Book of Genocide and Comic Books Are Jewish Literature — The Goyim are Fuckerberged into fucking self-lobotomies and deep-deep infantilization . . .
Aug 22, 2026
Trump’s second-term cabinet is the stuff of nightmares. I’ve talked about Bobby Kennedy’s dismantling of HHS quite a bit, but it’s not just public health that is in shambles under this administration. The environment is on the chopping block as well, especially under new EPA head Lee Zeldin. The person who is supposed to be in charge of protecting the citizenry by preventing the private sector from polluting our air and water is actively siding with the polluters and making sure they have all the freedom to pollute as much as they want. It’s difficult to describe how much of a worthless cretin this guy is, but let’s give it a shot.
My comments early A:
Maybe not promoting that fascist, Bezos and his Amazon (sic) would be a micro start.
Rich? What is that?
Rothschilds? Hmmm. Macron, a Rothschilds protoge?
The Rothschild family is one of the most influential—and controversial—dynasties in modern history.
How did a family confined to a Jewish ghetto in Frankfurt build a financial empire that would reshape Europe? Did they really finance both sides of history’s greatest wars, or are those claims rooted in myth rather than fact?
• The origins of Mayer Amschel Rothschild in Frankfurt’s Judengasse
• How five brothers built the first truly international banking network
• The Napoleonic Wars and the rise of modern finance
• The truth behind the Waterloo legend
• The Congress of Vienna and Europe’s post-war financial system
• How the Rothschilds revolutionized sovereign bonds, banking, railways, and global finance
• The myths, conspiracy theories, and antisemitic propaganda surrounding the family
• What historical evidence actually reveals about their wealth, influence, and legacy
In the United States, being considered “rich” depends on whether you measure by annual income or total net worth. Generally, a household income above $675,000 puts you in the top 1% nationally, while public surveys show that Americans view a net worth of about $2.3 million as the baseline for being wealthy.
Or, just these fucks and their societies?
Dialog Society: Co-founded by billionaire tech investor Peter Thiel, this invitation-only group convenes high-ranking political figures, military commanders, and tech executives for off-the-record annual retreats.
Young Presidents’ Organization (YPO): A global network connecting over 24,000 wealthy chief executives across 130 countries. Meetings occur behind closed doors with strict rules against public disclosures or outing other members.
Bohemian Club: A private men-only club based in San Francisco that hosts a notorious annual two-week summer retreat at Bohemian Grove in Monte Rio, California, attended by prominent business leaders, musicians, and former U.S. presidents.
Bilderberg Group: An annual private conference of 120 to 140 political leaders, experts from finance, industry, and academia, operating under the Chatham House Rule to foster dialogue between Europe and North America.
Skull and Bones: Founded at Yale University in 1832, this senior secret society has notoriously tapped generations of U.S. presidents, Supreme Court justices, and financiers into an exclusive lifelong network.
Freemasons: A centuries-old fraternal organization with millions of members worldwide, historically counting numerous statesmen, monarchs, and community leaders among its lodges.
Hmm. REMOVED from power? How’s that working without drones, poisons, shoulder-launched rockets, bombs?
The Bilderberg Meeting
An annual private conference established in 1954 to foster dialogue between Europe and North America.Membership: Around 120–150 political leaders, industry experts, finance titans, and media moguls.The Secrecy: It operates under the Chatham House Rule, meaning participants are free to use the information received, but the identity and affiliation of the speakers or any other participant may not be revealed. No detailed minutes are kept, and press coverage is banned.
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR): A prominent American think tank specializing in U.S. foreign policy and international affairs.Membership: Thousands of high-ranking politicians, secretaries of state, intelligence directors, and Wall Street CEOs. The Secrecy: While not a “secret society,” its private meetings allow leaders to debate sensitive geopolitical strategies away from the public eye.
The Trilateral Commission: A non-governmental discussion group founded by David Rockefeller in 1973 to foster closer cooperation among Japan, Western Europe, and North America.
Membership: Powerful bankers, politicians, and business executives.
There are roughly 12,000 to 14,000 registered federal 12,000 to 14,000 registered federal lobbyists in Washington, D.C
Hmmm.
