Robert Kennedy Jr has been an anomaly, some would say black horse, in the 2024 Presidential election. Described as a populist, Kennedy has taken issue with the United States’ heavy-handed response to the COVID-19 pandemic, its intervention in foreign wars and support of autocratic regimes, as well as concern about America’s eroding middle class. Initially, some speculated that RFK could pose a threat to Donald Trump’s campaign, stealing his thunder on the aforementioned issues and splitting the Republican vote. 

More recently, however, it seems that RFK could be used to siphon votes from incumbent President Joe Biden, splitting the vote not on the right, but the left. After all, an RFK staffer was recently fired for saying as much[1]. The development has no doubt been influenced by the events of October 7th and the ongoing war in Gaza. RFK is a staunch supporter of Israel, whilst also toeing the line on key Democratic issues like climate change, opposing nuclear energy, and moderate gun control. Supported by billionaire Bill Ackman[2], a man who has recently made common cause with MAGA influencers over the United States’ continued support for Israel, RFK could play a role in the Israel Lobby’s ongoing conflict with those elements of the Democratic party and the Biden administration who have exerted pressure upon Israel to end its war in Gaza.

This would not be the first time an attempt to split an incumbent’s ticket on behalf of Israel took place. Over three decades prior, George H W Bush found himself locked in a struggle with the Israel Lobby and America’s Jews due to his desire to curtail Israel’s expansion of its settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. Since the passage of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment in the late 1970s, Israel had been receiving hundreds of thousands of Jews from the Soviet Union, with that number to reach a million by the beginning of the 21st century[3]. Many of these immigrants wound up in the West Bank settlements. 

The United States had also promised ten billion dollars in loans to Israel to help facilitate the continued settlement of these immigrants. Bush, however, sought to make the aid conditional, exchanging loan guarantees for guarantees that Israel would halt its illegal settlements[4]. Upon declaring his intentions to freeze the loan guarantees for a period of four months, the Israel Lobby became incensed to override the President and his ambitions. An intense lobbying campaign broke out in Congress, led by the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). 

Bush decried the lobbying campaign set against him, asserting that he was “one lonely little guy” against “1000 lobbyists up on the Hill lobbying Congress”[5]. Bush’s Secretary of State James Baker engaged in shuttle diplomacy between Israel and the Palestinians not long after, delivering the news to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir that the United States would not deliver its aid if settlements were continued. In the end, AIPAC backed down from its goal of overpowering the President, likely due to Shamir’s acquiescence to the conditions and agreement to take part in the 1991 Madrid Conference[6]. Another factor may have been H W Bush’s 70% approval rating, with the concern that AIPAC’s open antagonism towards the President could alienate itself from a large segment of the US population.

Bush’s remarks about the vast ocean of pro-Israel lobbyists reflects the vast change underwent in the American political establishment since the 1970s. Bush, as well as James Baker, were some of the only Republicans who still adhered to an earlier realist tradition in foreign policy. Bush believed that a lasting peace in the Middle East was in America’s interest, and that Israeli provocations towards its neighbors threatened Bush’s aims in the region. This view was not held by the now-dominant Neoconservative faction in the Republican party. These Neoconservatives, led by Cold Warrior liberals such as Irving Kristol and Scoop Jackson, were staunchly pro-Israel and were not in favor of concessions to Israel’s neighbors. The Jewish makeup of the Neoconservative movement was the primary factor in this policy orientation, as Israel was the ethno-religious homeland of many Neoconservative thought leaders and policymakers. Narratives were constructed about how Israel was America’s ally against the Soviet sphere of influence through its support of the Arab states, and later about how Israel was the United States’ first line of defense against Islamic aggression. 

The Presidential election of 1992 presented an opportunity for AIPAC and the Israel Lobby to move against Bush once more. Still reeling from their defeat a year prior, and with Bush’s 70% approval rating, a frontal assault on a popular president would not be a viable option. Instead, a third party candidate, Ross Perot, was quickly becoming popular amongst the American middle class, particularly those who supported moderate, center right policies. Whilst Perot’s campaign was focused primarily on economics, he did voice strong support for Israel at a time when conservative Jews found themselves alienated from the incumbent President. Thomas Dine, Executive Director of AIPAC at the time, had this to say about Perot,

He is a believer in the Israeli way of defending itself. I am told by those who know him that he would be a very interesting person to deal with and probably very friendly.

Perot would speak to pro-Israel political groups, such as the American Jewish Committee. Later, Perot donated 100,000 dollars to that same organization[7]. When his name was mentioned at the April 1992 AIPAC National Convention, Perot received cheers and enthusiasm, a stark contrast to the hostile booing when Bush was mentioned. Pro-Israel activists viewed Perot as the answer to the likely Bush second term. New York Times columnist and future President of the Council on Foreign Relations, Leslie Gelb, penned an article explaining the idea of Perot being a spoiler candidate in an effort to secure electoral victory for Clinton[8]. By supporting Perot, the less popular, yet staunchly pro-Israel Bill Clinton would have a high chance of success in the election. Perot ultimately garnered 19% of the popular vote, compared to Bush’s 37% and Clinton’s 43%, successfully spoiling the Bush campaign. Bush performed abysmally with Jewish voters, getting just 11%. 

Interesting still are Perot’s lasting ties to Israel and American Jews. He employed Morton Meyerson, a longtime friend, associate, and executive of Electronic Data Systems, as well as the later Perot Systems. Meyerson would later become the chief technology officer of General Motors, which would acquire Electronic Data Systems in 1984[9]. Meyerson was also the mentor of Michael Dell, founder of Dell Technologies, which would eventually acquire Perot Systems in 2009. Meyerson would go on to found 2M Companies, a business which funds the Meyerson Foundations, whose purpose is to invest in Jewish organizations and causes[10]. Electronic Data Systems would contract with the US Navy and Marines, providing electronic services for over 300 military bases. The deal was settled for 6.9 billion dollars[11]. EDS would also form a joint venture with Israeli company Kardan to form EDS Israel. Ehud Barak, former Prime Minister of Israel, served as a special advisor to EDS starting in late 2001[12]. 

Perot would also play a role in the breakdown of the Shah’s regime in Iran in the late 1970s. Electronic Data Systems was active in Iran under the Shah, with whom it had established a business contract. Two EDS employees were arrested on charges of suspected bribery. While Perot ordered his lawyers to immediately find solutions to meeting the bail, he would also recruit Special Forces Colonel Arthur Simons to lead a rescue mission. Simons, the leader of the Son Tay raid in Vietnam, led the mission with a team of seven volunteers from the company. Perot was also involved in the support and rescue of POW’s during the Vietnam War, another link between him and Simons[13]. They eventually instigate a mob attack on the Qasr prison in Tehran, freeing the employees and embarking on a near 500 mile trip to Turkey, where they were flown to Germany and then back to the United States. The rescue is described in detail in the 1983 book On Wings of Eagles.

One final interesting detail of Ross Perot’s relationships and business dealings is found with the Dallas Mavericks. Perot had purchased the team in 1996, and by the year 2000 had sold it to Mark Cuban. Cuban has recently sold the team to the wife of deceased investor and pro-Israel activist Sheldon Adelson. All these ties taken together, it is not surprising that Ross Perot was considered a friend to Israel and America’s Jewish population, a friendship which persisted long before and after his 1992 presidential campaign.

Robert Kennedy will likely perform the same function this coming November. He has voiced repeatedly his belief that Israel must be allowed to conduct and finish its war in Gaza, that Biden is throwing away the Democratic party’s historically strong ties to the Jewish community, and that he would rather lose the election than stop supporting Israel. Kennedy was hailed by Rabbi Schmuley Boteach as a great defender of Israel in his debate on the war in Gaza with Breaking Point’s Krystal Ball. 

President Biden faces an uphill battle this November in the face of his lackluster support for, and at times conflict with, Israel following October 7th. His situation is reminiscent of that of George Bush Sr, whose hardline stance on Middle Eastern peace and reeling in the Israeli government cost him his re-election over thirty years ago. Just as Ross Perot was used to split the Republican ticket in the favor of Israeli ally Clinton, so too will RFK Jr be used in a similar fashion, splitting the Democratic ticket in favor of Israeli ally Donald Trump.

[[1]] nyt.com "Kennedy Campaign Fires Consultant Who Sought to Help Trump Win"
[[2]] hindustantimes.com "Robert F. Kennedy Jr hailed for ‘single greatest defense of Israel': 'Worth three minutes of your time'"
[[3]] state.gov "Terminating the Application of Jackson-Vanik Legislation to Russia"
[[4]] timesofisrael.com "Former US president George H.W. Bush dies at age 94
[[5]] timesofisrael.com "Former US president George H.W. Bush dies at age 94
[[6]] adst.org "The Road to Madrid — James Baker and the Middle East Peace Talks"
[[7]] wrmea.org "The Israel Lobby Bashes Bush, Ponders Perot and Co-opts Clinton"
[[8]] tjpnew.com "Remembering Ross Perot’s relationship with Israel and the American Jewish community"
[[9]] 2m.com "Morton Meyerson"
[[10]] 2m.com "Foundations"
[[11]] cnet.com "EDS grabs Navy contract worth $6.9 billion"
[[12]] haaretz.com "Electronic Data Systems Names Former PM Barak Special Adviser"
[[13]] time.com "Ross Perot’s Forgotten Mission During the Vietnam War"

Richard Nixon: The Man Who Saved Israel

Richard Nixon is many things to many people: corrupt crook, misunderstood conservative, pragmatic politician. The list goes on and on. His presidency was shaped in large part by the Vietnam War and the decisions made regarding it. Furthermore, the Watergate Scandal and its political fallout remains a fascination of the American mind. Little emphasis, however, is placed upon Richard Nixon’s dealing with the state of Israel, particularly during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. This instance in US-Israeli relations should be understood as a watershed moment for the two countries, solidifying their strong relationship, which has been maintained to this very day. Richard Nixon, whilst not being traditionally recognized in this capacity, is the man who saved Israel.

The Yom Kippur War was the latest in the line of a prolonged conflict between Israel and her Arab neighbors. Beginning in 1948 with Israel’s establishment, it had fought three other major conflicts against her neighbors, these being the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the 1956 Suez Crisis as well as the 1967 Six Day War. What characterized these previous conflicts was the relative unpreparedness of the Arab forces, as well as Israel’s disposition to pre-emptively strike their neighbors, decisively changing the course of war in favor of the Israelis. Whilst the United States supported Israel on a moral and diplomatic level, it did not militarily intervene in these conflicts as it would come to do during the Yom Kippur War. In fact, the United States actually reeled in Israel and its British and French allies during the Suez Crisis, forcing it to come to the negotiating table with Nasser in Egypt.

A number of factors led to the Yom Kippur War being drastically different from the preceding conflicts. Chief among these was that it was the Arab states, not Israel, that initiated the conflict with a surprise attack. Yom Kippur is a Jewish holy day, and as such its armed forces were not prepared like normal to deal with a multi-front invasion. The initial fighting of the war was brutal and Israel incurred high losses, losing ground to Syria in the Golan Heights and Egypt in the Sinai Peninsula. Israel found itself having difficulty defending its occupied territories in Sinai and Golan, ceding ground to the invading forces.

Nixon’s Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, advised the President that Israel was a strategic bulwark in the Middle East against the Soviet Union. He believed that its defeat, let alone rollback or destruction, would signal both to regional forces and the wider globe that the United States had fallen behind in its conflict with the Soviet Union. Richard Nixon was not perceived to be a particularly pro-Israel President, especially in the wake of Lyndon Johnson, a man who cultivated strong ties with Israel and laid much of the groundwork for Nixon’s intervention with his own during the Six Day War. At the advice of Secretary of State Kissinger, Nixon initiated Operation Nickel Grass, the airlift of what became over 20,000 tons of weapons, supplies and equipment to the Israeli armed forces[1]. This aid proved crucial to Israel’s counterattacks and eventually its overall success. The United States aided further in the peace negotiations, with Kissinger visiting the various leaders involved in the conflict, culminating in a ceasefire. Israel had been saved from a military defeat and its consequences, and the relationship between the United States and Israel had become stronger than at any other point in its preceding history. Richard Nixon had saved Israel.

Political Realignments: The Neocons and The Likud Party

The Yom Kippur War would initiate a political realignment that culminated in the electoral victory of the Likud party in 1977, as well as the election of Ronald Reagan and the Reagan Revolution in 1980. Following the conclusion of the war, the Israeli government convened the Agranat Commission, which was an investigation into what was believed to be a serious intelligence failure and lapse in military preparedness. It found that several key figures within the Israeli security apparatus, including Minister of Defense Moshe Dayan and IDF Chief of Staff David Elazar were responsible for the Israeli military failures, and these two, along with other members of the military staff resigned.

