Liberal Zionists Are Evil Shitbags, by Caitlin Johnstone - The Unz Review
In a recent appearance at the Hampton Institute, Hillary Clinton stated that Benjamin Netanyahu’s “first and foremost” offense is the damage he has done to Israel and its reputation.
“There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind how seriously Netanyahu has damaged, first and foremost, Israel,” Clinton said. “And second, the perception that people not just in the United States, but around the world, have of Israel, and that has to be repaired.”
She hit that “first and foremost” part especially hard while speaking. Really leaned her ovaries into it.
This is liberal Zionism in a nutshell. The problem isn’t Israel damaging Palestinian lives, the problem is Benjamin Netanyahu damaging Israel’s public image. The problem isn’t the genocide itself, the problem is that the genocide harms Israeli PR interests.
They don’t care about human suffering. They don’t care about human rights. All they care about is controlling the narrative.
We saw this illustrated a couple of years ago in a rant by then-secretary of state Antony Blinken complaining of the way videos of Israeli atrocities circulating online have “dominated the narrative” and are having “a very, very challenging effect on the narrative.” The problem isn’t what’s happening, the problem is people’s STORY about what’s happening. All the genocide, ethnic cleansing, apartheid and abuse would be fine if the Zionists could control what narratives people were telling about it. Benjamin Netanyahu is disliked not because he’s a genocidal monster, but because his genocidal monstrousness makes it hard to administer effective empire propaganda.
Amid the savagery of the Trump administration it’s easy to forget that the lion’s share of the killing in Gaza actually happened under Joe Biden. It’s easy to forget Biden’s lies about seeing pictures of beheaded babies and his false claims that the Gaza health ministry’s death counts were untrustworthy. It’s easy to forget the way State Department spokesman Matthew Miller always weaseled his way out of press gallery questions about the genocide with an obnoxious smirk on his face. It’s easy to forget all the DNC attendees who covered their ears as anti-genocide demonstrators listed names of Palestinian children who’d been butchered by Biden in Gaza.
They fully embraced Israel’s genocide. They reveled in it.
And now, just in time for midterms, former senior Biden officials have been telling the press that they regret not doing more to rein in Netanyahu’s mass military slaughter.
This was always the plan. They always knew they could just give Israel whatever it wants and then go “Oopsie! We made a mistake!” to cover their legacy after their crime was committed. And now that’s exactly what they’re doing. They planned this while the bombs were being shipped out.
This happens as House Democrats help Republicans pass a bipartisan bill which essentially forces American universities into partnerships with the state of Israel, stripping them of federal funding if they move toward divestment from the Zionist entity.
And now top Israeli officials are openly saying that it is time to complete the ethnic cleansing project in Gaza, with Defense Minister Israel Katz and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir both promoting a plan for a mass purge in recent days. All made possible by the deliberate demolition of Gaza with the full-throated support of the Democratic Party.
This is who they are. Never let them forget it.
Liberal Zionists are just Israel supporters who want Israel to have more public approval. They desire an attractive, charming, Obama-style Israel which murders and abuses Palestinians discreetly while peddling the “two-state solution” myth and uttering flowery prose about equality and peace. They dislike the Trump-style Israel of today which makes no effort to conceal its sadistic nature...MORE
Liberal Zionists Are Evil Shitbags, by Caitlin Johnstone - The Unz Review
Monday, September 07, 2026
George Clooney and the rest of the liberal Hollywood elite are part of the Trump's jewish kakistocracy, but pretend to be opposed
Our Kakistocracy, by David Skrbina - The Unz Review
...And by “the worst,” [George] Clooney is obviously referring to Trump and the people in his administration. One can certainly make a fair case for this, given Trump’s many fiascoes both at home and abroad. That case is obvious and I won’t belabor it here.
But Clooney is largely mistaken if he thinks Trump and his stooges are really in charge. The real leaders, the real wire-pullers, are those who fund Trump, fund his allies, and fund most of those in Congress: the rich and powerful Jews who constitute the American Jewish Lobby. Trump notoriously received some $100 million from the Israeli-born dual citizen Jewess Miriam Adelson in 2024, but he also got substantial, multi-million-dollar contributions from Bill Ackman, Jacob Helberg, Ron Lauder, Marc Rowan, Jan Koum, Isaac Perlmutter, Bernie Marcus (before he died in late 2024), and current “Mid-East envoy” Steve Witkoff. Trump’s administration is predictably staffed with many Jews in key positions, including Witkoff, Lauder, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, Howard Lutnick, Stephen Miller, Lee Zeldin, Boris Epshteyn, David Sacks, Stephen Feinberg, and Will Scharf, among others.