There are over 60,000 to 80,000 multinational corporations (MNCs) worldwide,
Hmmm.
. Major financial institutions like JPMorgan Chase, big tech giants like Amazon and Meta, energy corporations like ExxonMobil, and telecom companies like Comcast exert the heaviest influence through lobbying, political action committees (PACs), and campaign contributions.
Fixed Fortunes: Biggest corporate political interests spend billions, get trillions (2014 — now? Fucking beyond trillions and trillions of stolen taxpayer money).
Between 2007 and 2012, 200 of America’s most politically active corporations spent a combined $5.8 billion on federal lobbying and campaign contributions. A year-long analysis by the Sunlight Foundation suggests, however, that what they gave pales compared to what those same corporations got: $4.4 trillion in federal business and support.
That figure, more than the $4.3 trillion the federal government paid the nation’s 50 million Social Security recipients over the same period, is the result of an unprecedented effort to quantify the less-examined side of the campaign finance equation: Do political donors get something in return for what they give?
Four years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court suggested the answer to that question was no. Corporate spending to influence federal elections would not “give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption,” the majority wrote in the landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision.
Sunlight decided to test that premise by examining influence and its potential results on federal decision makers over six years, three before the 2010 Citizens United decision and three after.
We focused on the records of 200 for-profit corporations, all of which had active political action committees and lobbyists in the 2008, 2010 and 2012 election cycles — and were among the top donors to campaign committees registered with the Federal Election Commission. Their investment in politics was enormous. There were 20,500 paying lobbying clients over the six years we examined; the 200 companies we tracked accounted for a whopping 26 percent of the total spent. On average, their PACs, employees and their family members made campaign contributions to 144 sitting members of Congress each cycle.
On average, 144 sitting members of Congress received money from the Fixed Fortune 200 each cycle. Graphic credit: The Sunlight Foundation
After examining 14 million records, including data on campaign contributions, lobbying expenditures, federal budget allocations and spending, we found that, on average, for every dollar spent on influencing politics, the nation’s most politically active corporations received $760 from the government. The $4.4 trillion total represents two-thirds of the $6.5 trillion that individual taxpayers paid into the federal treasury.
Welcome to the world of “Fixed Fortunes,” a seemingly closed universe where the most persistent and savvy political players not so mysteriously have the ability to attract federal dollars regardless of who is running Washington.
+–+
Ahh, then this fucking minority among minorities — the Jews, those Jews from the Jewish State of Rape and Hate and Starvation and Organ Theft and Human Trafficking:
The “Israelisation” of Latin America is a realignment is characterized by a wave of right-wing electoral victories and aggressive U.S. foreign policy that dismantled traditionally pro-Palestine and pro-Iran governments in South America.
Countries across the region have increasingly relied on Israeli drones, surveillance infrastructure, cybersecurity technology, and MASHAV agricultural expertise to upgrade law enforcement and secure critical infrastructure.
+–+
The rich and their henchwomen and henchmen . . . .
As condemnation of Israeli war crimes intensifies across the Global South, Tel Aviv is moving swiftly to secure footholds in Latin America, namely across Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile. These are strategic offensives – and not diplomatic missions or economic ventures – designed to re-anchor the occupation state in a region historically hostile to its apartheid policies and colonial practices.
This response above is in response to the morning Spritzler yak:
I think the explanation is this. People, today, don’t think explicitly about the idea of removing the rich from power. It’s not an idea that they ever hear or see expressed in any of the mass or alternative media or by any politician or any pundit or university or think tank, ever. So, while there are lots of things about our society that anger people, such as the unaffordability of everything and the extreme economic inequality and the persecution of people by ICE and the use of illegal immigrants to keep wages low and our government’s support for Israeli genocide and its waging of an unnecessary war against Iran and so on, and while people generally understand that the root cause of these bad things is that we live in a dictatorship of the rich (another concept that is never expressed explicitly by those who control public discourse in order to prevent people from thinking it), people nonetheless, despite wishing the rich were removed from power, very rarely respond to what angers them by SAYING “Let’s remove the rich from power.” The rich have worked very hard to make sure those revolutionary egalitarian words are never in people’s minds.