These two men, along with countless others with which blame was laid for the war, were supporters of the Labor Zionist government, which had dominated the country’s politics since its inception. Labor Zionism was essentially inseparable from the Jewish nation until the 70’s. Foundational Israeli figures like David Ben-Gurion and Golda Meir were Labor Zionists. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) had been founded by the Labor Zionists and its high-ranking members were aligned with the party. The kibbutzim were organized under the principles of Labor Zionism. Many segments of Israeli society, however, began to question whether Israel could maintain the Labor Zionist dream of an egalitarian, socialist, democratic society given that they are surrounded by enemies, even within their own borders. 

At the same time, a profound shift was occurring in American society, along similar themes. Henry Jackson, also known as “Scoop” Jackson, was the central figure in what was known as the “Scoop Jackson Democrats”. Later on, these interventionist-minded Democrats would come to be known as the Neoconservatives. Scoop Jackson and his camp of anti-communist liberals, including figures such as Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Dennis Ross, were liberals who found themselves disillusioned with the pacifism of the New Left of the 1960’s, as well as the totalitarian government of the Soviet Union. Trotskyite in nature, these men advocated for an increased intervention on behalf of the United States around the world to stop the spread of communism, which they believed was the single greatest threat to democracy and human rights. In particular, the Scoop Jackson Democrats were concerned with the plight of Jews within the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc, as many of the leading neoconservatives were Jewish, with their parents and grandparents experiencing persecution at the hands of the Tsar and later Joseph Stalin. Whilst antisemitism in the Soviet Union cooled after the death of Stalin, under Leonid Brezhnev it once again flourished, due in no small part to the repeated conflicts in the Levant and the Soviet’s support of the Arab states. 

The Neoconservatives were major supporters of Israel during both the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War. Support for Israel was a central tenet to the neoconservatives, with Israel being both a bastion against the Soviet Union’s influence as well as the homeland for the Jews. Another important policy to come out of this camp was the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, which sought to gain Soviet Jews the right to emigrate, primarily to the United States and Israel, by restricting trade with countries which refused to do so. Many Jews within the Soviet Union sought to emigrate to the two nations, however found it very difficult to do so given the various taxes and restrictions placed upon Jews who sought to do so. Scoop Jackson, aided by Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams and others drafted the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, which was signed into law by President Ford in 1975.

In the following years, an estimated half a million Jews left the Soviet Union for the United States, and another million left for Israel. This demographic shift had a profound impact on the politics of both nations. Israel, with her small population of 3.5 million in 1975 would see an almost 30% increase in population directly attributable to the Jackson-Vanik influx, with most of these Jews being aligned with Likud. Due to how Israel's Aliyah immigration system works, those Jackson-Vanik Jews were eligible to vote on arrival, hinting at perhaps another motive for the Amendment's passing.

This social and political climate created the perfect conditions for the rise of the Likud party. Founded in 1973 and led by Menachem Begin, the Likud party was a model of multiracial (or multiethnic in this case) working class populism. As Israeli society was questioning the viability for the Labor Zionists to safeguard Israel’s future, Begin brought forth a vision of Israeli nationalism that prioritized Israel’s national interest and the safety of her people over the idea that Israel could peacefully coexist with neighbors which hated her. This vision of a strong national defense appealed to those who served in the IDF and sought to strengthen the position of the Israeli military. Likud was popular amongst minority groups, primarily the Mizrahim and Sephardim Jews, who felt ostracized and in some cases were treated like second class citizens by the Ashkenazim, which dominated Labor Zionism. The Mizrahi population would undergo a population boom, making them a prime demographic for Likud to cater to. The Soviet Jews who immigrated during this time period found themselves at home in the Likud party, as its anticommunism and pro-Western stances were popular with this segment of the population which found itself discriminated against by the Soviets. The ongoing influx of Soviet Jewry into Israel over the next few years would only bolster Likud’s numbers further. The party was also popular amongst the religious Jews, particularly those who made up the settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The Likud party stressed the importance of traditional Jewish religious practices, as opposed to the secularism of their Labor opponents. And lastly, Likud promised liberal market-based economic reforms, resonating with working class Jews who felt ostracized by the socialist economic policies of Labor Zionists. 

And so, in the wake of the Yom Kippur War, the new Soviet Jewish immigrants, and brewing economic problems, the Likud party won the election of 1977. It not only cobbled together a working class coalition that stretched across numerous diverse segments of Israeli society, but also a political coalition of parties spanning from nationalist and religious hardliners on the right to moderate reformists in the center. The landslide Likud victory of 1977 marked a turning point in Israeli society and in its policymaking, as well as its continued connections to the American Right and its own rise and changes over time.

Thinktanks and Defense Establishment Shakeups

The Yom Kippur War also had a profound impact on the United States’ military strategy and defense establishment. Throughout the 1960’s and early 70’s, the United States found itself bogged down in the Vietnam War. Its strategy and weapons systems were stagnating, largely remaining the same throughout the conflict. What began to change this, however, was witnessing the deployment of Soviet weapons systems by the Egyptian and Syrian armies. T-72 tanks, Surface-to-air missile systems, armored anti-aircraft weapons and new artillery platforms, commonly referred to as "Big 7" weapons systems, found themselves on the battlefields of the Levant, proving to be disruptive to Israeli operations. 

Various reports and cautionary papers were written in and around 1974. Albert Wohlstetter, Trotskyite in his youth and professor at the University of Chicago, authored the report “Soviet Strategic Nuclear Weapons” which amongst other things criticized US military preparedness regarding its nuclear arsenal, emphasizing that the Soviet Union was racing ahead of the United States in Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile and Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile capabilities. The report called on the US military to rapidly develop its technological capabilities to achieve parity with the Soviet Union. 

The report was part of the motivation behind the Team B threat reassessment project headed by Paul Nitze. Gerald Ford’s Chief of Staff Donald Rumsfeld, as well as Paul Wolfowitz, began to rouse a fear of the Soviet Union through speeches, asserting that the Soviet Union was secretly building up its nuclear weapons arsenal in an effort to potentially fight and win a nuclear conflict with the United States. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz believed the United States should respond in kind and undertake a massive arms acquisition campaign, as well as develop advanced technologies to offset the Soviet Union’s numerically superior military.  

The defense officials in the Ford administration and in the defense establishment were not open to this group of relative outsiders challenging their posture towards the Soviet Union. Ford, Kissinger and others within the defense establishment were set on a course of detente with the Soviet Union, rather than a bellicose course of arms expansion and aggressive posturing. Rather, they attempted to shut down the proposed inquiries into the Soviet Union and the future Team B project. William Colby, then the Director of the CIA, was doubtful that a group of outsiders could produce an intelligence report more accurate and comprehensive than that of his CIA. 

Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney resigned from the administration due to its hesitancy to implement their agenda. In response, Ford relieved the various establishment figures of their positions and replaced them with Rumsfeld’s crowd, many of which would go on to be key neoconservatives later on. William Colby was replaced by George H. W. Bush as CIA Director. Henry Kissinger was replaced by Brent Scowcroft as National Security Advisor. Secretary of State James Schlesinger was replaced by Donald Rumsfeld, and his deputy Dick Cheney replaced him as Chief of Staff. This marked a point in which the realists, which had dominated American foreign policy to that point, were phased out and replaced by the incipient neoconservatives. 

With this shakeup in defense officials, the request to form this team of outside analysts was forced through, and in 1976 work began to identify Soviet advances in technology and military strategy. A team of 16 analysts and advisors undertook the project led by Richard Pipes, former advisor to Scoop Jackson and Harvard historian of Russian history. Along with him were a cast of neoconservative anti-Soviet hawks, including Paul Wolfowitz, Seymour Weiss and Paul Nitze. The target of this team’s scrutiny were the recent National Intelligence Estimates produced by the CIA, and Team B found that these reports drastically underestimated the military capabilities of the Soviet Union, as well as its motivations and intentions for armament. It found that the Soviet Union had been bolstering its anti-ballistic missile defense capabilities, its ability to destroy satellites and the mobility of its missile platforms, all of which would have been in violation of recent US-Soviet Missile treaties. It also rejected the idea that Soviet military expansion was undertaken as a defensive measure due to Russia’s history of experiencing invasion, and instead was done to prepare for future aggressive campaigns across the globe to fight against liberal democracy, even against the United States. The Team recommended that the United States embark on an arms race with the Soviet Union, producing and procuring more weapons than the Soviet Union could. At the same time, it needed to invest in the research and development of next generation technologies which would outcompete the Soviets.

The accuracy of the report and its findings have since been heavily criticized in historical studies. What few venture to say in their criticisms of the report is that the ideological bent of the analysts was likely an outgrowth of their Eastern European Jewish backgrounds. Richard Pipes and Paul Wolfowitz’ families were both Polish Jews, with Pipes being born in Russian Poland. Much of the strategic assessment of Soviet aggressive expansionism came from an analysis of communist ideology, which these two men strongly opposed in that it oppressed the rights of minorities, specifically Jews. With the Yom Kippur War in recent memory, it makes sense that these men had an interest in rolling back the Soviet Union to ensure Israel would not be threatened by Soviet-aligned Arab states. It also meant that Israel’s defense capabilities would need to be brought in line with that of the United States, and the development mirrors the shift in Israeli policy towards one of intervention and military expansion under its new Likud government. 

The Cold War Continues

The ongoing Cold War with the Soviet Union provided the Neoconservatives early practice grounds which would serve to solidify their ties both within Washington and to Israel. Whilst they had just shaken up the defense and foreign policy establishments, they carried forward the previous efforts of the Cold War with renewed fervor. Important strategic relationships were fostered and global operations carried out by a combination of neoconservative political influence and covert Israeli operations within the United States.

One notable relationship fostered at this time was that of South Africa. Following the Yom Kippur War, several high profile Israeli figures were vocal about guaranteeing Israel’s continued existence with the acquisition of a nuclear arsenal. Politicians like Menachem Begin and Shimon Peres, as well as defense figures like Moshe Dayan, all saw that Israel would become untouchable if she were in possession of such an arsenal. Whilst Israel commanded much influence in Washington circles, it was still a bridge too far for the United States to support Israel in her quest to obtain nuclear weapons. Various scandals had erupted in the past regarding this effort, notably the 1965 Apollo Affair. Given the controversy, Israel would need to find a partner outside of the United States for assistance. South Africa, with its sanctioned Apartheid regime, communist guerilla wars, and nuclear resources fit the bill. The South Africans were looking for allies as well, given their support for Rhodesia in the Bush War, as well as their Apartheid regime, had ostracized them from the United States, the Soviet Union, and much of the unaligned Third World. 

The relationship was triangular, with US-based operatives securing deals and facilitating the nuclear trade on behalf of Israel. One such example was the covert operations of Arnon Milchan. Milchan, an Israeli billionaire and Hollywood movie producer responsible for Fight Club, L.A. Confidential, and JFK, was recruited by Shimon Peres in the 1960’s to spy on behalf of Israel. It is alleged that Milchan was an arms dealer on top of his spying operation, being responsible for the illicit transportation of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of weaponry. Milchan has since admitted to promoting the Apartheid regime in South Africa for Israel to gain access to its uranium resources. 

Jonathan Pollard, a former Naval Intelligence employee, was another such Israeli spy operating in the United States with connections to South Africa. Pollard passed on numerous classified documents, such as the methodology for how the US military collects signal intelligence, for various arms deals around the world. Pollard was arrested and charged for his behavior, and three decades later was released to Israel, where he now lives. Both men were recruited by the Israeli organization Lekem, which was used to conduct foreign spying operations to bolster Israel’s nuclear program. 

One other notable figure in this relationship was Canadian artillery engineer Gerald Bull. Bull’s artillery designs were renowned across the world, and as such he worked closely with the United States and her allies, including South Africa and Israel. He was granted American citizenship by Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona for his efforts. Beyond providing artillery platforms to Israel, which would be used against Lebanon, Bull is known for his role in the circumvention of the arms sanctions placed upon South Africa. He managed to get 30,000 artillery pieces around the sanctions for South Africa to use against communist forces in Angola, and was soon after arrested. Later, Bull was likely assassinated by the Mossad for attempting to arm Saddam Hussein’s Iraq with a supergun, termed Project Babylon.