Then we have Jews and Jewish influence in Congress. At the moment, there are some 35 Jews in Congress—10 in the Senate and 25 in the House. At 10% of the Senate, Jews are overrepresented by a factor of five, given their roughly 2% standing in the US population. If Jews were proportionately represented in Congress, there would perhaps be 10 serving there, rather than 35.
Be that as it may, there are still 500 non-Jews in Congress. And yet, somehow, Congress routinely votes in favor of Jewish and Israeli interests by large majorities. For example: this year, 58% of the House voted to block federal funding to universities that support commercial boycotts of Israel; 75% of the House voted to block Thomas Massie’s amendment to stop aid to Israel; a 2024 vote of $26 billion in aid to Israel to fund their Gaza genocide passed 79% in the Senate and 86% in the House; the 2024 “Antisemitism Awareness Act” was passed by 78% of the House; in 2023, HRes 888 “affirming Israel’s right to exist” was passed 412 to 1 (99.7%); and the 2023 HRes 1125, which condemned “Holocaust denial” among other things, passed 420 to 1 (99.8%).
Thus, we see large numbers of non-Jewish congresspersons voting in support of Jews and Israel—which happens either because (a) they are Christian Zionists, or (b) they receive a large proportion of their campaign funding from Jewish sources. Either way, they are controlled by Jews or Jewish interests. It has long been noted that Republicans receive at least 25%, and Democrats at least 50%, of their funding from Jewish or pro-Israel sources. This is astonishing, given that there are some 13,000 special interest lobbies in Washington; for one lobby to provide 50% of all funding is simply amazing. But it certainly explains congressional votes that are 70%, 80%, or 90% in favor of Jewish interests.
All this, then, to say that the real power in government today is not Trump and his team of screwballs but rather the Jewish Lobby collectively, which dictates policy to Trump and how to vote to members of Congress. This is by now so well-attested and so indisputable that it is hardly controversial. And yet, few can speak such truth.
If—as I believe—Clooney is correct and we are living in a kakistocracy, it is because “the worst” can be equated to “the Jews.” This is the obvious and logical conclusion. Clooney won’t say this, of course, because his very wealth and fame are due to this same Jewish Lobby that produces his motion pictures and promotes him in the media—the same lobby that runs Washington. Clooney foolishly believes that getting a different set of Jewish lackeys in power—namely, the Democrats—will make things better. Better for him, perhaps, but equally as bad for average Americans and for the world...MORE
Our Kakistocracy, by David Skrbina - The Unz Review
...And by “the worst,” [George] Clooney is obviously referring to Trump and the people in his administration. One can certainly make a fair case for this, given Trump’s many fiascoes both at home and abroad. That case is obvious and I won’t belabor it here.
But Clooney is largely mistaken if he thinks Trump and his stooges are really in charge. The real leaders, the real wire-pullers, are those who fund Trump, fund his allies, and fund most of those in Congress: the rich and powerful Jews who constitute the American Jewish Lobby. Trump notoriously received some $100 million from the Israeli-born dual citizen Jewess Miriam Adelson in 2024, but he also got substantial, multi-million-dollar contributions from Bill Ackman, Jacob Helberg, Ron Lauder, Marc Rowan, Jan Koum, Isaac Perlmutter, Bernie Marcus (before he died in late 2024), and current “Mid-East envoy” Steve Witkoff. Trump’s administration is predictably staffed with many Jews in key positions, including Witkoff, Lauder, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, Howard Lutnick, Stephen Miller, Lee Zeldin, Boris Epshteyn, David Sacks, Stephen Feinberg, and Will Scharf, among others.
Then we have Jews and Jewish influence in Congress. At the moment, there are some 35 Jews in Congress—10 in the Senate and 25 in the House. At 10% of the Senate, Jews are overrepresented by a factor of five, given their roughly 2% standing in the US population. If Jews were proportionately represented in Congress, there would perhaps be 10 serving there, rather than 35.
