Somehow, the Dollar System is on the Ropes, Jews of Hate and War and Starvation and War are about to Fall, and Capitalism is about to do an About-Face!
NOTE: This is the fucking Dirty Jews in a nutshell — you have to watch their rodent faces and listen to their fucking speech impediments and see their evil, but . . . DO IT.
Aug 23, 2026
Dumb or Dumber, but . . .
BY PHILIP GIRALDI
As I have observed in the past, it is possible to be entertained nearly every week by the antics of President Donald J Trump, though one’s amusement often changes to annoyance or even to disgust when the consequences of the behavior become clear.
To be sure, it would be difficult to top the just-surfaced account of February’s chickenhawk parade involving the Air Force One plane-switching in Ankara after a NATO meeting.
It was unparalleled for its sheer me-first Trumpean disrespect for the poor bastards who are forced to travel with the president and endure the vicious prattle of America’s top golf cheater. When Trump’s Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt resigned several days later, possibly connected to her being set up by the president as one of the victims of a possible terrorist attack, Trump posted on his Truth Social site a picture of himself with the caption “The Best Press Secretary.” He was putting down Leavitt with an insult and nominating himself!
Donald Trump is always on the move when he is not hitting golf balls or sleeping during meetings, with threats and swearing to terrify his enemies both home and abroad.
Observe how Trump worked out some kind of deal employing his Board of Peace over Gaza, with Hamas agreeing to disarm in exchange for an Israeli army subsequent withdrawal from the 7 percent of the territory that it is occupying to be replaced by an international peacekeeping force. Hamas agreed to the plan so Trump sent his Zionist son-in-law Jared Kushner to Israel to speak with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and seal the deal.
Dumb move Donald!
Netanyahu inevitably said “No” to the arrangement and Kushner immediately agreed to support Israel no matter what it does. What it does Jared, is kill Palestinians every single day after stealing their land and destroying their livelihoods.
+—+
On the domestic side of what passes for White House activity, this past week has also incorporated its own distinctive Trumpean charm, which might be called the name game. Trump slapped his name back up onto the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, and it was learned that his name is now up on the building twice to make sure that no one misses it. He also closed the building for what he describes as “renovations” so no one gets to enjoy it. And Dulles International Airport in nearby Virginia is also due for a huge renovation, and quite possibly there will be a renaming for that!
But a better name game involved the U.S. Navy, where an aircraft carrier is under construction that has not yet been given an official name. There is speculation that it might be named after a Black sailor named Doris Miller who was at Pearl Harbor where he manned an anti-aircraft cannon shooting at attacking Japanese planes.
He was later awarded a Navy Cross for valor.
He would be the first black to give his name to an aircraft carrier, which is the largest and most prestigious vessel in the U.S. Navy.
But there is a problem.
Word is that Donald Trump wants to name the ship, which will not be completed until 2034, after himself, presumably so it can someday join the flotilla of Trump-class battleships that are now being constructed with a $275 billion price tag. One does not want to be a worry-wart, but most navies in the world no longer have battleships or even aircraft carriers because they are extremely expensive to operate yet vulnerable to the type of ballistic and cruise missile warfare that now prevails both on land and sea.
Regarding her aircraft carrier, a commenter on Facebook observed how “Both are poor choices. Traditionally, carriers were named after noble concepts (Independence, Enterprise, etc.), then after political figures associated with military service (Nimitz, Dwight D Eisenhower, John F Kennedy), then with other Presidents or politicians who were either folk heroes or got money for the military (George Washington, John C Stennis).
Naming a carrier after a guy who was the ‘first Black to get the Navy Cross’ is political overkill; usually such a man has a Destroyer or other smaller ship named after him. And naming one after a President who dodged the draft, avoided military service, and works for the government of Israel is sacrilege. == Giraldi
Billionaire to Billionaire!
And so the Jews, again — Gaza has been rendered a parking lot? Norman says that?
A PARKING LOT? What is it with Jews from Jew York City and parking lots?
- Mafia Connections: Investigations and profiles of Cohn note that the controversial lawyer maintained deep ties to prominent mob figures, and some of his business miscellany—such as parking lots and porn theaters—overlapped with organized crime interests.
- Financial Shell Games: Operations for these properties were sometimes funneled through shell companies run directly out of Cohn’s residence, allowing under-reported revenues and opaque financial dealings.