Returning to the subject of nuclear collaboration, large amounts of yellowcake uranium would be mined, primarily in Namibia (South West Africa), and some found its way into the arsenal of Israel. Interestingly, Peter Thiel’s father worked for the Rossing Uranium mine at this time. Israel and South Africa also likely participated in joint nuclear exercises, such as the 1979 Vela Incident, where a nuclear detonation occurred off the coast of South Africa[2]. All this to say, Israel, South Africa and the various operatives, agents, and Israeli-aligned political figures in the United States fostered a strong triangular relationship throughout much of the 1970s. 

Another relationship built during this time period was with the Shah of Iran. Specifically, the Nixon administration was particularly invested in the relationship with Iran as an anti-communist ally. Following the Yom Kippur War, the United States realized it needed to broaden its diplomatic effort in the region as a counterweight to Arab communism. Iran represented a pro-Western regime which was opposed to this threat, and therefore provided an expedient ally.

Iran also maintained a relationship with Israel. Whilst not formally recognizing its independence, the two states worked to contain their mutual Arab enemies. They worked together on various joint military projects, including a missile project under “Project Flower”, wherein Israel gave Iran advanced missile technology in exchange for mass amounts of oil. 

Today, these ties still remain in some capacity. The son of the last Shah, Reza Pahlavi, has been seen touring Israel, brought into the country at the behest of Benjamin Netanyahu. The crown prince and his wife claim to represent Iranians who oppose the Islamic Republic, and have clashed repeatedly with pro-democratic dissident movements as well. 

One final important tie built at this time was between the United States and the Pinochet regime in Chile. Deposing Salvador Allende’s socialist government in 1973 with the backing of the CIA, Pinochet would go on to govern Chile for the next seventeen years. Pinochet would ensure the United States had a strong ally in South America, alongside the various other regimes it supported at times, as a way to undergird its continued presence in the region. Furthermore, the ties between the Pinochet regime and the United States go deeper than the intelligence world, as his regime was guided by the neoliberal economic teachings of the Chicago School of Economics. 

Citing Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek as foundational thinkers, the “Chicago Boys” were a group of Latin American economists educated at the University of Chicago, as well as Harvard and MIT, whose primary aims were to bring neoliberal economic reforms to Latin America. The Chicago Boys were brought to the United States over the course of several years, their studies being financed by the Ford and Rockefeller foundations. The privatization reforms driven by the Chicago Boys would go on to serve as a model for the United States, the United Kingdom, as well as Israel in their eventual pivot to neoliberalism. Some of its members were also members of the Mont Pelerin Society, a liberal thinktank dedicated to advancing the causes of free trade and neoliberal economics. Pinochet’s attacks on Allende and the labor unions of Chile would serve as an example for Menachem Begin to do the same years later. Allende was, after all, a close partner of the Labor Zionist government and its Histadrut union.

Chile also became a partner of Israel, primarily providing a market for Israel to export its weapons systems. Chile bought air-to-air missiles, Israeli tanks, and even aircraft, bringing the two countries closer together. The two defended one another diplomatically at the United Nations, and Chile served as a model, both economically and politically, for Israel and the Likud party to model itself off of.

Sowing the Seeds of Neoliberalism

Another deepening tie between the United States and Israel during this time was their gradual shift to neoliberal economic systems. In Israel, this was first initiated under Menachem Begin with his free-market liberalization programs. In his political calculus, it was determined that the Histadrut, or General Organization of Workers in Israel, was the main source of power and legitimacy for the dominant Labor Zionist government. For the Likud party, breaking the power of the Histadrut was synonymous with gaining and maintaining their grip on power, and as such the new Likud government of 1977 immediately began privatizing swaths of the Israeli economy. Inflation soared as a result of Likud’s liberalization policies, increasing tenfold from 1977 to 1984. The stock market collapsed, and with it went the savings of many working class Israeli families. With the economy in shambles, Begin resigned in 1983, turning the government over to a stability regime of both left and right politicians. Inflation was curbed as a result of the 1985 stabilization program, and whilst Labor was the dominant party in government for much of the 80’s, this privatization spree continued, being led most forcefully by the Peres and Rabin administrations. 

Similarly, both the United States and the United Kingdom were undergoing neoliberal transformations. Mentioned earlier, the Chicago Boys of Chile demonstrated the practicalities of implementing such reforms. Also mentioned earlier was the Mont Pelerin Society, a group dedicated to the spread of neoliberal economic ideas. The Society featured members from across the world, and a considerable amount of its members worked in the Reagan administration. With its focus on fighting the excesses of big government, trickle-down economics, and global free trade, Ronald Reagan initiated the shift in the United States towards neoliberalism. Alan Greenspan was Reagan’s Chairman of the Federal Reserve. George Schultz, Edwin Meese, William Niskanen, and Martin Feldstein served as key policy advisors to Reagan. All were members of the Society. The Committee on the Present Danger under Reagan was also supportive of the new neoliberal economic direction the nation was heading in, with some notables being Norm Podhoretz, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Richard Perle, and Paul Nitze.

The Unipolar World Stage Is Set

All of these developments taken together, it is beyond clear that the 1970s were the formative decade for the future unipolar moment in United States’ history. The pivot to neoliberalism, the ties formed in Chile, South Africa and Iran, the shake-ups in the American defense establishment, and the political realignments in both America and Israel all found their origins in the developments surrounding the Yom Kippur War. Neoconservative ascendancy and the crushing weight of the Israel lobby went through a boost period during this time, and when the Soviet Union eventually collapsed in the 1990s, the agenda was already set as to what the purpose of American foreign policy would be, and it found itself armed with all of the tools necessary to carry it out.

[[1]] Walter J. Boyne (December 1998). "Nickel Grass". Air Force Magazine. 81 (12). Arlington, VA: Air Force Association. ISSN 0730-6784. Archived from the original on March 31, 2012.

[[2]] Polakow-Suransky, Sasha (2010). The Undeclared Alliance: Secret Relationship Between Israel and Apartheid South Africa. New York, NY: Pantheon Books. ISBN 978-0-375-42546-2. Archived from the original on February 2, 2014.

On December 14th 2023, the United States Congress passed legislation preventing any president from unilaterally withdrawing from NATO. This came mere weeks after former president Donald Trump stated he would withdraw from the alliance if re-elected in 2024.

In spite of this clear display of Atlanticist loyalty on behalf of Washington's legislators, it doesn't seem to be enough.

Ever since Ukraine's disastrous and anticlimactic "Spring 2023 counteroffensive," which only yielded the capture of a few miles of farmland and small villages along the Zaporozhye frontline, Washington's flow of military and economic support to Kiev stagnated. It hit rock bottom after Hamas launched a wave of attacks against Israel on October 7th.

European nations took note, and Europe has stepped up to fill the void left by lacking American support.

As of writing this, the United States Congress has failed to approve a new round of military aid to Ukraine. Republicans are demanding additional funding for border security and Israeli defense. Democrats refuse to make border security accommodations. By this point, Europe is convinced that America will be unable to provide more aid to Ukraine. More importantly, Europe is convinced that America will be unable to defend Europe, if and when Trump is re-elected in 2024.

Europe has had enough with what they see as childish bickering on behalf of Washington.

This month, European NATO members began to openly consider the deployment of their own military to Ukraine. Though their capacities will likely be limited to electronic warfare and support roles, it's an act of defiance to America's wishes with how to handle Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine.

Ever since World War II, Western Europe's security framework has been dominated by American military support. Ever since the Soviet Union collapsed, all of Europe has been reliant on American defense. Despite NATO's required 2% defense expenditures for all member states, only 4 member states meet this threshold, and no president has pushed the envelope of this issue too greatly. This was until Trump ran for president.

In July 2016, New York Times journalists David Sanger and Maggie Haberman interviewed the novice politician. When challenged on NATO, Donald Trump stated he would only defend NATO members if they have "fulfilled their obligations to us," completely ignoring Article V of the NATO treaty. Europe wasn't exactly pleased with these remarks, but dismissed them, believing that Trump couldn't win the election. When he did win, Europe now had to get comfy with their new boss, though no serious escalations between NATO and Russia occurred.

Trump hasn't changed his mind since, especially considering his recent comments on letting Russia do as they please. During a recent rally in South Carolina, the former president said the following:

“No I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills.”

This time around, Europe has taken Trump's comments very seriously.

While some Americans may think that Trump will lose in 2024, Europe seems to think he will win re-election, so much so in fact that Europe is preparing for a NATO alliance without a present and cooperative America.

Introducing: EURONATO. The European solution to a post-Atlantic America. An alliance in which Europe makes its own defense and security decisions, without a present American guarantor of sovereignty.

Europe's mindset is simply that if America won't step up to defend Europe, then only Europe can defend itself.

NATO's expansion, which has caused this war in Ukraine since 2014, was almost entirely spearheaded by State Department ambitions. It was the United States that initiated a bombing campaign against Yugoslavia, and ultimately it was a State Department color revolution in 2000 that resulted in Yugoslavia's dismemberment. Now every former Yugoslav nation is part of NATO, with the exception of Bosnia and Serbia, the latter of which has NATO troops present in Kosovo.

All of this is to the benefit of European defense, not American defense. Geographically and strategically encircling Russia is and always has been to the benefit of Europe, not America.

In 2003, Georgia's pro-Russian government was overthrown by the Rose Revolution. The new government headed by Mikhail Saakashvili failed to align with NATO, and ultimately the west didn't come to his aid when Russia invaded following a failed military operation in South Ossetia in 2008.

In 2004, the United States upended Ukraine's electoral process through a color revolution, though this didn't yield the desired results. Ukraine did not join NATO, and Ukraine's pro-Western and NATO-installed president, Viktor Yuschenko, did not fulfill all the wishes of Washington and Brussels. Viktor Yanukovich, his rival in the 2004 election, won the election in his place, though his presidency was short-lived.

Ten years after the Orange Revolution of 2004, Ukraine's government was overthrown following a massacre of protesters and police on Kiev's Independence Square, with later investigations suggesting that Western snipers, strategically planted at vantage points occupied by pro-Western protesters, shot at and killed the protesters. Ukraine's pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovich was forced to flee, and a highly Russophobic and pro-Western government was installed in his place. The 2014 Maidan Revolution caused the Donbass to rise up and fight the new Ukrainian government, all the while Russian mercenaries and officers orchestrated separatist military activity.

It was this civil war that allowed Europe and America to begin shipping weapons and aid to Ukraine to be used against the Donbass.

When Russia invaded in February 2022, Europe and America rallied in unison for Ukraine. It was, in fact, American aid that represented the majority of equipment sent to Ukraine, with Bradley IFVs and Javelin anti-tank missiles - all made in the USA - being pivotal in turning the war from an unquestionable Russian victory to a stalemate on all fronts. However, this stalemate had a timer.

Russia broke the stalemate in February 2024, capturing the city of Avdiivka just outside Donetsk. For 10 years, pro-Russian separatists fought for the city, and Russia has been breaking through on all fronts ever since Avdiivka's fall.

If there was ever a time for aid to be hastily sent to Ukraine, now is the time for it. And America has, finally, failed to satisfy European defense concerns.

At this rate, Ukraine is in deep trouble, and if Congress fails to compose an aid package, the deal is sealed- Europe will go its own way and defy America.

Whether or not EURONATO will be a success story is yet to be seen, but - like any emerging alliances - there are cracks in the foundation that must be sealed. There is great division within Europe on supporting Ukraine. Hungary has been the most opposed to supporting Ukraine militarily. Germany, France, Poland, and the Baltics have been hesitant due to Russian oil dependence, not to mention increasing nationalist and anti-NATO sentiments in those countries.

What we can look forward to is the prospect of American disengagement from Europe, and the possibility of a detente with Russia. However, this isn't without its drawbacks. America is pivoting to Asia to combat China, and most if not all of that defensive capability assigned to Europe can be guaranteed to shift east.

The recent article by Ben Lorber regarding the “Bronze Age Zionism” phenomena prompted me to search out one to speak to. I had the opportunity to interview one such person on a space, listen to the replay here.

Talking with sternsalafist about Bronze Age Zionism

0:00

/3121.344

1×

Some in the conservative movement have valorized President Andrew Jackson as a symbol of populism. In particular, many from the Claremont Institute have taken up this narrative, borrowing the concept of “Jacksonian Realism” from conservative intellectual Walter Russell Mead. For Mead, a Council on Foreign Affairs and Hudson Institute contributor, “Jacksonian Realism” is one of four American foreign policy traditions, the others being the Hamiltonian, Jeffersonian, and Wilsonian schools. The DeSantis campaign and its committed online influencers, of which there was much overlap with the Claremont Institute, explicitly identified their candidate’s foreign policy with Jacksonian Realism. David Reaboi, former registered foreign agent for the Israel-aligned Hungarian government and proponent of “National Divorce” (secession), borrowed Mead’s phrase in describing Ron DeSantis. Christina Pushaw, rapid response director for the DeSantis campaign, also approved of the term as a descriptor of DeSantis. Additionally, Steve Bannon, inspired by Mead’s Jacksonian Realism, put a portrait of Andrew Jackson in the White House in 2017, claiming that the Trump movement represents the same populist current as Jackson’s. But is the Meadian view of Jacksonian Realism a true picture of the significance of the seventh President? What do they really mean by all this?