Be that as it may, there are still 500 non-Jews in Congress. And yet, somehow, Congress routinely votes in favor of Jewish and Israeli interests by large majorities. For example: this year, 58% of the House voted to block federal funding to universities that support commercial boycotts of Israel; 75% of the House voted to block Thomas Massie’s amendment to stop aid to Israel; a 2024 vote of $26 billion in aid to Israel to fund their Gaza genocide passed 79% in the Senate and 86% in the House; the 2024 “Antisemitism Awareness Act” was passed by 78% of the House; in 2023, HRes 888 “affirming Israel’s right to exist” was passed 412 to 1 (99.7%); and the 2023 HRes 1125, which condemned “Holocaust denial” among other things, passed 420 to 1 (99.8%).
Thus, we see large numbers of non-Jewish congresspersons voting in support of Jews and Israel—which happens either because (a) they are Christian Zionists, or (b) they receive a large proportion of their campaign funding from Jewish sources. Either way, they are controlled by Jews or Jewish interests. It has long been noted that Republicans receive at least 25%, and Democrats at least 50%, of their funding from Jewish or pro-Israel sources. This is astonishing, given that there are some 13,000 special interest lobbies in Washington; for one lobby to provide 50% of all funding is simply amazing. But it certainly explains congressional votes that are 70%, 80%, or 90% in favor of Jewish interests.
All this, then, to say that the real power in government today is not Trump and his team of screwballs but rather the Jewish Lobby collectively, which dictates policy to Trump and how to vote to members of Congress. This is by now so well-attested and so indisputable that it is hardly controversial. And yet, few can speak such truth.
If—as I believe—Clooney is correct and we are living in a kakistocracy, it is because “the worst” can be equated to “the Jews.” This is the obvious and logical conclusion. Clooney won’t say this, of course, because his very wealth and fame are due to this same Jewish Lobby that produces his motion pictures and promotes him in the media—the same lobby that runs Washington. Clooney foolishly believes that getting a different set of Jewish lackeys in power—namely, the Democrats—will make things better. Better for him, perhaps, but equally as bad for average Americans and for the world...MORE
Our Kakistocracy, by David Skrbina - The Unz Review
Sunday, September 06, 2026
Democratic voters say they want change, but Party just elevated more Israel First jewz, Zionists, and hawks to leadership positions
Democratic Voters Say They Want Change, But the Party Just Elevated More Hawks, by Stephen Zunes - The Unz Review
OpenAI Text Summary
The recent appointments of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Wesley Bell to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, alongside Jared Moskowitz as the ranking member of the Middle East and North Africa subcommittee, have raised significant concerns among Democratic voters. Despite a notable majority of registered Democrats opposing military aid to Israel, these selections reflect a continuation of hawkish foreign policy that does not align with the party's base. Moskowitz, in particular, has a troubling record that includes supporting unconditional military aid to Israel, dismissing criticisms of Israeli actions as antisemitism, and promoting legislation that hinders accountability for Israeli military operations. This trend of appointing individuals who disregard the Democratic base's views on foreign policy issues, especially regarding the Middle East, signals a troubling disconnect between party leadership and its constituents.
The implications of Moskowitz's potential chairmanship of the subcommittee could be profound. Should Democrats regain control of the House, Moskowitz would have considerable influence over Middle East policy, potentially stifling advocacy for human rights and fair treatment of Palestinians. With his history of aligning with right-wing positions and his commitments to strengthen ties with Israel and Gulf allies, there are fears that he will shape legislation in a manner that is detrimental to progressive values. Furthermore, his ability to determine who testifies before the committee could effectively exclude voices advocating for a more balanced approach to U.S. foreign policy, thereby entrenching the status quo that many Democratic voters oppose.
The appointments come at a time of increasing dissatisfaction among the Democratic electorate regarding the party's stance on Israel and broader Middle Eastern issues. Polls indicate that a significant portion of Democratic voters sympathize more with Palestinians than Israelis, and an overwhelming majority disapproves of further military aid to Israel. This growing sentiment is not reflected in the actions of party leaders, who continue to elevate figures like Moskowitz, Wasserman Schultz, and Bell—individuals whose positions starkly contrast with the preferences of the party's base. Critics argue that this disconnect exemplifies a broader pattern of the Democratic leadership prioritizing relationships with hawkish figures over the values and desires of their constituents.