- Disputes and Leases: Cohn frequently involved himself legally and aggressively in the operations of these real estate assets, handling public disputes over back-rent and city-leased properties on the waterfront
God, the fucking Holocaust.
A fucking CARNIVAL, carnivorous, fucking, human-eating fucking carnival of cannibals:
After mentioning Israel’s genocide numerous times in other content regarding Christian theocrats, Peter Thiel’s puppets, or figures like Avi Loeb, many people have asked me to just go ahead and make a long-form video about my views on Israel. I had avoided this since I’m a science communicator and prefer not to make exclusively political content, but after a twerp named Destiny took it upon himself to call me a Nazi, I had an excuse to do it. So here it is. Israel is objectively committing genocide, Zionism is the vile ideology behind it, and here is everything you need to hear to understand exactly what Israel is and why they are an existential threat to all of humanity.
Richard Wolff: The Decline of the U.S. Empire Is Accelerating Fast
Back to the future….
Here was the vital link between Roosevelt’s rejection of any trace of relief and his prioritization of budget balancing. Social Security had to be “self-financing,” i.e. paid for by the co-parties of the work relation, employee and employer. Each would pay, out of her income, a tax which would be placed into a fund from which the worker would draw upon her retirement. No demands would be made on the Treasury.
Roosevelt wanted to design Social Security in such a way as “to preserve the system of private enterprise for profit…[and] compete as little as possible with private enterprises.” The program was to deliver what the market by itself could not, yet at the same time should embody to as great an extent as possible the principles of capitalism. To Roosevelt, this meant that a plan for social insurance must conform as closely as possible to the existing system of private insurance; it must reflect actuarial principles. A capitalist conceptual framework models the provision of public benefit such that the individual is prior to the social, the private prior to the public. Social Security was made to inhabit and accommodate itself to the space within which private profit is made.
Roosevelt’s conception of Social Security required, then, an economic counterpart to the private individual insurance premium. This was to be the payroll tax, a deduction from the wage. Roosevelt held to this conceit well before he was elected, and he reiterated the same commitment years after the Social Security Act was passed. As early as 1930 he declared that any benefits accorded to workers through legislation should “be a result of their own efforts and foresightedness” so that they would “be receiving not charity, but the natural profits (sic) of their years of labor and insurance.” In 1934 he instructed Congress that the program’s funds “should be raised by contribution rather than by general taxation.” In his first meeting with the drafters of the legislation, he reiterated that old age insurance “must be self-supporting, without subsidies from general tax sources.” Shortly thereafter he told an assemblage of experts on social insurance programs that Social Security “must not be allowed to become a dole through the mingling of insurance and relief….[and] must be financed by contributions, not taxes.” In response to strong objections from Rexford Tugwell, one of his most articulate underconsumptionist advisors, the president emphasized that he was “inclined toward a wholly contributory scheme with the government not participating.” Two years after SSA was passed, Roosevelt reiterated his basic conception of social insurance, and its grounds: “[A]s regards social insurance of all kinds, if I have anything to say about it, it will always be contributed, both on the part of the employer and the employee, on a sound actuarial basis. It means no money out of the Treasury.” (7)
Not only did the contributory scheme mean no money out of the Treasury, it could also become a cash cow for Treasury. Roosevelt and his fiscally conservative Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau were in accord that the contributory system had the double economic advantage of linking social benefits to work and ameliorating some of government’s financial problems. Morgenthau anticipated that Social Security taxes could be lent to the Treasury to finance New Deal deficits (much as Lyndon Johnson in 1967 concealed deficits by creating the “unified budget,” counting Social Security surpluses as part of the government’s general operating budget), reducing government’s borrowing needs. Funding Social Security out of general revenues would not have permitted this gambit.
Loving Gilad on FuckYouZuckPedophileBOOK:
Israel – a psychotic kid with a catastrophic speech impediment
Earlier today, I came across an astute Israeli commentator who pointed out that Israeli policy is guided by a 9-to-1 aggression-to-diplomacy ratio. The Jewish state is engaged in an endless war against everything and everyone around it, and beyond. It kills en mass, it flattens, it assassinates leaders, journalists, intellectuals, it invests in havoc, and it dismantles the prospect of any future dialogue, let alone reconciliation. In comparison, Iran’s violence-to-diplomacy ratio stands at 1 to 9 in favour of diplomacy. Iran refrains from using its military power, and when it does, it is always measured. Iran will instead invest 90% of its energy in diplomacy. Iran will talk to its neighbours; it will only use its military as a ‘continuation of politics by other means.’