Jacksonian Realism is the name of a foreign policy style coined by Walter Russell Mead in his 1999 essay “The Jacksonian Tradition and American Foreign Policy,” and appeared in his 2001 book Special Providence. Mead defines Jacksonian Realism as the making of foreign policy decisions based solely on national interest and national honor, having no qualms about using maximum military force while minimizing the loss of American lives. It has been presented as an alternative to the extreme hawkishness of the neoconservatives without the isolationism of the “Jeffersonians” (as defined in Mead’s idiosyncratic fashion) or the idealism of the “Wilsonians.” In the words of Reaboi, it is neither isolationist nor neoconservative. Mead roots the Jacksonian feeling in deep cultural and folk-historical roots. He envisions Jacksonianism not so much as a rigorous body of beliefs, but rather the instinctive character of lower- and middle-class Americans, especially Southern Americans. It quickly becomes clear when reading Mead’s essay that his understanding of “Jacksonian Realism” is largely based on cultural history and cultural analysis, rather than being generalized from the actions or words of the seventh President himself.

But let’s look at the political beliefs of the namesake President and see if there is any solid reason for this characterization. Andrew Jackson believed in limited government and democracy, the latter taking the form of extending the franchise to all white men, instead of only landowning white men as originally delineated in the national and state Constitutions. This is democratic and liberal, not conservative. For those unfamiliar with the politics of the antebellum United States, the two main groups represented in the party system were...

To contine reading the full article, check out The American System using the link below. Consider signing up for the American Book Club email list as well.

The American System | Malton | Substack

Click to read The American System, by Malton, a Substack publication with hundreds of subscribers.

SubstackMalton

In today's bitter landscape of botched game releases and lifeless remasters, a relic of level design has been uncovered and revealed a forgotten lesson. The revelation from @RejectedShotgun about Halo 3's level constructed from a singular rock model isn't just nerd trivia; it's presents the case for a stinging indictment of the bloat and mismanagement that plagues modern game studios.

Here was a level artfully peppered with variations of one rock, each iteration so cleverly placed that for over a decade, players remained blissfully unaware of the simplicity of the game's assets. This wasn't just smart design—it was a masterclass in resourcefulness. The problem, however, is that studios don't seem to value this skill as much as they have in the past.

We find ourselves wading through a swamp of game releases that increasingly tend towards the leviathan – digital monstrosities stuffed with assets as redundant as they are unnecessary. Bloated game development studios, mistaking quantity for quality, churn out uninspired meshes, textures, and stories. This work is commonly outsourced to ESG-compliant companies like Sweet Baby, Inc to cut corners. They pile on asset after asset, inflating development cycles and adding torturous load times, all the while losing sight of what makes people want to play their games.

What makes a game resonate with someone? What is the alchemy that keeps players returning to worlds constructed from polygons and shaders? It certainly isn't the number of rock models a game boasts. The success of Halo 3's design philosophy lays bare the truth: games enchant with gameplay, not gigabytes. In a fast-paced, competitive, first-person shooter, players are more interested in the gunplay, strategy, and matchmaking than the complexity and variation of the rocks and stones used as cover from enemy fire. The philosophy of "less is more" has been abandoned, in favor of a compulsion towards numbers and quantities.

This shift in power away from a team's skill to the profitability of its projects has killed creativity. The effects of reducing studios to the whims of the shareholder has another consequence. Game development companies must now comply with regulatory commitees which demand diverse development teams who seem to be motivated by perceived social injustices and a pervasive liberal culture, rather than making truly exceptional experiences. We've all seen photos comparing the teams at various game studios, before and after GamerGate. Below are two galleries of various Bungie development teams. I'll leave it up to the reader to draw their own conclusions.

Ignoring the obvious ideological shift, the teams have grown much larger. The scope and scale of today's games has also expanded. Players have been introduced to massive, interactive worlds like the sprawling wilderness in Read Dead Redemption 2 and the treacherous caprice of Elden Ring. In some cases, these experiences are extremely polished and meet the expectations of the player. However, the large majority of recent releases seem to be underwhelming. It's not uncommon for publishers to rush their games out to meet unrealistic deadlines, serving up half-baked products that are only improved through later patches and updates. Other times, a game remains largely unfinished after release and only becomes (partially) complete through DLC and in-game purchases.

Let's not forget the trend towards unnecessary and overwhelming moderation of in-game communications and community discussions. Players can be banned from games they have purchased for "misgendering" other players or using slurs. Gamers have been discouraged from engaging in so-called toxic behavior, making cooperating or competing with other random players feel more like walking on egg shells. If you can lose access to a product you've purchased after being reported for abusive communication, with little to no room for appeal, why risk talking online at all? Doesn't the gaming industry have more important things to do than punish its own customers? The speculators driving the direction of the major publishers seem unbothered by the idea of alienating their former audience.

Not so long ago, game developers were simply nerds and geeks who organically leveraged their expertise in coding, designing, and animating towards making new games for others to enjoy. That disposition towards working with what you've got to make something great has disappeared. It's not hard to see the industry has changed, competency has been sidelined for diversity. One rock isn't enough – we need a diverse array of rock assets – that's what players demand, or so we're told.

This fixation on the outlier and the prioritization of everything except the underlying game loop itself has led to broken and forgettable games. Not every team needs a female to "balance the culture". Not every environment needs thousands of unique assets to make the world believable. Let players use their imagination and give them room to inhabit the worlds created for them. Let them express themselves and have truly human experiences with one another online. Critics like journalists aren't paid to appreciate the sublime. Speculators and shareholders are only concerned about next quarter's earnings. Games will continue to suffer until the gaming audiences are free of these external forces. Let the art speak for itself.

Finding serious, competent institutions among American dissidents has historically been a difficult task. The term “dissident right” itself brings to mind the image of a myriad of smaller organizations and personalities, highly decentralized and all competing to host “the conference”, or be “the group”. Some of the older organizations have gone defunct. Others never really took off. Over the past few decades, however, a few groups have stood the test of time and have become staples within the sphere. 

VDare, run by Mr. Peter Brimelow, is one such organization. Founded in 1999, VDare has been a mainstay in the fight to reduce non-White immigration into the United States, and has published many high-profile authors and activists, including Jared Taylor, John Derbyshire, and Sam Francis. Its credibility as a dissident right institution was bolstered with VDare’s purchase of the Samuel Taylor Cottage in West Virginia, where it now hosts private conferences. 

The VDare 2024 Spring Conference has just been announced, along with its speaker lineup. The group will convene for a three day event starting April 26th; attendees will listen to speeches from longtime VDare activists such as Peter Brimelow and John Derbyshire, race-IQ academic Steve Sailer, InfoWars associate Dan Lyman, Irish Nationalist and rising star Keith Woods, and former Trump admin employee Amanda Milius, with more to be announced in the following weeks. To those who have been in leagues with the dissident right for some time, this lineup sounds like a run-of-the-mill conference. There are others on the fringes who seem to think something else is at play.

You may have raised your eyebrow when you read the final name in the announced speaker list. Amanda Milius – the daughter of famous movie director John Milius. For those unfamiliar, John Milius directed Red Dawn (1984), an 80’s classic which tells the story of a Soviet invasion of the United States. Amanda, as previously stated, worked in the Trump Whitehouse as well as in the State Department, and produced the 2020 documentary “The Plot Against the President”, examining the Russia-gate controversy.

Milius’ accomplishments, previously held high-profile jobs, and her family ties to Hollywood make her an interesting figure to speak at what is generally understood to be a White nationalist conference. VDare is well outside the mainstream of political discussion, especially the conservative factions of the MAGA movement. Another curveball is that Milius is Jewish, and a hawkish Zionist to boot. For many in this dissident sphere, the idea that Jews hold disproportionate influence in American government and society is an accepted truth, one which is recognized as the primary cause of America’s decline as well as the chief obstacle in any effort to make America a sovereign nation once more. Why, then, is Amanda Milius speaking at this conference, and what must this say about VDare and the White nationalist scene more broadly?

Jewish White Nationalist Intellectuals

This phenomenon is not without its historical precedent. American Renaissance, another White nationalist political organization, has also had a complicated relationship with Jews and Judaism throughout its three decades of existence. Nathan Cofnas, a Jewish academic whose research focuses on race and genetics, has taken to Twitter over the years to say as much. Cofnas has been engaged for the better part of a decade in an academic duel with Professor Kevin MacDonald on the subject of Jews and MacDonald’s idea of a “Jewish Evolutionary Strategy”, with Cofnas defending the idea that Jews can and will identify as White and engage with White nationalism if they weren’t chased off by antisemites within the group.

After all, Cofnas points to the early days of American Renaissance, the first conference of which featured four Jewish speakers out of the ten total.

Cofnas previously had stated that much of the high-profile literature from the American Renaissance crowd was the product of Jewish scholarship, such as Michael Levin, as well as explaining that Jews have had a presence in the related Paleoconservative movement. 

In the case of American Renaissance, the two camps, those being White nationalists who were concerned with Jewish influence and Jews who saw themselves as part of the White nationalist movement, came to a head in the early 2000’s. David Duke and Don Black, two men whose focus was primarily on Jewish power, attended the 2006 American Renaissance conference and asked provocative questions on the subject. These inquiries roused the ire of Jewish researcher and longtime American Renaissance associate Michael Hart, who confronted Duke and subsequently left the conference. Whilst Jared Taylor has long sought the support of Jewish intellectuals and academics sympathetic to his cause, following 2006 and the Duke incident, Jews have been more hesitant to speak or attend events hosted by American Renaissance. This is despite Taylor’s condemnation of Duke’s actions and antisemitic opinions being voiced at his conference. 

Mr. Taylor Walks The Tightrope

Mr. Taylor himself has been caught in the crossfire of these two camps throughout many of the past decades. He has walked a narrow tightrope between the two, seeking the intellectual backing of Jewish academics concerned with race, as well as the energetic activism of those concerned with Jewish power, with either side accusing him of being too close to the other. What is interesting about Taylor, however, are the connections found in his personal life. His wife, Evelyn Rich, wrote her PhD dissertation on the Ku Klux Klan, attempting to study their ideology and how the group operated in the modern day. Of course, David Duke, being perhaps the highest profile Klansmen at the time, was an early person of interest. Rich interviewed Duke several times, and he invited her to a conference held by the Institute for Historical Review, a group dedicated to the cause of historical revisionism, with a heavy emphasis on the Holocaust and Second World War. Rich secretly taped Duke on more than one occasion, as well as other high-profile attendees of the conference, and sent her tapes to the Anti-Defamation League, as well as the Louisiana Coalition Against Racism and Nazism. Rich actually met Jared Taylor at the following year’s IHR conference, but not before meeting Mark Weber, a man who some hold responsible for the decline of the Institute as a credible and influential organization for revisionists and those interested in Jewish power. 

Weber and Taylor met in Ghana in 1970, whilst Weber was working there on behalf of the US government as an English teacher. It is generally unknown as to whether Weber and Taylor maintained a regular correspondence following this initial meeting, but it is known that Weber had other connections to men working for the US government and potentially Israeli intelligence. One such man is Andrew Allen, a San Francisco-area lawyer. Allen was the president of a foundation which sought to provide resources for the targets of the 1962 Tatmadaw Coup, in which the Burmese military ousted a government which had enjoyed close relations with Israel and the United States. Allen also stated in a deposition that his most proud work was running guns to the Mujahideen during the Soviet-Afghan War, a job which, whilst funded by the United States, was undertaken on the ground largely by Israeli intelligence assets. 

Returning to the subject of Evelyn Rich, it was revealed that Rich corresponded over the phone with Irwin Suall, the chief fact-finder of the Anti-Defamation League for three decades. The event was publicized by members of the IHR who were suspicious of Rich, however Weber and those associated with him declared that it was an insignificant event, and that it had no bearing on the beliefs or operations of Jared Taylor. 