How do people respond to the bad things that anger them? The rich make sure that there are various ideas “in the air” about what to do about these things—tax the rich, elect Trump to “drain the swamp,” elect Democrats or DSAers to remove pro-Trump politicians from power, get money out of politics, enact rent control, elect anti-war congresspersons, help people avoid capture by ICE, etc. But the idea of solving these problems at the root by removing the rich from power is virtually never expressed. It literally never even occurs to most people that it would be a good idea to remove the rich from power. Only when people hear the egalitarian revolutionary goal explicitly expressed do they think, Yes, that’s a good (or a great!) idea, an obvious idea; why didn’t I think of that before?
I call this kind of agreement with the idea of removing the rich from power implicit agreement, in contrast to explicit agreement which takes the form of SAYING to other people, on one’s own initiative, “We need to remove the rich from power.”
In order for lots of people to be explicitly SAYING to other people on their own initiative, “We should remove the rich from power,” it is necessary that that egalitarian revolutionary idea be “in the air.” This means that people see it expressed and see their friends and neighbors responding positively to it. (Making this happen is a chief goal of an egalitarian revolutionary movement.) What’s needed is that when people feel angry about this or that aspect of our society (as they almost always do), that they ALSO are consciously aware of the egalitarian revolutionary alternative that solves the problem at the root, and are confident that they are not alone in this regard and hence not afraid to say out loud, “We need to remove the rich from power!”
Rich and Jewish and Powerful:
(Caption: View From Paulsboro High School – a sacrifice zone where it’s fourth and long)
The Trump EPA dismantling of chemical safety regulations has gotten lost in the daily outrage of Trump’s Project 2025 driven scheme to “dismantle the administrative state”.
A Guardian story did a good job in conveying the absurdity of that, see:
The Trump administration is slowly dismantling the federal disaster management system that protects the nation from chemical catastrophes, such as fires and explosions at high-risk facilities.
The US Environmental Protection Agency’s Response Management Program (RMP) requires more than 12,500 high-risk facilities to develop protocols to prevent catastrophes, or limit fallout, and was largely designed to protect workers, first responders, and fence-line communities.
In 2024, the Biden administration finalized a rule 12 years in the making that meaningfully strengthened protections. However, industry in early 2025 asked the incoming Donald Trump EPA to undo it because, chemical companies claim, its provisions are too expensive to implement.
Is this fucking news?
The longtime publisher of Stars and Stripes, a newspaper focused on the United States military, has resigned amid what he described as disagreements with the Defense Department‘s leadership.
Max D Lederer Jr (Jewish) announced his retirement in a memo to staff on Tuesday, as well as in an interview with Stars and Stripes.
The memo suggested that Lederer clashed with the administration of President Donald Trump over government efforts to seek greater editorial control over the publication, The Associated Press reported.
In the memo, Lederer wrote that it has “become clear that my philosophy of leadership, and my understanding of the value and mission of Stars and Stripes, differ in fundamental ways from the direction the leadership of the Department of Defence has for the organization”.
The announcement comes after Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth accused the publication of promoting “woke distractions”.
The Trump administration has also slammed the outlet for bringing attention to poor conditions and declining morale on the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier, involved in the war on Iran.
The editor-in-chief of the Stars and Stripes US military newspaper said Friday that he was being fired for insubordination, and a source familiar with the matter told Reuters the Pentagon had sent notices to the paper’s leadership informing them they would be let go.
“According to the notice, I am being fired for stating in a CBS interview that hypothetical censorship of news for service members would constitute a personal red line,” Erik Slavin (Jewish) said in a statement.
Attorneys Brian Kabateck and Shant Karnikian dig into Donald Trump’s pick of Will Scharf — his current White House staff secretary and a former personal defense lawyer — to replace David Warrington as White House counsel starting September 1. Brian and Shant call Scharf a “clone” of Stephen Miller: another young, ideologically aligned loyalist Trump is installing in a top legal post, following the same pattern as outgoing counsel Warrington, a libertarian-leaning, Ron Paul-aligned attorney. Brian walks through Scharf’s résumé: a Harvard Law grad who clerked for federal appellate judges, worked under future Solicitor General John Sauer, then joined Trump’s personal legal team in October 2023, working on the federal election-interference case brought by Jack Smith, the 2024 presidential immunity case at the Supreme Court, the E. Jean Carroll defamation appeal, the Stormy Daniels hush money case, and the New York civil fraud case brought by Letitia James — Trump’s team lost most of them.