Responses from within the party highlight the frustration with these appointments. Prominent voices, including progressive representatives, have spoken out against the leadership's decisions, emphasizing the need for a shift away from militaristic and authoritarian policies in the region. Critics like Dylan Williams and Ben Rhodes have underscored the leadership's failure to acknowledge the overwhelming majority of Democratic voters who advocate for a more humane and equitable approach to foreign policy. As the midterm elections approach, these appointments may further alienate progressive voters, reinforcing the impression that the party leadership is out of touch with the core values of its base. This growing rift could have significant implications for the Democratic Party's future and its ability to galvanize support in critical elections.
OpenAI Text Summary
The recent appointments of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Wesley Bell to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, alongside Jared Moskowitz as the ranking member of the Middle East and North Africa subcommittee, have raised significant concerns among Democratic voters. Despite a notable majority of registered Democrats opposing military aid to Israel, these selections reflect a continuation of hawkish foreign policy that does not align with the party's base. Moskowitz, in particular, has a troubling record that includes supporting unconditional military aid to Israel, dismissing criticisms of Israeli actions as antisemitism, and promoting legislation that hinders accountability for Israeli military operations. This trend of appointing individuals who disregard the Democratic base's views on foreign policy issues, especially regarding the Middle East, signals a troubling disconnect between party leadership and its constituents.
The implications of Moskowitz's potential chairmanship of the subcommittee could be profound. Should Democrats regain control of the House, Moskowitz would have considerable influence over Middle East policy, potentially stifling advocacy for human rights and fair treatment of Palestinians. With his history of aligning with right-wing positions and his commitments to strengthen ties with Israel and Gulf allies, there are fears that he will shape legislation in a manner that is detrimental to progressive values. Furthermore, his ability to determine who testifies before the committee could effectively exclude voices advocating for a more balanced approach to U.S. foreign policy, thereby entrenching the status quo that many Democratic voters oppose.
The appointments come at a time of increasing dissatisfaction among the Democratic electorate regarding the party's stance on Israel and broader Middle Eastern issues. Polls indicate that a significant portion of Democratic voters sympathize more with Palestinians than Israelis, and an overwhelming majority disapproves of further military aid to Israel. This growing sentiment is not reflected in the actions of party leaders, who continue to elevate figures like Moskowitz, Wasserman Schultz, and Bell—individuals whose positions starkly contrast with the preferences of the party's base. Critics argue that this disconnect exemplifies a broader pattern of the Democratic leadership prioritizing relationships with hawkish figures over the values and desires of their constituents.
Responses from within the party highlight the frustration with these appointments. Prominent voices, including progressive representatives, have spoken out against the leadership's decisions, emphasizing the need for a shift away from militaristic and authoritarian policies in the region. Critics like Dylan Williams and Ben Rhodes have underscored the leadership's failure to acknowledge the overwhelming majority of Democratic voters who advocate for a more humane and equitable approach to foreign policy. As the midterm elections approach, these appointments may further alienate progressive voters, reinforcing the impression that the party leadership is out of touch with the core values of its base. This growing rift could have significant implications for the Democratic Party's future and its ability to galvanize support in critical elections.
Sunday, August 30, 2026
Friday, August 28, 2026
As Judeofascists and their Left-Right fifth columnists tighten their grip on U.S. and Iran, America Firsters must sever ties with Israel for both the USA and for the world
Uncle Sam is Uncle Bibi’s Uncle Tom, by Hans Vogel - The Unz Review
OpenAI Text Summary
The ongoing conflict involving the United States and Israel against Iran has led many analysts to assert that Iran has emerged victorious, despite the lack of formal acknowledgment from the U.S. and Israel. The term "war" may seem too strong given the nature of the conflict, which has been characterized more by political maneuvering and proxy engagements than by direct military confrontations. Legacy media outlets have refrained from declaring a definitive victor, perhaps out of caution, yet it is evident that the objectives initially outlined by the U.S. and Israel have not been met. The narrative suggests that Iran's true victory will only be recognized once the U.S. and Israel openly concede defeat, highlighting a significant shift in power dynamics in the region.