Brimelows’ Connections

On the subject of VDare, Peter Brimelow has always maintained some connection to the mainstream body of politics, of which he originated from. Brimelow worked at Forbes and National Review during the 80’s and 90’s, and maintains a relationship with media giant Rupert Murdoch. Brimelow is also well acquainted with Stephen Miller, the renowned immigration hawk in the Trump administration, who invited him to speak at Duke University in 2007. It was revealed in the Katie McHugh email leaks of 2019 that Brimelow, Miller, and White House employee Julia Hahn were connected and corresponded. 

One may know that Stephen Miller is Jewish, as is Julia Hahn. Following the attacks on October 7th, Hahn took to writing in Tablet Magazine about the absurd position liberal Jews in the United States take regarding immigration, specifically Islamic immigration, and urged her co-ethnics to rethink their potentially suicidal stance on the issue. Islamic immigration has been a theme in the writings and works of both Stephen Miller and Julia Hahn, and whilst salient in some sense to the White nationalist cause, has far more in common with Israel’s struggle against Palestine and wider Muslim neighbors. 

These historical examples all illustrate that there has always been an effort to subvert the White nationalist movement in the United States by moving its discussions about power, and the Jewish dimension to it, towards discussions of racial differences and concerns about Islam and Islamic immigration. The figures at the top of such organizations are mixed up with odd personal connections which set off more than a few alarm bells in the mind of a dissident. 

The VDare-Israeli Right Alliance?

Some of the articles and literature found on VDare following the October 7th attacks reflects a desire to win Jews over to the White nationalist cause. Multiple pieces have since been published by “The Hebrew Conservative” detailing the shift in Israeli society and the struggle of the Netanyahu administration to transform the Israeli state from its labor-oriented foundation to one that is chauvinistic and expansionist. 

Ann Coulter has gotten in on the trend, attacking Palestinian demonstrators for their jealousy of Israel transforming Palestine into a first rate nation, as well as attacking Black Lives Matter for its response to 10/7 and urging liberal Jews to join with immigration hawks against the third world. 

An old piece written by Susan Green about her journey to Nietzscheanism, as well as her coming to understand the immigration issue, rails against those who believe in a Jewish conspiracy and urges rightists to understand that Jews are no monolith, and that Jews can be fellow immigration restrictionists. In the wake of October 7th, it has since been updated and republished.

Steve Sailer has amplified the belief that Jews are White whether they like it or not, and that both Whites and Jews are hurt by Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policies and therefore should ally against their mutual enemies. 

Ideas Over Identity

To answer the initial question, “How does Amanda Milius find herself speaking at the VDare conference”, one part of the answer is ironically that White nationalism is a malleable idea, not an identity. Who is White? Do Jews count as White? To some, the answer is yes. Is White civilization held to a specific faith, or must it be secular? What encapsulates White civilization? Is Israel a part of it? To some, especially following the attacks of October 7th and the shared hatred of Israel and Europe by much of the third world, the answer is yes. If Israel is part of our shared civilization, it then follows that Judeo-Christianity is an accurate descriptor, and that religious disputes have no place in such a movement. By opening themselves to include like-minded Jews in their struggle against immigration and non-White replacement, White nationalists and their organizations are a prime target for Jews who feel similarly about their current predicament in Israel and elsewhere.

The second part to this answer, of course, is that Israel and specifically the Likud party has a vested interest in subverting the American hard-right to serve their interests and collect intelligence on dissidents. This is done through personal relationships and espionage. High-brow conferences – like VDare – are a perfect target for intelligence assets to learn more about dissident networks and find influential assets within them to flip. Someone deemed susceptible to such advances may pick up a personal handler by making connections at such an event, and through a steady stream of messaging and perceived friendship, can be turned into a traitor to their nation and their own interests. This, alongside a continued effort to downplay the Jewish role in the decline of the United States, are the driving forces behind Israeli and domestic Jewish interaction with White nationalism and its associated organizations. 

American Nationalism Is The Answer

If White nationalism is too nebulous, and if its weak boundaries leave its supporters unguarded from foreign influence, then American nationalism must be the answer. American nationalism is an exclusive phenomena built around American identity, which is White, Christian and the particular experiences and developments in the cultural identity of the American people. By prioritizing identity over ideas, there are fewer vectors of influence for foreign operatives to turn men against their own nation. An American nationalist would not invite a malicious actor to speak at his conference out of perceived “White unity”. Because to him, his own nation and people are the only ones with which he feels any unity at all. 

I recently held a space talking about the Chabad movement. A number of subjects regarding Chabad were covered. Speakers Wendell and PaulSkallasTown gave their input and their findings on the topic. Chief Trumpster updated the space with his finding specifically related to the tunnels underneath the Lubavitcher Headquarters. To wrap up, a self proclaimed Chabadnik entered the space in an attempt to clear up some of the questions or confusion regarding Chabad, the tunnels, as well as the factionalism in the sect around The Rebbe.

A few days ago, the New York Police Department discovered a network of secret tunnels under the Chabad headquarters in New York City. At the time of writing, several of the creators of said tunnels have been arrested, with many more justifying their actions, believing that the Rebbe would have approved of their devotion to the faith. Many may look at this incident with several questions. Who are these Jews? What makes them distinct from other kinds of Jews? Why were they digging tunnels? What is going on here?

To answer all of these questions, this New York City incident centers on the Chabad-Lubavitch sect of Judaism. Chabad is a part of the wider Hasidic Jewish movement, which is generally considered ultra-orthodox, meaning it holds to the original interpretations of Jewish holy texts. The name Chabad is a product of the Tree of Life, a central focus of Kabbalistic practice, and something important to the Chabad movement. Chokhmah (Ch), Binah (ab), Da’at (ad), or Wisdom, Understanding, and Knowledge, guides the specific practices and global outlook of the Chabad movement.

History of Chabad-Lubavitch

Chabad-Lubavitch was born in 1775, first in the town of Liadi, Belarus. Soon after its foundation, its headquarters were moved to what is today known as Lubavitch, Belarus. Its founder, Shneur Zalman of Liadi, founded the movement in an effort to revive what he saw as decaying hardline, mystical Judaism amongst Eastern European Jewry. For these Jews, the allure of leftist and later Bolshevist aims, such as breaking down strong nationalist states, an emphasis on tolerance, secularism, and equality, was to them the key to ending the discrimination they faced from the autocratic regimes in Moscow, Berlin, and Vienna. Shneur Zalman, on the other hand, felt that only through a Jewish revival, particularly one that focused on inner-development and mystical spirituality, would suffice in delivering unto the Jews their Messiah and ending their oppression at the hands of the Gentiles. Chabad Jews also place a heavy emphasis on the teachings within the Talmud, as well as the importance of studying, understanding and using Kabbalah. Zalman was a devout Talmudist, and his skills in religious interpretation and observance, as well as his claims to being descended from the line of King David, eventually led to him establishing Chabad-Lubavitch with himself as the first Rebbe.

The Rebbe is a title held by the leader of the Chabad movement, which has been kept within the Schneerson family line. The latest Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, was considered by many within the movement as the Jewish messiah, a claim to which some still adhere to even after his death in 1994. Many considered him to be so due to his charismatic leadership of the group. Menachem Schneerson (to be referenced going forward as The Rebbe) focused his efforts on a global education and outreach program. This effort, still seen today, is geared towards those secular Jews who have fallen away from the faith. Chabadniks believe it is a victory if Jews keep as many commandments as they can, and to live a particularly joyous and intellectual life. Chabad seeks to rekindle the Jewish faith in those who have fallen away, and they do so by establishing Chabad houses and yeshivas (Jewish religious learning centers) in populous areas. These houses, as well as the communities in which Chabad members reside, are meant to act as emissaries to the wider world on behalf of Judaism.

The Rebbe was also renowned for his success in keeping communism from winning the hearts and minds of many Jews. He taught that communism, or leftism broadly, was incompatible with the Jewish faith and that one must always place his Jewish identity above all others. In this regard, he also taught against assimilation into Gentile society through “Ahavat Yisrael,” or “love of one’s fellow Jew," which taught to be conscious of and look out for fellow Jews and to cooperatively engage with the wider world. 

Influence of Chabad Today 

The influence of Chabad-Lubavitch, especially in right-wing political circles and underground networks, cannot be overstated. As Lubavitchers are meant to be emissaries to the world, they particularly seek to meet with and influence Gentile leaders.

 Argentina

You may recall the recently elected president of Argentina, Javier Milei, as an example. Milei, a self-proclaimed anarcho-capitalist and hailed by many on the right as the “Argentine Trump," is a Gentile who is in the process of converting to Judaism. Chabad is currently playing a central role in his conversion. There are numerous Chabad houses in Buenos Aires, established on the orders of the Rebbe in the mid-to-late 20th century. Milei’s Rabbi, Tzvi Grunblatt, is a Lubavitcher and top Chabad rabbi in Argentina, as are many of the Jews he is seen being surrounded by in public. Milei has taken multiple trips to the resting site of the Rebbe, also known as the Ohel, a holy site for Chabad adherents.

South Africa

Chabad also has a significant presence in Johannesburg, South Africa. The connection may not appear obvious at first. During Apartheid-era South Africa, Israel and South Africa collaborated heavily on various security projects. They held joint training operations and, most importantly, shared technology and resources for their nuclear programs. As the Apartheid regime was facing its decline and isolation in the 1970s and 1980s, many Jews were considering fleeing the country. The Rebbe made a personal trip to South Africa to ensure the Jewish community would continue to exist there. Today, Johannesburg maintains its smaller yet important Jewish communities, who no doubt were indispensable in pressuring the South African government to continue its strategic partnership with Israel throughout the late 20th century. 

Russia and Ukraine

Chabad has played an important role for Russian Jewry since the times of the Soviet Union; however, its influence has grown significantly since its fall. It has enjoyed warm relations with the Putin regime. The head Chabad rabbi in Russia, Berel Lazar, has had the privilege on numerous occasions to meet with the Russian president. Putin, in an effort to differentiate himself from past Russian regimes with histories of antisemitism, welcomed Chabad as a potential ally for his regime with a historic speech and menorah lighting ceremony on Christmas in 2000. Following the occasion, Benjamin Netanyahu met with the Russian president at a local Chabad house to discuss security policy, a meeting that has taken place several times.

The war in Ukraine has muddied the waters regarding Chabad’s advances in Russia. Some, such as the chief rabbi, have kept strategically silent on the war and opted to promote peace and focus on the security of the Jews living in the two countries, of which there are many. After all, Chabad is quite active in Ukraine as well. President Zelensky met with six of the top representatives of Chabad following his election and has since maintained close relations with their communities. The stance Chabad seems to have taken regarding the war is this: the Jews must stay put. It is a top priority that the Jews who have re-emigrated to both countries stay until their Messiah comes, and so they must reach across the border and help their communities as they are affected by this war. Chabad does still seem to have influence on the Russian government even during the war, as Putin fired top Russian Security Council member Aleksey Pavlov, who described the sect as a supremacist religious cult, for its teaching on Gentiles found in the Talmud.

Some have posited that this war is a convenient way for both sides to dispose of their nationalist components, as nationalists on either side have enlisted in their respective armies, and these nationalists have proven to be a thorn in the side of the ruling regimes in either country.

Israel

Chabad-Lubavitch has had a historically complicated relationship with the state of Israel. The Rebbe was said to have walked a tightrope regarding his support for the state. He supported the Zionist cause; however, he felt that Israel was not always about the Zionist cause, as he saw the secular nature of the Israeli regime throughout much of its early years as something antithetical to true Judaism and living an authentic Jewish life. With the rise of the Israeli right, particularly the Likud party, Chabad began to support Israel as living up to its calling as the land to which the Jews must gather. Specifically, Chabad defends the Israeli settlers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. During the period before the finalization of the Abraham Peace Accords, many in Chabad were opposed to the deal as it promised a Palestinian state at all, which they are strongly opposed to allowing one to exist at all.

The Rebbe had enjoyed a private audience with Likud Prime Ministers during these times, such as Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir, and current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Rebbe went as far as telling Netanyahu that his reign over Israel would immediately precipitate the coming of the Messiah. Following his death, it seems Chabad has maintained the positions held by the Rebbe, dragging the Israeli right further to its own extreme positions on religious beliefs as well as geopolitical issues regarding Israel’s neighboring states, most importantly Palestine. Today, Chabad boasts over 200 Chabad Houses in Israel, and its activism there has been as strong as it has ever been.

The United States

Of course, recent events have caused many to focus on Chabad, specifically in the United States. Chabad finds its central nodes of power in New York City, northern New Jersey, Miami, Los Angeles and San Francisco. Its world headquarters are located in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, a major hotspot for Chabad activities, some of which include tunnel digging. In recent years, especially with the rise of Donald Trump, Chabad has found a home in and shared a common cause with the right-wing MAGA movement.