Scharf also ran unsuccessfully for Missouri attorney general, a campaign where he inflated his prosecutorial record, founded a group called Jews Against Soros, and faced a dropped alcohol-related charge from his Princeton days. Trump also praised Scharf’s role chairing the National Capital Planning Commission, which approved the president’s $400 million White House ballroom project and his planned Memorial Bridge triumphal arch. Brian and Shant note the New York Times has reported Scharf has embraced some of the administration’s most extreme legal positions, even as he’s occasionally pushed back on specific requests. Brian’s bottom line: once again, Trump is rewarding a personal lawyer with a job overseeing the legal interests of the entire country — and based on every past example, this White House counsel appointment isn’t likely to end well for Scharf either.
Yoram Hazony was born in Rehovot in 1964 and raised in Princeton after his father, a former Princeton engineering professor, brought the family to New Jersey. He earned a BA in East Asian studies from Princeton in 1986 and a PhD in political theory from Rutgers, co-founding the conservative magazine The Princeton Tory as an undergraduate in 1984. By his own account, he was left “mesmerized” by an encounter as a Princeton undergraduate with Rabbi Meir Kahane—the Jewish supremacist advocate whose party, Kach, was later banned from Israeli elections for promoting racism against Arabs. After completing his doctorate, rather than pursue an academic career, Hazony joined the editorial staff of The Jerusalem Post and wrote speeches for the rising political star Benjamin Netanyahu.
He then co-founded the Shalem Center in Jerusalem in 1994 with funding from Ronald Lauder and Sheldon Adelson, where he served as president and then provost until 2012. He subsequently founded the Herzl Institute in Jerusalem, dedicated explicitly to Jewish political thought and Zionist theory, and in 2019 he teamed with David Brog—the former executive director of Christians United for Israel—to launch the Edmund Burke Foundation, which now runs the National Conservatism Conference.
He describes himself as “a Jewish nationalist, a Zionist, all my life.” Observers at Jewish Currents have documented how Hazony helped pioneer an alliance between the Israeli settler movement, the Kahanist camp, and Netanyahu’s Likud party, while championing Israel’s 2018 Nation State Law, which declared Jewish national self-determination as belonging exclusively to Jews within Israel. Every institution he has built traces back to this same Zionist core, which means the American movement he exports is never quite separable from the Jewish interests he was raised to defend.
That biography matters because Hazony has spent a decade dressing a Zionist project in the language of American populism. His book “The Virtue of Nationalism” argues for a world of independent nation states instead of supranational bodies like the European Union or the United Nations. This perhaps stems from a deep-seated Jewish apprehension that institutions such as the EU or the UN could crystallize into centralized, antagonistic entities capable of constraining Jewish geopolitical projects. Consequently, Hazony and his peers advocate for a world of atomized nation-states, viewing a landscape of quarreling, enfeebled powers as the optimal safeguard for their interests. By prioritizing a fractured international system, they ensure a climate of instability that favors the established Jewish influence networks, which have long mastered the technique of dividing populations—big and small—to consolidate their own power.
RE: Beware of Yoram Hazony’s Attempts to Subvert Nationalism— Kosher nationalist movements are merely stalking horses for Zionist geopolitical endeavors.
[Hazony is an outspoken Judeo-nationalist and has written that nationalism uniquely provides “the collective right of a free people to rule themselves”. In 2018, his book, The Virtue of Nationalism, was released by Basic Books. In 2019, it was named “Conservative Book of the Year” by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. It has been read and recommended by heads of state, including Viktor Orbán and Giorgia Meloni. It has been called a “key text of the nationalist right”, and Hazony has been cited as an intellectual influence on American vice president JD Vance.]
The next POTUS: With his Jewish Handlers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Paul Haeder, Author 