beyond counterintelligence circles. After all, Putin and his retinue have ample reason to feel let down by Trump. His greasy obsequiousness to Moscow aside, the president’s policies towards Russia have hardly pleased the Kremlin. Sanctions on Russia remain in effect, NATO’s military posture near Russia’s borders is more robust than a couple years ago, and Ukraine is now getting the anti-tank missiles that the previous White House denied it. Unlike so many of Trump’s assertions, his claim that he’s tougher on Moscow than President Barack Obama happens to be true from any policy perspective.
But not so with Israel. Unlike Obama, Trump has gone whole-hog for the Israeli right-wing, boosting Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu, who openly despised Obama, at every opportunity. The recent move of our embassy to Jerusalem, long desired by the Israeli Right, is merely the most prominent of Trump’s gifts to his pal Bibi and his ruling Likud party. Sending a right-wing American Jew who has compared his more liberal co-religionists to Nazi collaborators to serve as our ambassador sent a clear message to Israel, as did the Trump administration’s recent inability to say anything negative about the IDF’s shooting last month of more than a thousand Palestinians at the Gaza border fence, killing 60 of them. Instead, the White House blocked a United Nations resolution condemning that Israeli deed, serving as a tacit endorsement of using automatic weapons for crowd control.
Few of America’s friends around the world are happy with the Trump administration, given its habit of gleefully trashing our longstanding alliances and declaring trade wars on our allies. Israel stands as a significant exception, however, and it’s no wonder that Mueller and his investigators are trying to get to the bottom of what certain Israelis were doing in 2016 in secret to boost the Trump campaign. That answer may eventually prove just as important as Mueller’s inquiry into the Kremlin and its clandestine attack on our democracy two years ago.
John Schindler is a security expert and former National Security Agency analyst. Originally posted 06/05/18, but still relevant.
It was only after he began attending New College of Florida that Black began to question his own point of view. Previously, he had been home-schooled, but suddenly he was was exposed to people who didn’t share his views, including a few Jewish students who became friends. Black’s new friends invited him over for Shabbat dinner week after week. Gradually, he began to rethink his views.
Social Const….
I’ve made love to tousands of women, and I’m doing a favor to ze ozer men by doing zat, because I am making zere women eager for sex; but I never make love to zem in ze ozer ‘ole, even when beautiful women want it, ask me to make love in ze ozer ‘ole, I never give it to zem in ze ozer ‘ole, even if zey want it in ze ozer ‘ole, so ze ozer men can ave ze anus ‘ole, can give it to zem in ze ozer ‘ole.
David Cole-Stein