The most well-connected and high-profile Chabad member is, of course, Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and the man who negotiated the Abraham Accords. Kushner was a member of the Harvard Chabad On Campus group during his undergraduate year. His family has kept a close relationship, donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to their various causes, and even bought a residence close to the White House during his time as an advisor so that he and Ivanka, his wife and fellow Chabad adherent, could walk to its services. 

Trump also found himself connected to Chabad through Russian Jew and mob associate Felix Sater. Sater, a managing director at the Bayrock Group, advised the Trump Organization on several real estate projects, including the Dominick, Trump International Hotel, and Midtown Miami. It is also interesting to note that Sater was the Man of the Year for the Chabad House at Port Washington in 2010 and 2014.

Broadly speaking, Chabad supports the MAGA movement because of the similar positions both parties find themselves in. The MAGA movement bills itself as an insurgent political party against a secular, left-wing establishment with the goal of transforming the American regime into a nationalist regime. In Israel, Chabad broadly supports the Likud party and its systematic dismantlement of the secular, progressive deep state and its transformation of Israeli society into a deeply religious, nationalist society. An interesting example of this connection and mutual support was the Daily Wire commentator Michael Knowles voicing support for the Chabadnik cause, something Knowles would have likely pretended to know very little about had he been asked in person about it.

Where This Is All Headed 

Israel is currently positioning itself to become the center of the world. It has struck deals with both the United States and China in recent times, playing off the two global powers and reaping the benefits. The Belt and Road Initiative plans to run through Israel, as does the IMEC “Tracks for Peace” corridor, spanning Greece, the Israeli port in Haifa, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and ending in India. It is clear that Israel will stand to gain hundreds of billions, if not trillions, with ample investment from these deals, becoming one of the richest nations on the face of the Earth by doing so. It will cement its relations with its neighbors as well as those of the three major global powers. Chabad will have a role to play in this process, acting as underground emissaries to these three nations. Although Chabad does not have the ties or influence with China like it does with America and Russia, it is likely that ties could be fostered given time and resources. After all, the countless Chabad facilities spanning the globe did not appear out of thin air. It is likely that as Israeli society takes a hard turn right as a result of October 7th and the continued transformation of the Israeli government at the hands of Likud, Chabad will become an increasingly important partner of the Israeli government in its relations with foreign nations. 

Other Chabad Quirks and Oddities 

This article would not be complete without some sort of tie-in to the Chabad tunnels underneath Crown Heights. This is not an isolated incident. Chabad Jews have something of a history when it comes to scandalous, shady, and even downright criminal activities over the years. Take Aryeh Goodman of the East Brunswick Chabad Organization in New Jersey. In 2018, it was announced he would serve a 10-year sentence minimum for child sex trafficking charges. The man served an 18-month sentence in jail with a supervised release. Further back, in 1989, a money laundering scheme spanning the United States, Colombia, and Israel was broken up by federal law enforcement, and the chief assistant to the head of the scheme, Nir Goldeshtein, was a Chabadnik. Two associates of Goldeshtein who were never arrested, Rabbi Sholom Levitin and Baruch Zeltzer, both fled to Israel to escape charges. In East Asia, the Chabad House of Bangkok has long been suspected to be part of the Israeli mafia, smuggling drugs into the country on its behalf. Many anti-Chabad Jews allege the organization is responsible for child kidnappings, disappearances, and tax evasion schemes.

Final Thoughts

Chabad has become a staple of the Jewish phenomenon both in the United States and around the world. In the United States, its activities only seem to gain more traction, with 38% of all Jews in the country interacting with the organization in some capacity. It is likely to see an increase in converts considering the significant rightward shift in Israeli society, as well as the diaspora Jews are experiencing. Keep an eye on Chabad in the upcoming years; it will no doubt play an important role in the development of the global situation.

Generally speaking, 20th century American culture possessed a fascination with automobiles. Everyone can name the great American car manufacturers: Ford, Chevy, Chrysler, to name a few. Cars became an essential part of American life. Car shows and racing, the largest being NASCAR, have also had a lasting impact on American culture. America is a physically huge nation, and as a result its citizens need speedy transportation. As railroads increasingly moved away from private transportation and towards freight shipping, automobiles were the next best option; a source of transportation which promises freedom of movement as opposed to the railroaded nature of trains. Going on “the road trip” is emblematic of this American character and as a symbol of freedom and the means of exploring the wider world.

And as a result of these factors, American cars were second to none. Large, flashy, a status symbol of a man who has made it, every man desired a pontiac to go along with their white picket fence and family of four. But when was the last time you actually saw the classic Americana cars? Perhaps a classic auto show? The facebook marketplace for an exuberant amount of money? President Trump once asked a question similar to these in his 2016 presidential campaign; when was the last time you saw a Chevrolet in Tokyo? 

As it turns out, there was a clear and deliberate effort to move away from the large bodied, chrome detailed, luxurious designs of the Golden Era and towards something more economical and environmentally friendly. Non-governmental organizations specializing in the global economy and its effects on the environment, such as the Club of Rome, were lobbying for regulations on emissions and fuel efficiency regarding energy. In particular, the Club’s 1972 “The Limits to Growth” report put forth the hypothesis that global resources will become exhausted as the population increases exponentially, and the means of satisfying this population’s needs can only move linearly, leading towards a global catastrophe when the Earth’s resources are exhausted and overpopulation sets in. This of course applies to oil reserves, and the Club of Rome recommended in this report that governments begin the transition to environmentally friendly and sustainable forms of energy. But who would be willing to give up their luxurious Pontiacs and Corvettes?

The 1973 Oil Crisis became the force which initiated this transition. This Oil Crisis was the result of the United States’ stalwart defense of Israel during the Yom Kippur War. This was the renewal of warfare between the Arabs and Jews, which had been ongoing since Israel’s inception. Specifically, this was the attempt by Anwar Sadat to regain the Sinai Peninsula and Hafiz al-Assad to regain the Golan Heights in Syria, both of which had been annexed by Israel following the 1967 Six Day War. As the United States had backed Israel with military, financial, as well as diplomatic support, the Arab exporters of oil, all enemies of Israel at the time (at least on a surface level), began an oil embargo upon the United States for its actions. As a result, the price per barrel of oil rose sharply from $3 to $12 within a few months.

With this crisis at hand, the government began to legislate significant restrictions upon automotive manufacturers. One of the most impactful was the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), which created the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) restrictions. These restrictions forced manufactures to guarantee an average miles per gallon on their fleet of vehicles in any given year. At the time, the lowest average MPG for a manufacturer's vehicles was 18 gallons. The number has risen steadily to today, where it sits around 39 gallons. 

New designs on American vehicles did not come immediately, and those that did were notoriously underdeveloped and problematic, the Ford Pinto being chief amongst them. It took several years for American auto manufacturers to catch up in terms of abiding by these new regulations, and as such fuel efficient vehicles from Japan began to dominate the American market. Japan’s automotive industry was renowned for its emphasis on smaller, fuel efficient vehicles, thus being the automotive answer to America’s energy crisis. The lack of any significant tariff or limit upon Japanese imports meant their share of the US market rose steadily throughout the 70’s and 80’s, plateauing at roughly a third of the total market. American manufacturers simultaneously began to design their cars off the fuel efficient Japanese ones, in the process losing their historically American aesthetic. The Ford Fiesta, Chrysler Omni, and Chevy Citation are all good examples of this trend. 

The Second Oil Crisis struck in 1979. Whilst it was not the transformative event for the auto industry that the first one was, it again reinforced the need for small, economical cars, and was the final nail in the coffin for those who believed a return to the Golden Era vehicles was still possible. Fuel regulations became stricter, Japanese imports became more popular, and major American manufacturing companies began to strike deals and increased cooperation with the major Japanese companies. Chevy began to work with Toyota, Ford with Mazda, and Chrysler with Mitsubishi. These deals brought over Japanese manufacturing plants, meaning an increase in interdependence between the two countries, a thorn in the side of those who would wish to raise tariffs or prices of Japanese goods in America. Of course, the Japanese did in fact maintain tariffs and import quotas on American vehicles coming into Japan, creating a balance of trade favorable to the Japanese. The Japanese began to dominate American markets so heavily at this time that export quotas were introduced as a way to maintain profits. Additionally, the major Japanese companies began to produce luxury vehicles, much more expensive than their mainline brands, which they sold en masse in the US. Toyota, Honda, and Nissan created Lexus, Acura, and Infiniti for this purpose respectively. 

Although the lack of tariffs or import quotas made the prospect of cheap Japanese vehicles tempting for American consumers to buy, the general loss of wealth during this time period factored into their preferences as well. The stagnation of wages and inflation of the currency meant wages were not increasing proportionate to the value of currency, eroding consumer purchasing power. Interest rates were raised during the time as a result of the economic crisis, leaving Americans with less discretionary money in their pockets. A recession in the mid 1970’s only exacerbated these trends, which had been ongoing since 1973. A decline in manufacturing and American offshoring to countries whose labor markets were much cheaper meant an increase of unemployment which left Americans poorer than before. After all, a man cannot purchase cheap foreign goods at all if he has no means of making the money with which to buy them. These factors, all a result of economic mismanagement, meant Americans had virtually no other choice but to begin the switch to Japanese vehicles.

Some of these trends began to heal with the election of Reagan in 1980, however the lasting damage had largely been done. The aforementioned Japanese export limitation was a negotiation between the Reagan administration and Japan. Whilst not performing the duty of a tariff in raising prices on Japanese cars, it at least set a limit upon how much of these cars could be exported to America. The general loss in wealth in America was gradually amended during this era, however as stated previously this did not shift the preference of auto manufacturers back to pre-Malaise Era standards or designs, meaning the small, Japanese-esque vehicles became a mainstay. As the industry became slightly less regulated as a result of Reagan's free market, anti-regulatory approach to the economy, muscle cars of the late 1980’s were as much of a throwback to the Golden Era of automobiles as would happen. Even these muscle cars would be outcompeted by the smaller vehicles eventually, however fun and exciting they were.

A general mismanagement of the American state of affairs led to the death of its homegrown designs and auto manufacturing industry. America’s zealous support for the Zionist cause in the Yom-Kippur War and simultaneous dependence on foreign oil sent us into the catastrophic Oil Crisis. Environmental regulations, the result of international Ricardo-Malthusian doomsaying, combined with a lack of fuel efficient vehicles led to the mass importation of Japanese vehicles, which soon came to crowd out and dominate the American market. The loss of manufacturing jobs, runaway stagflation and high interest rates meant Americans could no longer afford the luxurious vehicles of the past even if they wanted to, and the offshoring of manufacturing plants to foreign soil and intertwining much of the remaining ones with Japanese companies meant the American auto industry became the junior partner of international businessmen and corporations.

Perhaps if American statesmen at the time heeded the advice of George Washington to pursue our national interests abroad, chief amongst them maintaining our national independence through a fluid, pragmatic foreign policy, we could have sidestepped the Oil Crisis and simultaneously developed our own energy independence. Perhaps if American economists at the time heeded the advice of Alexander Hamilton regarding the continued protection of American industries through strong tariffs, the American automobile companies would have continued to dominate American markets and had developed at their own pace and retained their luxurious Americana aesthetic, even if reforms in efficiency would have been necessary.

If there is to be any hope of revitalizing this industry, several significant steps must be taken in order to do so. First, the government must place high tariffs on Japanese imports. It must then also entice, coerce and/or incentivize American manufacturers to re-transplant their offshored manufacturing plants back to American soil, ensuring America regains its ability to manufacture its own vehicles. A loosening of regulations upon auto manufacturers would allow them the necessary room to innovate and revitalize older, costlier yet much beloved car designs. A combination of these policies could then allow American manufacturers to produce Corvettes, Mustangs, and Pontiacs in their most beloved, luxurious styles. America must then achieve energy independence, likely through an increase in drilling in Alaska and further development of fracking technologies, as well as research and development about what the next efficient source of fuel will be that is not beholden to the blowing of the wind or the shining of the sun. Additionally, diplomatic efforts should be undertaken in Japan for a reduction in tariffs and import quotas on American cars as an effort to tip the balance of trade between our two nations in our favor, ensuring our exporters have access to a vibrant and developed market. Unless and until these measures are taken, the American automotive industry will continue to struggle against its foreign competition, leaving Americans without part of the prosperity their relatives and ancestors enjoyed.