In light of the above, the astute Israeli equated the Jewish State to a psychotic, violent kid with a catastrophic speech impediment. We are basically dealing with an unbearable infant, consumed by constant tantrums that has been kicked out of every possible care system—a reckless young human infant growing into a pathological misanthropic character.
Bizarrely enough, the way in which the so-called ‘Only Democracy’ of its own kind chooses to behave is hardly a coincidence or an outcome of specific political circumstances.
This misanthropic reality is the real meaning of Jewish ‘homecoming.’ It is consistent with the Biblical homecoming narrative. It fits nicely with Jewish history, scriptures, theology and spirit. It is a natural continuation of an endless chain of Jewish historical catastrophes with just a few coffee breaks.
Netanyahu has been in power for so long only because he provides his base with this exact unruly toddler behaviour. Yet, the so-called opposition to Netanyahu—whether it is Bennett, Eizenkot, Lapid, or Liebermann—is equally composed of disturbed warmongers dedicated to the exact same misanthropic behaviour and worldview.
Yet, Israel is hardly alone. The Ziocon philosophy that has been dominating the English-speaking empire’s geopolitical adventures mirrors the Jewish State’s ‘rational’. Like the Jewish State, both the USA and Britain are committed to violence and face growing isolation and cosmic unpopularity.
In the world in which we live, the Jewish state has made a name for itself as a grossly disturbed, angry, psychotic infant throwing its toys out of the pram, yet Iran consistently proves to be the adult in the room.
Oh, Spritzler…..
Here (and shown below) is a video of Fox’s Sean Hannity being able to make a DSA-supported Congressional candidate seem tongue-tied and stupid by taking advantage of the fact that the DSA does not advocate the egalitarian principle, “From each according to reasonable ability, to each according to need or reasonable desire with scarce things equitably rationed according to need.” At the very end, Hannity attacks “From each according to ability, to each according to need” as if this were what the DSA advocates (it does not) by saying that it is Marxism. The DSA politician apparently does not know that Karl Marx explicitly (and wrongly!) OPPOSED implementing “From each according…etc.” until, to use his words, “a higher phase of communist society” (which in the Marxist framework comes after the socialist phase), i.e. until the VERY FAR future.
All of Hannity’s gotcha “How much money should a person be allowed to have?” questions are IRRELEVANT and would be easily shown to be irrelevant if he were confronting an advocate of “From each according to reasonable ability, to each according to need or reasonable desire with scarce things equitably rationed according to need,” because this economic principle is not based on using money at all. Here’s why not.
+—+
My comments:
What’s the point, no?
Sean Hannity is a multi-millionaire with an estimated net worth of around $250 million. He earns roughly $25 million a year from his prime-time Fox News program, alongside substantial revenues from his nationally syndicated radio show on Premiere Networks and extensive real estate investments.
This is fucking PT Barnum shit, and Hannity, the racist, the sexist, the imperialist, he’s been training in his form of hasbara and propaganda for decades.
He should have on another piece of shit, the lite billionaire,
Opinion: Which capitalism are we defending?
Nick Hanauer is a Seattle entrepreneur, venture capitalist, and founder of Civic Ventures. He was an early investor in Amazon and is co-founder of Second Avenue Partners. This piece is a reply to Chris DeVore’s “Make Democracy Capitalist Again.”
Fucking forked tongues, man . . . .
But there is no such thing as capitalism in the singular. There are many capitalisms. The capitalism of 1880s America — child labor, company towns, no weekends — was capitalism. The capitalism of 1955 America — 35% union density, 91% top marginal tax rates, the GI Bill building the largest middle class in human history, GDP growth rates double what they are today — was also capitalism. Denmark is capitalist. Singapore is capitalist. The neoliberal version we have run in America since roughly 1975, delivering four decades of stagnant wages for most workers while routing nearly all productivity gains to the top, is also capitalism.
These systems produce radically different outcomes — in wages, mobility, life expectancy, civic trust, democratic stability. The question is never “capitalism, yes or no.” The only question that has ever mattered is: which capitalism, designed how, for whose benefit?
