Estic obligat a escriure en diversos idiomes perquè: 1. A la majoria de la gent dels Estats Units se'ls ha rentat el cervell perquè cregui que els jueus són la seva salvació; i 2., el seu anglès és una merda i no poden romandre en silenci el temps suficient per escoltar o veure el que òbviament passa al seu voltant . . .

El judeomessianisme fa gairebé dos mil anys que escampa entre nosaltres el seu missatge verinós. Els universalismes democràtics i comunistes són més recents, però només han reforçat la vella narrativa jueva. Són els mateixos ideals.

Els ideals transnacionals, transracials, transsexuals, transculturals que aquestes ideologies ens prediquen (més enllà dels pobles, races, cultures) i que són el sosteniment diari de les nostres escoles, als nostres mitjans de comunicació, a la nostra cultura popular, a les nostres universitats, i sobre al nostres els carrers han acabat reduint la nostra identitat biosimbòlica i el nostre orgull ètnic a la seva mínima expressió.

Els banquers jueus han inundat Europa amb musulmans i Amèrica amb escombraries del tercer món . . . L'exili com a càstig per als que predicen la sedició s'hauria de restablir dins el marc legal d'Occident . . .

El judaisme, el cristianisme i l'islam són cultes a la mort originats a l'Orient Mitjà i totalment aliens a Europa i als seus pobles.

De vegades ens preguntem per què l'esquerra europea es porta tan bé amb els musulmans. Per què un moviment sovint obertament antireligiós es posa del costat d'una religiositat ferotge que sembla oposar-se a gairebé tot allò que l'esquerra sempre ha pretès defensar? Part de l'explicació rau en el fet que l'islam i el marxisme tenen una arrel ideològica comuna: el judaisme.

Don Rumsfeld tenia raó quan va dir: "Europa s'ha desplaçat en el seu eix", va ser el bàndol equivocat que va guanyar la Segona Guerra Mundial, i es fa més clar cada dia . . . Què ha fet l'OTAN per defensar Europa? Absolutament res . . . Els meus enemics no són a Moscou, Damasc, Teheran, Riad o algun eteri bogeyman teutónic, els meus enemics són a Washington, Brussel·les i Tel Aviv.


Expand full comment

Nationalism as a policy of enduring geopolitical value should be more important than the delusions associated with liberal hegemony. In a related article from 2019, Mearsheimer presupposes that the U.S.-led liberal international order was destined to collapse from the start. John Mearsheimer! These statements you make are utter nonsense, and you are making excuses for the rule of authoritarian anti-human regimes! There is no such thing as liberal hegemony! And your realist view that "interactions between great powers are described as primarily driven by a rational desire to achieve regional hegemony in an anarchic international system" is inherently problematic and wrong and unfounded! The fact is that some democracies help their own popular allies everywhere because they defend themselves against the expansion of their enemy's authoritarian allies to maintain their own security! The realist perspective ignores popular oversight and control of elected officials and power, which is completely unrealistic! Even if one can't assume that the leaders of a democracy won't make bad decisions just by trusting their materialism, the oversight and control of officials and public power of all kinds in a democracy is effective in curbing such mistakes! The control of power in a democracy is the control of public power not to do anything wrong on a more realistic level! The realist kind of willful ignorance of the fact that people make decisions because of their own values that are not necessarily the same as other values is patently false! And nationalism is a narrow and grossly offensive value, and it is often used by dictators to incite hatred against foreign countries, especially democracies, to distract or even counteract the attention of the population from domestic conflicts and wrong policies! How can this be good for regional peace and security if the world is full of such dictators who incite hatred for the sake of authoritarian rule? Do you have the courage to answer me this question? And it is the regimes controlled by those anti-humanists who deprive people of their rights for the benefit of authoritarian rule that are the real hegemonies! Some countries oppose and attack democrats simply because of their extremely stupid and ignorant minds! It only proves that such ignorant people are not highly civilised. You rumour-mongering pro-authoritarian media always spread irrational disinformation under the guise of the so-called anti-mainstream media, pretending that you are the real deal! Stop playing such childish tricks! And you say "Putin is pursuing a realistic geopolitical programme to secure Russia's national interests in the face of the ever-expanding threat of NATO." It is even more irrational in the extreme! You are completely delusional in trying to rationalise Putin's invasion! You don't always look at things wrongly and imperfectly with your irrational realism of events! Ukraine is autonomously trying to join the EU in order to develop its economy, not NATO-initiated expansion as you claim! Your statement "If China's power is extended to Canada and Mexico is absolutely different in nature! Because Ukraine has legitimacy to join other organisations as a popularly empowered democracy and has no ambitions to undermine security, and Ukraine is not provoking Russia militarily! Whereas the Chinese government is an absolute authoritarian and anti-human government that does not even have a one-person, one-vote electoral system, and is itself opposed to democracy and freedom, China's political and military expansion with the post-expansion purpose of violating and destroying democratic countries is clearly illegitimate and will definitely undermine regional security! China's expansion for the post-expansion purpose of violating and destabilising democracies to maintain the stability of dictatorships is obvious, cannot be ruled out at all and is extremely probable! As a democracy the Ukrainian government and elected officials are unquestionably qualified to honour the choices made by the population in terms of economy and security! And what you are saying is a completely delusional attempt to rationalise Russia's invasion and crimes! And I'll say it again! The world is simply not explained away by your highly irrational realism with ignorant dialectical overtones! Rather, it is driven by a variety of values and ideas, like the famous saying that all history is the history of ideas. Only values that do not harm the rights and freedoms of the population can create peace and prosperity! Your claim that the US-led liberal democratic world order must be destroyed is also completely illogical and impossible! What is possible is only that the United States will no longer lead the liberal-democratic world order, not that the liberal-democratic world order will disappear from the world!