In a recent article, The Cringe/acc Manifesto , Marc Andreessen of A16z espoused a new manifesto of technological accelerationism or as he coins it, e/acc. While Mr. Andreessen spends word after word on the greatness of ‘free markets’ in promoting innovation and growth, any normal American who wishes to engage in technological development sees anything but freedom. Instead the landscape is nothing but gatekeepers, naysayers and speculators who block real progress. Capital markets are a closed monopoly tightly controlled by Venture Capitalists (VC) and only given to a small chosen few, The Founders.

As such, technological development is governed by a small minority of aristocratic VCs as a ruthless and unaccountable dictatorship, over the objections of the starving American masses who yearn for airplanes and cnc lathes not apps and social media. This monopolistic financial dictatorship based in Silicon Valley represents a great threat to technological development and despite their loud rantings has slowed real technological progress in America to a painful halt.

In a series of essays, I would like to address the problems brought forth by the Venture Capital (VC) model of business and its ruinous consequences to Our United States and put forth a proper course of action based on the proven American School of Political Economy (ASE) and Economic Protectionism

The VC model is based on the idea that there are these wonderous Venture Capitalists (VC), who when endowed with (seemingly) unlimited money, are capable of spreading it to a few chosen Founders, who will then statistically produce a miracle of technological advancement, mostly through failure. Such steps are done at the pace of a break neck gallop with horizons barely stretching past one’s nose. Move fast, break things! Investors demand ten, nay a hundred times the return on their investment in a short time and do not allow their funds to throw money away on anything that doesn’t have ‘hockey stick’ growth in a 4–6-year timespan.

This strain of ‘investment’ has all been too clouded by the ZIRP monetary policies, the emergence of software where much low hanging fruit was grabbed by speculators, and general short term, low bandwidth ‘thinking’ made delirious with financial gambling

This financial degeneracy has led to abandonment of any and all material and technological needs of America, as most technological progress does not meet the needs of Investors for short term gains. As such whole industries have been allowed to wither away, picked to pieces by outsourcing, hyper-financialization, private equity debt maxxing, and other practices that can best be described as treasonous usury.

In the current moment, Mr. Andreessen wishes us to believe his model, if applied to precisely the same fields his VC ilk have ruined, by the same short-sighted and greedy ‘VCs’, but with a fresh and catchy rebrand of e/acc, will somehow miraculously restore America to its proper prominence. Nothing could be further from the truth!

Real advancement is based on innovation climbing the solid steps built previously by classical orders. The VC fascination with “moving fast and breaking things” is the complete opposite of proper development, and today we are bearing the cost of this horrible short sightedness. Moving fast and breaking things is also called “looting”.

The Founder’s main goal is not to develop new ideas, technology, inventions or processes nor is the goal to improve America. The Founder’s goal is simple, to cash out via the great “Exit”, which is also the goal of his VC investors. And to do so as quickly as possible so the process can be repeated. This “Exit” is a grand event in which a cascade of money is showered upon its recipients via an acquisition, IPO, stock buyback, or some other financial celebration. Until that point, the Founder is to toil ceaselessly and without complaint, bound to his computer (for nothing other than software can exist to the VC) no different than a serf bound to his plow and bound to his master’s land. Perhaps one day if the crop is good, the Founder can then become the Investor, driving his own serfs to enrich his hand.

Since the point of the Founder is to scale and grow at near infinite rates, ‘asset light’ ventures are the only ventures which can be attempted. This leads to a myriad of activities that can best be described as ‘skimming’. Software solutions which pluck the soft middle between the producer and user, better yet if they can be rented as SaaS rather than owned outright.

The VC model has no room for asset heavy industry (such as mining, heavy manufacturing, or infrastructure) which are crucial to the existence and prosperity of a proper nation. This results in the rot of critical economic organs, while the few pimples are force-fed until they become cancerous tumors. It has no room for long term innovation and research. It certainly has no room for the continuing investment required to sustain any industry.

In many ways, the Founder is not as different from the master of a latifundia, a feudal estate or a plantation. The latter’s income would come annually from a one-time event of selling his crop, and would require constant credit to ensure operation. As such, the Founder must obsess with his daily expenditures, the burn rate, to keep them as low as possible extending the resources he has, (The Runway), until the grand spectacle of the ‘Exit’ can take place. The Founder must depend on distasteful practices such as outsourcing, shipping sub-par product (the MVP) and massive capital misallocation designed to deliver short term results. Thus, no thought can pass through the Founder’s head which would look past the 4-6 years of the Investors’ real goal, the “Exit”.

The pure profit motive of the Founder hollows out Providence’s Gifts of Innovation and Discovery, devouring them for short term speculative gains instead of their proper purpose of ascending America.

Any long-term negative consequences simply cannot exist in the VC system and if they are accounted for at all, it is to sell the solution as a future source of revenue. This effect can now be easily observed as the same voices that cried for outsourcing, offshoring and ‘to learn to code’ just a few years ago are now promising to solve the issues of deindustalization and hyperfinancialization that THE VCs THEMSELVES CAUSED with a rebrand they call “e/acc”.

The Founder and the VC both represent many anti-American tendencies. Their outlook is globalist, chasing yield where they can find it.  Furthermore, they represent a vile strain that has no place in America, the (global financial) aristocracy. The pool of Founders that the VCs invest into is very small, coming out of a few select finishing schools (such as Stanford) regardless of country of origin. The vast majority of Americans are locked out of any capital investment opportunities. The VC holds those they conceive below their rank with contempt, vilifying them with phrases such as “Learn to Code” and today’s favorite “Start Building”. The very same Americans denied the chance to pursue their own ideas due to lack of capital or ability to raise funds (via such un-Constitutional laws such as qualified investor rules). What do they think would happen if they said such vile things to the Americans who lost their jobs due to globalization in real life?

The Inventors take the millions of sometimes small and seemingly mundane minutiae of national needs and wants and weave them into the tapestry that is technological progress. Anyone doubting this is free to look up the patents of their favorite device and see what the claims really cover.

And what is the purpose of this tapestry? To enrich and empower America.

Let us take a brief look at a pair of American’s most amazing inventors, The incredible Wright Brothers, Wilbur and Oliver. Born to a Preacher family, the Wrights became business partners first in a print shop, and later manufacturing and repairing bicycles in Dayton, Ohio. Their work on the bicycle gave them the skills and income they needed to pursue their lofty goals of conquering flight.  

The Wright Brothers were able to fund their experiments free of external controls, a need for an exit strategy and assuredly without having to explain a ‘market fit’. High wages in the workforce provided a market for their high-quality bicycles. Low input costs (such as mass-produced domestic steel and real estate free of airBNB speculators) allowed the Wrights to retain a significant portion of their income to dedicate to their interest in solving the greatest technological of challenge of mankind, flight. The Wrights did not have to explain product fit, market projections or develop an exit strategy. They could go on with their work supported by an honest income. The Wright’s shop was also not threatened by low-cost, poor-quality imports and their bicycle improvements protected by enforceable patents, thus they could focus on a quality American product to meet the needs of their American customers without cutting quality, engaging in financial speculation or needless marketing and branding.

With a steady disposable income and their newly gained experience, the Wrights were able to solve the challenge that has haunted mankind since the beginning. In the process the Wright Brothers invented the Wind Tunnel, A Propeller, a wing control system, the first airplane engine (with a light weight aluminum block) and many other seemingly disparate technologies that all came together in a perfectly balanced form. Such genius would have been spoiled if they were forced into unscrupulous behaviors like never ending funding rounds, pushing out a sub-par minimum viable product and marketing campaigns such as demanded by investors in modern startups.

And what marketing would an airplane need? While the VC would demand sales projections and customer demographics, any normal American of the time would be in awe of the prospect of owning their own horseless flying carriage.

Thus, the American Protective System created an environment where the real genius of the Wright Brothers gave an immeasurable technological gift to the world. An inferior free trade system would have forced them into lower professions and never allowed their talents to develop and creativity to flourish, as the economic inputs needed would have been eaten up by cheap imports, incessant need for a sales force, a lack of capital from VCs interested only in sales and many other free trade social blights.  

For a real and proper country to exist, its citizens must seek to improve it, by technological progress, by enriching the skills and abilities of fellow citizens, by helping each other succeed to their highest level regardless of their rank in society and seeking the noble goal of having a great country they can all belong to.

The current crop of Founders seek only to break, destroy and exploit for their own benefit believing they are above America.  National technological development cannot under any circumstances be left to yield chasing globalists, yet that is precisely what removal of tariffs and other economic borders, as advocated by free trade propogandists, accomplished with disastrous results. If industry was so vital, why was it neglected by the Silicon Valley VC for so long? What did a16z and other e/acc proponents invest into for the last decade (or two)? The record is clear, allowing VC to control technological investment in America has resulted in ruin, loss of technological advantage and general societal degradation.

 In order to continue as a country and a people, we must cut out the speculative VCs and imagination-free Founders and their pointless misuse of capital and return to the ideas, policies, laws and actions upon which America was founded, built and developed. Policies that would reorganize capital investment and make it available to all Americans and channel capital into productive domestic enterprise, and towards the betterment of our Nation and the American people. Policies that would endeavor productive enterprise and bound companies to America and not faceless financial multi-nationals.

These are the proven policies of protectionism, industrial growth and innovation, fiscal and monetary soundness, widespread availability of capital to productive enterprise and denial to speculators, and national unity as espoused by the American School of the Political Economy. These policies have time and time again shown themselves to promote technological, economic and societal improvements.

The titan of American foreign policy for much of the 20th century, Henry Kissinger, lies dead at the ripe age of 100. Social media has erupted into a chorus of glowing eulogies in his memory. Mainstream media is scrambling to set the dominant narrative around his life, activist groups are commemorating his life and works, foreign heads of state are sending their regards; there is no shortage of energetic discussion surrounding the life of this man. What, then, is the most accurate characterization of this diplomat and his life? Will the Kissengerian school memorialize him accurately?

Some on the left, predominantly the New Left of the 60s and 70s, have characterized the actions and diplomatic dealings of Henry Kissinger as those of a war criminal. The deaths of combined millions, whether in Vietnam, Cambodia, Bangladesh, East Timor and more are laid at his feet. Accounts of Kissinger’s plans for prolonging the war in exchange for becoming Nixon’s foreign policy advisor, his greenlighting of the expanded bombing operations in Cambodia, his nonchalant dismissal at the Bangladeshis being murdered to ensure the strengthened position of Pakistan and China, all point to the validity of this claim. But the New Left bemoaned any actions taken against third world nations, especially those done in the interest of the United States and of perceived American imperialism. Therefore it is hard to take these criticisms seriously.

Those Who Have No Home

Rather, I find a much more compelling criticism of Kissinger's deeds to come from a nationalist perspective. His opening of China, and his near half-decade long push for offshoring to China particularly invalidate any claim that Kissinger acted on behalf of the American nation alone. What is often hailed as Kissinger’s greatest success has turned out to be the birth of America’s greatest Thucydidean adversary. It was he who began the process of Detente between the two powers on his secret trip in 1971, leading to President Nixon’s breakthrough 1972 Summit. These maneuvers were intended to create a Sino-American alliance to counter the Soviet Union, America’s primary enemy at the time. Some defend Kissinger’s actions regarding China, qualifying them by saying that it would have been impossible for him to foresee China industrializing to the point of becoming a serious threat to America. China’s economic situation in the early 70s was dire — Mao’s economic policies had devastated the nation, it was still almost completely agrarian, and most African nations boasted a higher GDP per capita. 

With the reign of Deng Xiaoping and China’s economic liberalization, Kissinger’s vision of a China integrated into a globalized world order, led by the United States, seemed likely. Deng’s proclamation that “China is with the United States”, as well as the rapid increase of economic ties between the nations appeared to be telltale signs that this integration was on a steady course. Kissinger’s continued involvement in organizations which oversaw economic investments and offshoring to the Chinese, such as China Ventures, Inc., are signs that he, throughout the latter half of his life, continued to support the rise of China and America’s role in facilitating it. Even just months before his death, Kissinger had repeatedly called for the United States and China to take steps towards a friendlier relationship, seeing their cooperation as pivotal to the stability of the world order.

The Global Citizen

What shines through in Kissinger’s warm attitude toward China is just how globally-minded it was. Kissinger’s rhetoric on the subject of global stability and mutually-beneficial partnership are simply not in the vocabulary of a nationalist. Take the deeds of Erasmus Peshine Smith in Japan, for a counterexample. 