+–+
November 12, 2013 , , ,
How Franklin D. Roosevelt Botched Social Security by lan Nasser
The seeds of neoliberal economic policy were planted during the founding years of twentieth-century liberalism. The Democrats’ current embrace of fiscal conservatism is claimed by contemporary self-proclaimed New Dealers to be a repudiation of the founding bequest, a capitulation to reactionary Republican dogma. Budget deficits, we are told, were legitimated by Franklin D. Roosevelt during the New Deal as a legacy to future Democratic regimes. The political obligation to enhance social welfare is supposed to have trumped the old-time Hooverian taboo against government expenditures beyond government receipts.
Objections to this policy are thought to have been refuted not merely by Keynesian economic theory but mainly by successful practice: once Roosevelt put into place large-scale deficit-funded projects like the Works Progress Administration, the economy was launched into its steepest cyclical expansion to this day, from 1933 to 1937. Reagan’s tirades against budget deficits are said to be a throwback to pre-Rooseveltian times and outdated orthodoxy. Imagine the chagrin of “the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party” when Clinton and Obama betrayed the heritage of the New Deal by seconding the Republican commitment to fiscal orthodoxy. The rustling sound you are supposed to hear is FDR tossing in his grave.
This story is the most recent supplement to the myth of the Democratic Party as the “Party of the working man.” It fails to recognize that fiscal orthodoxy and the correlative tethering of social benefit to work and wage level was central to Franklin Roosevelt’s political values and bequeathed to postwar American liberalism a distinctly conservative, anti-social-democratic thrust.
Roosevelt’s 1935 State of the Union Address announced to the nation the introduction of two landmark programs, the Social Security Act and the “new and greatly enlarged plan” for “emergency public works,” the Works Progress Administration (WPA). In the same speech, the president revealed his disdain for “relief,” social assistance available to all in need irrespective of their ability to work.
[…]
Present times call for exactly the policy recommended in vain by Roosevelt’s Left advisors. Obama’s response could have been penned by Roosevelt himself. At the December 3, 2009 “jobs summit,” he repeated a favorite refrain: “I want to be clear: While I believe the government has a critical role in creating the conditions for economic growth, ultimately true economic recovery is only going to come from the private sector.” In September 2010 he flat-out dismissed government creation of jobs: “I’ve never believed that government’s role is to create jobs or prosperity…I believe it’s the private sector that must be the main engine of our recovery.” With outsourcing and technological labor-displacement proceeding apace while the captains of industry and finance reap historic profits in a stagnant economy, the current neoliberal settlement portends permanent unemployment. The rustling sound you now hear is Keynes tossing in his grave.
[…]
Aristocrats like Roosevelt disparaged relief as encouraging public expectations of government provision of social benefits, and as an alternative to workers’ dependence on the employer to make a living. Roosevelt displayed unabashedly the disdain for relief characteristic of his class. In the 1935 Address, he declared that
“[D]ependence upon relief induces a spiritual disintegration fundamentally destructive of the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of a sound policy. It is in violation of the traditions of America. Work must be found for able-bodied but destitute workers. The federal government must and shall quit this business of relief.”
Roosevelt echoed the class-rhetorical trope that relief independent of work corrodes the alleged human need to labor in exchange for material benefits. Note the dire implications of this conception of government assistance for unemployment policy, implications not limited to the 1930s but transmitted over time to the political tradition that defines itself by reference to the New Deal. Under the kind of social pressure that prompted Great Society legislation, the Democratic Party either maintained or extended unemployment benefits to those unable to find work. But the distinction between the legitimate entitlement authorizing WPA, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and “relief,” lived on. After the war, “relief” became “welfare” or “handouts.” The typical example was Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC). Social pressure withered, and the Democrats assumed the default position, with Clinton doing away with “welfare as we know it” (AFDC) and Obama refusing to lift a finger in strong support of higher benefits for everyone who is unemployed, for as long as they are unemployed. Extending benefits for the long-term unemployed was up for debate, not a foregone conclusion.
The same passage reveals an equally fundamental rationale for the rejection of public assistance, that it is inconsistent with “sound [fiscal] policy.” “Sound finance” was the equivalent of today’s “fiscal responsibility,” the verbal logo of what Keynes sneeringly called “the Treasury view” that balanced budgets are a sine qua non of capitalist economic health. Roosevelt’s obsession with budget balancing and its correlative rejection of public relief explain the basic contours of his preferred but unpopular plan for funding Social Security.