與自由主義霸權相關的錯覺相比,民族主義作為一種具有持久地緣政治價值的政策應該更加重要。 在2019年的一篇相關文章中,米爾斯海預設為,美國領導的自由國際秩序從一開始就註定要崩潰。 John Mearsheimer!你所说的这些言论完全就是胡扯,你这是在为专制反人类政权的统治找借口! 根本不存在所谓的 自由主义霸权!还有你所认为的“大國之間的互動描述為主要是由在無政府國際體系中實現地區霸權的理性願望驅動的”你的这种现实主义观点本来就是有问题和错误的和没有根据的!事实是有些民主国家因为防备敌人专制盟友的扩张维护自身安全而帮助各地自己的民众盟友!现实主义视角忽略了民众对民选的官员和权力的监督与控制,这完全是不现实的!哪怕不能只通过信任民主国家领导人的唯心主义来认为他们不会做出错误决定,但是民主制度下的对官员和各种公权力的监督与控制是可以有效的遏制这种错误的发生!民主制度对权力的控制就是从更加现实些的层面控制公权力不要胡作非为!现实主义那种故意无视人们因为自己价值观而做出的和其他价值观所不一定相同的决定是明显错误的!而且民族主义是狭隘和严重侵犯人权的价值观,而且独裁者经常使用民族主义来煽动对外国尤其是对民主国家的仇恨来转移甚至抵消民众对国内矛盾和错误政策的注意力!如果世界到处是这种为了专制统治而煽动仇恨的独裁者那么这又怎么可能对区域和平安全有利呢?你有没有勇气回答我这个问题?而且那些为了专制统治利益而剥夺民众权利的反人类者掌控的政权才是真正的霸权!有些国家对民主人士的反对和攻击仅仅是因为其极度愚昧无知的思想!只能证明这种愚昧的人不是高度文明的。你们这些制造谣言的亲专制媒体总是打着所谓的反主流媒体的幌子散布不合理的虚假信息,伪装你们才是真实的!别再玩这种幼稚的把戏了!而且你说“普京正在推行一項現實主義的地緣政治計劃,以在北約不斷擴張的威脅面前確保俄羅斯的國家利益。”更是不合理到极点!你完全是妄想合理化普京的入侵!你不要总用你那不合理的现实主义事件来错误且不完善地看待问题!乌克兰是自主想加入欧盟为了发展本国经济,并不是像你说的那样是北约主动扩张!你说什么“如果中国的权势扩大到加拿大和墨西哥有着性质上的绝对不同!因为乌克兰作为一个由民众授权的民主国家加入其他组织是有合法性的,而且没有破坏安全的野心,乌克兰并没有军事挑衅俄国!而中国政府是一个连一人一票选举制度都不存在的绝对专制反人类政府,其本身就是反对民主自由的,那么中国以侵犯破坏民主国家为扩张后的目的而进行政治和军事扩张明显是不合法且一定会破坏区域安全的!中国因侵犯破坏民主国家维持独裁统治稳定而扩张是很明显的,是完全不能排除且极其有可能的!作为一个民主国家乌克兰政府和民选官员毫无疑问有资格履行民众对经济和安全方面做出的选择!而你所说的完全是妄想合理化俄国的入侵与罪行!我还要在说一次!这世界根本不是以你那极度不合理的带有无知的辩证法色彩的现实主义可以解释通的!而是由各种价值观和思想驱动的,就像那句名言:一切的历史都是思想史。 只有不伤害民众的权利和自由的价值观才能造就和平与繁荣!你所说的美国领导的自由民主的世界秩序一定会毁灭也完全是不合逻辑且不可能的!有一点可能的也只是美国不再领导自由民主的世界秩序,而非世界上消失了自由民主的世界秩序!

Expand full comment

What do you do when you are very publicly wrong? Yet used a correct method! You fucking course correct, also known as "adjust fire". We are gonna contain China militarily, compete economically, trade and invest because contra Mearsheimer liberal peace theory when backed up with clear deterrent signalling works. There was no 3d world war in 2008 2019 or 2023 and Mearsheimers theory cannot explain why. Mine can.