Peshine Smith was sent to advise the Meiji Regime in its course of modernization in the early 1870s. Japan, being an isolated and economically backward nation, could not withstand the pressure of British imperialism, so there was a real possibility for the Japanese to go the way of the Indians, an outcome detrimental to America's burgeoning power in the Western Pacific and Asia. Smith’s objective, then, was to foster between the US and Japan feelings of mutual respect and hostility toward their shared rival, much like how Kissinger’s objectives in China were to create a Sino-American counterbalance to the Soviets. The methods, however, could not be further apart. Peshine Smith applied the homegrown American System, the same one which produced America’s rapid economic rise, to the nation of Japan, with similar results. No American industry was transferred to the Japanese in this process. In fact, for a time Peshine Smith had to renounce his American citizenship in an effort to prove that there was no contact between himself and the American government. 

And so, in contrast to the strategy of Erasmus Peshine Smith in Japan, Kissinger’s quest for American-Chinese cooperation came from a place of pursuing the interests of the globe, and a quest for personal power-broker status. What is so ironic about Kissinger’s actions regarding China is that they were only necessary because of the American cooperation with and industrial subsidization of the Soviet Union just decades prior! American statecraft in recent times has consisted of the creation of future threats to counter the old ones which were built up by the previous generation of the same cadre.

The Americans Forgotten Along the Way

A common refrain seen on social media, sung from the Bronze Age faction in particular, is that Henry Kissinger was the greatest American Secretary of State of all time, with none coming close to his status and achievement. This short-sighted view of American history and our historical figures can only be attributed to a lack of American ancestry or lack of feelings of national affection and patriotism. For those who can only name a single Secretary of State, here are a few from our past who have defended American interests from a nationalist’s position. 

John Quincy Adams

John Quincy Adams served as Secretary of State from 1817 to 1825. During his time as Secretary, the Latin American republics were beginning to declare their independence, and a power struggle quickly ensued between the United States and the British Empire over the future of these fledgling states. Adams was given the difficult task of paving the way for American recognition of these republics without incurring a declaration of war from Spain, an outcome unthinkable for a nation recovering from a major war against the British, as well as anathema to furthering American interests in the hemisphere. Adams had to simultaneously block British investment and economic interests in these newly independent nations as well as foster ties between the United States and the Latin Americans. His efforts were largely successful, at least in this early phase of relations, and laid the foundation for the United States to continue to counter foreign influence in its own great space.

Daniel Webster

Daniel Webster served twice as the Secretary of State, both under the Tyler and Fillmore administrations. His foreign policy built off that of Adam’s, as his focus lie primarily with keeping foreign powers out of Latin America. He advised Fillmore to sign several trade deals with the Central American states, successfully curbing British influence in the region. It was under Webster that the Perry Expedition to Japan was authorized, and Japan established trade relations with the United States as a result.

William Seward

William Seward served as Secretary of State from 1861 to 1869. Seward sought to expand US influence in North America and the Pacific, with the Alaska Purchase being one of his major achievements to this end. Seward sought to purchase other colonial possessions in the North American realm, such as Greenland, the Virgin Islands, parts of the Dominican Republic and the Danish West Indies. Perhaps the most important effort of his career was his ability to keep the British and French from significantly intervening in the American Civil War, ensuring that America would become reunited and maintain its course to becoming a world power. 

The brief profiles of these great American Secretaries of State should serve as reminders that American statecraft has existed long before Mr. Kissinger, and will continue on long after. Any of these men could have, and would have, operated on a level equal to, or likely much better, than Mr. Kissinger if they had lived in his time. These statesmen felt only one identity, one attachment: that of the United States. The same, I believe, cannot be said of Henry Kissinger, and so I will not shed a tear for his passing.

Likud Chabadnic international messianism vs the Anglo-secular Soros backed open society internationalism, better explains the Chisraeli vs Chiranian paradigm that is taking shape.

0:00

/17076.692

1×

Normal people that engage in polite society talk to one another & are sociable creatures. A common idea that is presented in intrapersonal communication classes, in varying percentiles, is that most communication is nonverbal.

This sort of rizzless systematizing is so that teachers can instruct ill-trained boys & girls striving for an HR position how to signal in the real world. Decorum at the dinner table & keeping your child sat in the pew is another tragic casualty of modernity. That said a Lo-Jeffersonian schlub can put on the Hamiltonian uniform & get his shine on to make the world his oyster.

Game is game & we are all players in it.

Looking unkempt, smelling bad & having no drip isn’t because you are above it all, it is because you are a loser.

Doin Too Much

In want of being normal many unassuming game emulators stumble upon PUA Gurus shilling courses on how to groom women to become camwhores, how to balance Tren load with a healthy intake of cage free kosher eggs, or style guides on how to dress like a working class hipster to try & sleep with your 20 something Tinder date as a middle aged man.

As world renowned Pimponomics expert Dr. Paul Skallas Town astutely points out, no matter how stress free your chicken & beef may be, a fellow traveler on the streets of concrete could lay you out while subsisting on nothing more than honey buns & chocolate milk.

A Hamiltonion carries a certain air about him

Moderate in habit, the Hamiltonian approaches the world donned in his uniform as his nation's obedient & humble servant, envisioning a martial nation of one accord, steadfastly on the watch for Jeffersonian free traders dumping polyester blends upon our sovereign shores to try & crush native pastoral husbandry.

The Hamiltonian has Game on the mind for his house & his Nation. He takes no part in mindlessly scrolling through lifestyle adverts on social media, other than for case studies & people watching. Aggregating women & old books is the Hamiltonian's downtime. He is the Main Character & after he hones mastery of self he next looks to the world.

Wool is the Answer

Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee. - Leviticus 19:19

Hamiltonian figures such as Friedrich List & Erasmus Peshine Smith knew the truth found in God's law & made manifest the power of Wool in National Political Economy.

I could go on. But the Woolen coat is clearly the sovereign God-given garment of choice to grace the body of the Hamiltonian (I mean just look how good Pusheen looks in it 😎😼). And fastidiously grooming one’s self beyond what is normal is for fatherless boys seeking validation where none shall be found.

Palestine possesses no strategic or geographic worth to any nation in the world. Yet, all throughout the course of human history, millions have shed their blood to control it.

Dating back to Israel and Judah, these two kingdoms controlled Palestine as theocratic monarchies, but were subsequentially subjugated by their neighbors - specifically the Babylonians, the Persians, and the Romans - due to their rejection of God and His law. The Romans engaged in countless campaigns to pacify and control Palestine, often having to embody the role of preeminent counter-insurgent to multiple Jewish tax revolts. After the fall of the Roman Empire in the 5th century, the land was a game of hot potato between Arabs, Turks, and European crusaders until it was finally seized by the Ottoman Empire after its conquest of the Mamluk Sultanate in 1517.

Following the successful Balfour and Sykes-Picot conspiracy, the British administered the land of Palestine, upending a 5 century long precedent of Ottoman Turkish rule. From there, we have the circumstance of today: Zionist regional hegemony - sponsored unquestionably and wholeheartedly by the collective West - and the perpetual displacement of Muslims and Christians by the formerly stateless and wandering Jewish population.

In the modern world, America has been the "godfather" of Zionist hegemony. Hypothetically, America could devote favor to a different party and completely upend Palestine's status quo. This begs the question: Why even choose a side?

Strategy relies entirely on geography. What makes America the most powerful nation in all of human history is subject to its geography. Natural harbors, navigable rivers, proximity to resources, and demography have been at the helm of the American success story.

The United States possesses two incredible geographic advantages when it comes to maritime strength- the barrier islands of the East Coast, and the three most important bays in the entire world: the Chesapeake Bay, the San Francisco Bay, and the Puget Sound. The Chesapeake Bay alone has more coastline than all of the Indian subcontinent, allowing natural deep and warmwater ports from which commerce and trade can flow, both internally and externally. From Providence, Rhode Island to Corpus Christi, Texas exists the longest string of barrier islands in the entire world, protecting the interior and carving out the longest natural waterway in the entire world. This isn't to mention the Mississippi River.

The Mississippi River is the 2nd longest river in the entire world, just behind the Nile River in Africa. The Mississippi's origins stretch from the high hills of the Rocky Mountains to the low hills of the Appalachian Mountains, where they join in the Midwest and empty into the Gulf of Mexico through New Orleans. The width and depth of the Mississippi River has made it easily navigable, and the various tributaries of the Mississippi form the Mississippi Basin, the most valuable agricultural land in the entire world, ranging from Georgia to Montana and Texas to Ohio.

On top of all of this, America either has within its borders or in proximity to its borders vast quantities of natural resources. Alaska, Texas, North Dakota, and Oklahoma, if they were ranked in global oil production, would beat out giants such as Venezuela, Russia, and Saudi Arabia- not even considering the offshore oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Coal is also extracted in the Appalachian Mountains, famously in West Virginia. Steel and other raw materials have been mined from all over the country and historically forged in the Midwest. Most importantly, none of this could have been accomplished without the ingenuity, determination, and faith of the white European people, foundational to the conception and development of the United States.

To summarize: America is an extraordinarily blessed nation. The geographic advantages our nation possesses grants us immeasurable, natural power projection capability, beyond the scope of possibility for any other power in world history.

All of this being said, the Holy Land is geographically worthless.

In the entire land of Palestine, only one river flows through it, and no country in the region controls the river. The Jordan River is a religiously, culturally, and geographically significant waterway. Saint John the Baptist baptized Jesus Christ in this river in the 1st century. Geographically, it has been a de facto demarcation boundary between the Middle East and the Levant. When the British seized control of the former Ottoman territories in the Middle East, the mandate of Palestine was referred to as "Transjordan," since the territory crossed the Jordan River. The river is the lifeblood for agriculture and development in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and the territories of Palestine, but by no means is it comparable to the great Mississippi River. Disputed ownership, non-navigable, zero tributaries, and it empties into the Dead Sea - the saltiest body of water in the world - rather than an ocean. On top of this, there are no natural ports in the entirety of Palestine. There are three primary port cities in the land of Palestine- Eilat, Haifa, and Tel Aviv. However, all of these are manmade port cities, which are costly and expensive.

Despite its proximity with major oil reserves, the land of Palestine isn't exactly known for its bustling resource extraction. At the very least, the land doesn't possess any resources the United States needs. Aside from recently discovered offshore oil deposits in the eastern Mediterranean, no vitally important natural resources can be harvested from this land.

It's very clear that there are very specific geographic and strategic blessings that the United States has and the region of Palestine horrendously lacks. From the perspective of a strategist and a geopolitical analyst, any country that exclusively occupies the land of Palestine will have an extremely difficult time making it even as a successful country, let alone a regional hegemon.

However, the United States has unconditionally supported the State of Israel - which occupies the land of Palestine and continues to seize more land in the region by the day - since 1967. This support has allowed Israel to be a nation capable of exuding influence and hegemony in the region. Whether it's airstrikes against Ba'athist Iraq in the 1980s, continuous antagonization of Syria, invading Lebanon, seizing the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, or even landing special operators all the way in Uganda to rescue Israeli hostages from Entebbe, Israel has, in a sense, "cheated death" in its hellish geographic position.

With all of this in mind, the United States really has no interest in keeping Israel in its deck of cards, nor any nation in the land of Palestine. From a strategic perspective, there are significantly better countries in the region for the United States to be allied with than Israel. Cyprus, Greece, Egypt, Turkey, Lebanon, and perhaps most importantly Syria are significantly more blessed geographically than Israel could ever hope to imagine. Let's briefly examine one country; Syria.

Syria has natural ports, a navigable river, proximity to resources, and demography on its side. The cities of Latakia and Tartus have natural year-round warm water ports, the latter of which the Russian military has a long-held military base. The Euphrates River flows through Syria, granting the nation a robust agricultural economy, as well as a strong energy sector, with the entirety of Lake Assad - which the Euphrates flows through - being a reservoir for the Euphrates Dam in ar-Raqqa. In addition to this, Syria has both oil in the eastern part of the country and domestically produces metals and steel in and around Damascus.

Interesting it is how a country with such proximity to Israel is somehow more blessed and beneficial than Israel itself, yet the United States vehemently rejects any kind of association with Syria.

This should be no surprise- the United States cares not for geostrategic interest, instead opting to favor the country that lobbies its government the most and influences its internal affairs the most.

The United States has a vested interest in aligning nations that are strategically and geopolitically expedient to America's interests. If we're going to pursue a future in which America is put first, we need to deeply consider America's alignment and involvement with any country in the region of Palestine. The Holy Land harbors cultural and religious importance. This is the land where history began, where the Son of Man walked. That being said, America's entanglements overseas are not and should not be dictated by religious or cultural importance. Above all else, strategy should guide our decision-making, and observing the land of Palestine undoubtedly leads to one conclusion; an interest in this sanctified territory America does not have.