The article also delves into the influence of Israeli interests on U.S. foreign policy, suggesting that the United States has become an extension of Israel, particularly under the influence of Neoconservative elements. This perspective posits that U.S. diplomacy is heavily swayed by Zionist priorities, often at the expense of American national interests. The author points to key figures in the Trump administration, such as Jared Kushner, as emblematic of this shift, arguing that their ties to Israel compromise U.S. sovereignty and decision-making. The implications of such a relationship raise questions about the legitimacy of U.S. governance and its capacity to represent the interests of its citizens versus foreign allegiances.
Moreover, the article highlights a growing distrust of the U.S. among global partners, particularly in light of broken promises and diplomatic failures. The Russian term for the U.S. as "non-agreement-capable" underscores a broader sentiment that American leaders are unreliable negotiators, a notion rooted in historical grievances against Western colonial powers. This erosion of trust is not merely a rhetorical point; it poses significant consequences for international relations and the U.S.'s standing on the world stage. The author argues that, since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has increasingly disregarded international norms, positioning itself alongside Israel as a rogue state that prioritizes its own interests over global stability and diplomacy.
The article concludes with a call for a reevaluation of U.S.-Israeli relations, suggesting that the current trajectory is unsustainable and detrimental to both American and global interests. It posits that the conflict with Iran has illuminated the extent to which U.S. governance is influenced by Zionist interests, framing this situation as one of "foreign occupation" not by military means, but through political and economic dependencies. The author argues for a decisive shift in U.S. policy to sever ties with Israel, positing that such a move could lead to a more balanced and effective foreign policy. Ultimately, the piece advocates for a recognition of the detrimental influence of Zionist zealots within U.S. politics, calling for a new direction that prioritizes the interests of the American populace and the broader international community.
OpenAI Text Summary
The ongoing conflict involving the United States and Israel against Iran has led many analysts to assert that Iran has emerged victorious, despite the lack of formal acknowledgment from the U.S. and Israel. The term "war" may seem too strong given the nature of the conflict, which has been characterized more by political maneuvering and proxy engagements than by direct military confrontations. Legacy media outlets have refrained from declaring a definitive victor, perhaps out of caution, yet it is evident that the objectives initially outlined by the U.S. and Israel have not been met. The narrative suggests that Iran's true victory will only be recognized once the U.S. and Israel openly concede defeat, highlighting a significant shift in power dynamics in the region.
The article also delves into the influence of Israeli interests on U.S. foreign policy, suggesting that the United States has become an extension of Israel, particularly under the influence of Neoconservative elements. This perspective posits that U.S. diplomacy is heavily swayed by Zionist priorities, often at the expense of American national interests. The author points to key figures in the Trump administration, such as Jared Kushner, as emblematic of this shift, arguing that their ties to Israel compromise U.S. sovereignty and decision-making. The implications of such a relationship raise questions about the legitimacy of U.S. governance and its capacity to represent the interests of its citizens versus foreign allegiances.
Moreover, the article highlights a growing distrust of the U.S. among global partners, particularly in light of broken promises and diplomatic failures. The Russian term for the U.S. as "non-agreement-capable" underscores a broader sentiment that American leaders are unreliable negotiators, a notion rooted in historical grievances against Western colonial powers. This erosion of trust is not merely a rhetorical point; it poses significant consequences for international relations and the U.S.'s standing on the world stage. The author argues that, since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has increasingly disregarded international norms, positioning itself alongside Israel as a rogue state that prioritizes its own interests over global stability and diplomacy.
The article concludes with a call for a reevaluation of U.S.-Israeli relations, suggesting that the current trajectory is unsustainable and detrimental to both American and global interests. It posits that the conflict with Iran has illuminated the extent to which U.S. governance is influenced by Zionist interests, framing this situation as one of "foreign occupation" not by military means, but through political and economic dependencies. The author argues for a decisive shift in U.S. policy to sever ties with Israel, positing that such a move could lead to a more balanced and effective foreign policy. Ultimately, the piece advocates for a recognition of the detrimental influence of Zionist zealots within U.S. politics, calling for a new direction that prioritizes the interests of the American populace and the broader international community.
Original article: Uncle Sam is Uncle Bibi’s Uncle Tom, by Hans Vogel - The Unz Review
Monday, August 24, 2026
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)