Expand full comment

Israel demands safety above all else. Palestinians demand dignity. Palestinians need a fight they will not lose, or not lose decisively to be able to negotiate anything, again. Like Sadat in Yom Kippur war. Israel needs a defeat, or at least not a decisive victory, but a costly draw, that would bring it down to real earth, to be able to negotiate, again. Israel has defeated all major Arab armies, but will not feel safe, not be safe, until the last Islamic opposing army is defeated, Iran’s army. Sunni Moslems are historically on the side of the West, Britain, US. Whatever their leaders say, Sunni states are allied with US and Israel. Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Sudan...are economically politically strategically oriented on US and dollar. Using China and Russia to bargain better position in US ruled world, not really ready to risk what they have today for some imaginary multipolar profit.

US and Israel will have no real problems with Sunni ruling class, revolts of the masses will be relatively easily controlled, manipulated, the problem are possible revolts inside secret services, armies of respective countries, that will produce elites that deep inside hate, mistrust, the US led order, but understand one cannot fight openly against US and Israel. Like Erdogan or Salman does. But there is no danger for US and Israel until Turkish presidential and Saudi royal Airplanes land at Damascus airport and Bashar al Assad is offered help.

Expand full comment

What is the danger of US supporting war on Russian border, what is the downside of this strategy? If one goes back and tries to imagine reversal of US strategic decisions that some people today consider wrong, mistaken.

Vietnam country run by communists, with an economy that is decisively turning towards capitalism and export, an ally, today. What was the downside ?

US has gained enormously with successful provoking of Russian aggression. Created previously nonexistent Ukraine army that is keeping a front of thousand kilometers, united Ukrainian population around previously extreme right, nationalistic core. Moved the frontier between two fighting camps into regions that are historically Russian, cut, severed economic ties between Germany and Russia, and in the next step China, united Europe and at the same time kept control over Europe through NATO. All of this at relatively small cost, no loss of US life.

Forcing Russia to fight a war with high casualties. And most importantly blocking Russia to achieve its political goals, of having neutral Ukraine by raising the price of Russian victory in human losses above the level Russia is willing to pay. Nothing is really lost, unless there is a decisive Russian victory, with collapse of Ukrainian army.

Now, we are still at the beginning, more precisely at the end of the beginning of the war. Now comes the main part of the war, that Russia will fight against weakening Ukrainian army, that will still be a formidable opponent if supplies from the US and Europe/West continue, but even with all support will finally lose, although at a high cost for Russia.

Front will not move in months, perhaps seasons to come if supplies from the West keep coming, at the price of about 120 billion per year, half from US. In the end Ukraine will lose, but if victory is to come through fighting, it will mean another 300.000 to 400.000 Ukrainian deaths, and some 100.000 Russian, at least 200 billions $ spent, and having to solve the problems of state that will remain from Ukraine. US can make Russia pay very high price, still defeat is inevitable. Part of the price, will be payed by Europeans. And biggest part by Ukrainians.

Russian strategy is deliberately slow, to give enough time to Ukrainians and Europeans to understand they are going to lose, and badly, and offering a deal that is still acceptable to honest brokers. But, and here we go at the beginning of Prof. Mearsheimer expose, there is something in Russian offer for Ukrainians, something for reasonable Europeans, there is nothing for US. US would lose with peace, the better, more fundamental agreement, more US stands to lose.

First in arms trade, second in gas trade, third in political, strategic influence.

Expand full comment

My views on the Palestine problem go back to the founding of the Jewish state, a bad idea propelled by emotion, as Theodor Herzl saw. Another bad idea was the UN's determination in 1967 of the boundaries of Israel and the residual Arab land of the West Bank and Gaza. The latter was a divided area; the former, a coastal state with a narrow waist. No one was happy with the '67 boundary. Cold WarI made peace impossible, because the US saw Israel as its Middle East outpost. Cold WarII continures the impossibility with greater international dangers. I don't see any resolution until the imperial ambitions of my country, the USA, are overcome by sanity in Washington, DC. From what I read, the vast majority of Israeli citizens regard the Palestinians with contempt and fear. The Palestinians continue to make demands for restitution and restoration to the land they occupied in 1947. Nothing is possible!

Expand full comment

Already watched and shared them.

Thank you!!

Expand full comment

Great John M keep up the

U Tube shows

Expand full comment

IF you want people to take you seriously John. Please understand that there are a LOT of deaf people in the World such as me.

You need to do transcripts.

Thank you.

Expand full comment

Two things struck me as very true in the Neapoliano interview. (1) Israel's military will have a very difficult time in Gaza and (2) Israel's opposition to two state "solution" is misguided but I have some caveats that were not addressed in the interview.

It is my understanding that their opposition was based on right of return and Arafat turned down an offer during Clinton administration that did not include that. I do not know what "right of return" means. If it includes just West Bank I'd say Israel "messed up" but if it included citizenship in Israel Arafat likely was at fault. I'm leaving other caveats such as Palestenian's being willing to leave Israel alone; if they can't do that, then I'm sorry but there is no solution other than fighting.

Expand full comment

Thanks for letting me know! Looking forward to listening to both.

Expand full comment