+—+
Then you got this fucking capitalist billionaire:
But there is no such thing as capitalism in the singular. There are many capitalisms. The capitalism of 1880s America — child labor, company towns, no weekends — was capitalism. The capitalism of 1955 America — 35% union density, 91% top marginal tax rates, the GI Bill building the largest middle class in human history, GDP growth rates double what they are today — was also capitalism. Denmark is capitalist. Singapore is capitalist. The neoliberal version we have run in America since roughly 1975, delivering four decades of stagnant wages for most workers while routing nearly all productivity gains to the top, is also capitalism.
These systems produce radically different outcomes — in wages, mobility, life expectancy, civic trust, democratic stability. The question is never “capitalism, yes or no.” The only question that has ever mattered is: which capitalism, designed how, for whose benefit?
Nick Hanauer is a Seattle entrepreneur, venture capitalist, and founder of Civic Ventures. He was an early investor in Amazon and is co-founder of Second Avenue Partners. This piece is a reply to Chris DeVore’s “Make Democracy Capitalist Again.”
DIRT:
I’ll take Gilad’s spin here:
Jason Arday – a theological shift.
Gilad —
The Jason Arday tragedy has all the necessary elements of a theological revelatory moment. In this saga, we have a Jesus Christ figure—a young Black academic star spreading affection, insisting we should once again learn to love our neighbours (watch the video on 1st comment). He was raised on a London council estate and had a troubled childhood, but he overcame all of that and became the pride of his generation. We also have a modern-day monstrous Caiaphas figure, Nathan Cofnas, who is demanding the exclusion of the new Black Jesus star. Our contemporary Caiaphas guy wants black to stick to ‘sport and entertainment’.
Then we have the entire British media—from the Daily Tel Aviv to the Guardian of Judea—doing Pontius Pilate’s job, nailing Arday to the cross on behalf of the establishment. Eventually Arday surrenders; he faces his fate, but his death doesn’t mute his plight. Quite the opposite.
And here comes the juiciest bit: the miracle. We have learned about Jason Arday’s ‘fantasy lies’. We are told that he is a compulsive liar, that everything he says about himself is a complete invention. We are told he invented stories about running 30 marathons in 35 days. Yet some people actually believe this to be true. This is exactly how a theological moment materialises.
Belief becomes a meaningful event with the acceptance of the counterfactual. For the Jews, the counterfactual moment of revelation is the Burning Bush. Arday, on his part, ran 30 marathons with a broken leg, and Jesus Christ walked on water. Belief in the counterfactual is more epistemologically significant than knowing. To believe means to accept despite what facts, observation, or reason suggest otherwise.
If I am correct, the Arday affair is just another significant sign of a society in deep crisis—an identity crisis similar to the one that brought about Jesus Christ. I am talking about a society that has gradually removed itself from the human experience (affection, love, empathy) and surrendered to obsessive greed, Jerusalemite litigation frenzy and tyranny of correctness.
If this is indeed the case, we will have, sooner or later, to choose which side we are on: Jesus–Arday, Caiaphas–Cofnas, or Pontius Telegraph Pilate. For my part, I chose Jesus long ago and will keep up with Arday, for that matter. Not because I care about his academic integrity or DEI, with which I am troubled—but I am with Arday’s call for global affection, humane brotherhood, and I also believe in the miracle as a humane emblem of hope for a change.
Nor can what happened to Jason Arday be separated from the larger political landscape in which cruelty, disposability, and racialized violence have increasingly become normalized. Across the globe, governments are waging war on immigrants and people of color, criminalizing dissent, expanding regimes of surveillance and repression, and embracing policies of expulsion, exclusion, and racial cleansing. Gaza has become the most horrifying expression of this machinery of death, with children killed on a staggering scale and an entire population subjected to devastation, displacement, and hunger. At the same time, grotesque levels of inequality condemn millions to insecurity and abandonment, while the planet is sacrificed to the demands of profit and militarism. These are not isolated developments.
They bear the mobilizing passions of fascism: the manufacture of enemies, the celebration of cruelty, the contempt for vulnerability, the racial sorting of human beings, the militarization of knowledge, and the elevation of violence into a governing principle. In such a world, what happened to Jason Arday cannot be reduced to a private tragedy or explained solely through the circumstances of an individual life. His death points to something larger and more disturbing. It forces us to confront a social order that increasingly trades in disposability, human suffering, war, and cruelty, and then treats the casualties it produces as if they were merely private misfortunes. — August 17, 2026, Jason Arday and the Machinery of Cruelty, Henry Giroux
Paul Haeder, Author 