Introduction
Since October 7th, and especially during the last year since Trump’s election, the question of Israeli power, Jewish influence, and the American mythos has come into question. Online rhetoric is rife with Israeli and Palestinian talking points; liberal and conservative influencers argue about the morality, or the lack thereof, in Hamas and the IDF; others argue about AIPAC and their influence on American politics. Emotions are high, and emotions cloud judgement. Leaders in the West must look at this situation through a sensible lens; they must use the friend-enemy distinction. Nothing is more important to elites in a nation than preserving its sovereignty, to preserve its right to the exception, The German jurist, Carl Schmitt, noted in his book “The Concept of the Political” that politics is:
“The specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy”
Both the Palestinians and the Israelis pose an existential threat to the American political system in their own way; this inevitably becomes a threat to the wider globalist system. Therefore the question arises: Who poses a greater threat to Power in the West? It would be irresponsible to believe in the sole omnipotence or altruism of Israeli influence in the current government, just as it would be irresponsible to trust the Palestinians and their motives in the diaspora. These groups are powerful, and subversive, and they both cry to the Western leaders and masses for their pity and support. To completely understand the events as they have unfolded and future events that have yet to unfold, an understanding of the “enemy” is necessary, this requires to put oneself in the shoes of an Israeli ethnonationalist and the Hamas fighter. This means understanding the motives of the Israelis and the resistance of the Palestinians, understanding propaganda in an advanced and primitive society, and finally looking through the West’s perspective, the American and globalist elites who want to maintain a balance of power. Ultimately, the perspective of Power and political realism is the only lens to look through for an accurate reading; the right, the left, morality, or other may be too idealistic and naive in their understanding of power politics and the tools of Power like nationalism.
Israeli Nationalism
A nation develops itself on a political formula that is serviceable and believable to its citizens; the extent of this depends on leadership and the political situation. This political formula will naturally lead to both friends of a similar mind and enemies who pose an existential threat to this formula. Truthfully, the Israelis have come to the same conclusion that the mid-century Germans came to in the 1930s: a national mythos of supremacy and defense of their own kind, a formula for the supremacy of the Jewish people, a formula with natural enemies. Since October 7th, it’s believed that the Israelis have killed nearly 67,000 Palestinians in Gaza, much of the Hamas leadership has been killed, the Mossad had blown up thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah in Lebanon, President Al-Assad of Syria was toppled, and for the first time the United States had bombed Iran directly to destroy their nuclear facilities, which the Israelis believed posed a threat to their very existence as a people.
This is very effective propaganda; which Israeli would not look with pride and see how their armies and intelligence service had destroyed so many Iranian proxies, their supremacy as a people proved on the battlefield? An American may be horrified, but these events, the propaganda and the extermination are not meant for the foreigners. To believe that any mass of people, whether Israeli, American, or other, are exempt from the effects of propaganda, is to misunderstand the history of state power. When Hamas attacked the Israeli concert on October 7, they did not care for their reasons, they did not care for any conspiracies that may have unfolded, and they did not care for the anti-war sect in their society; they wanted blood. This is very similar to the American experience because in January of 1940, 88% of Americans believed that America should stay out of the European war; the American aviator Charles Lindbergh and his America First Committee rallied isolationists across the country. This all changed with Pearl Harbor; of course, not even this event was as it seemed. John Denson had spoken about the lies and deceit behind the Pearl Harbor attack. He revealed in his speech “Tricking Us Into War” how Roosevelt’s Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, revealed in a November 25th, 1941, diary entry that the United States government was aware of an imminent attack on Pearl Harbor that may occur as early as next Monday. This information was withheld from the Pearl Harbor commanders, Denson explains further:
“On December 6th, 1941, American codebreakers received the first part of a fourteen part message, the first thirteen parts were taken by Naval commander Lester Schultz directly to FDR. He met with Roosevelt and Harry Hopkins in the White House in which Roosevelt turned to Hoptkins and said “this means war.” Finally, the fourteenth part came during the early morning hours of December 7th, and it’s called “The Delivery Message.” This indicated that an attack would probably occur at 1pm Washington time, which is dawn at Pearl Harbor. The big mystery is, why wasn’t this communicated to Hawaiian commanders? Admiral Stark, who was head of the Navy in Washington D.C. received this translated message at 8am in his office which is 3am at Pearl Harbor. The officers testified that they delivered this message to him and begged him to call Admiral Kimmel in Pearl Harbor and tell him an attack would occur at dawn. Stark had on his desk what was called a scrambler phone, he could pick up the phone and talk immediately with Admiral Kimmel, the message would be scrambled in between but Kimmel would be able to understand it at the other end, so he had direct access within a matter of seconds to Kimmel. The officers testified that Stark picked up the phone, held it in his hand for maybe a minute, and put it back down.”
Efforts to reach Roosevelt also failed, because the president could not be disturbed at the time, so the Japanese successfully launched their surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. This had effectively put an end to the anti-war and isolationist movement in America, and eighty years later, the mythos surrounding the “just war” is mostly unquestionable. Advanced societies do not need to enforce propaganda by brute force or crude messaging; the ability to speak to the mind of the citizen, their fears, desires, and beliefs, and even to persuade them into a way of thinking is the sign of an advanced society. The advent of the internet, independent media, and wide access to literature has only muddied the realm of information; professional propagandists are things of the past when millions of inflamed individuals post rumors and speculation instead. After Hamas attacked the Israeli concert on October 7th, the fact that the Palestinians may have been abused in Gaza or the West Bank mattered nothing to the Israelis, just as the Japanese reasoning for attacking Pearl Harbor mattered little to an American. All the Israelis saw were 1200 people, mainly civilians, killed and another 251 taken hostage; the people demanded the Palestinian pay in blood. The Israelis had voted for security and nationalism previously in any event; now was simply the time the Israeli politicians delivered their campaign promises.
The last election held in Israel before the October 7th attack was on November 1, 2022, with Benjamin Netanyahu and his coalition winning 64 out of 120 parliamentary seats. The Israel Democracy Institute provides the full list of Israel’s government officials, their positions, political parties and stances of each political party. This is extremely important as it can develop the root causes of the war. Prime Minister Netanyhu’s coalition consists of six political parties. Benjamin Netanyahu is a part of the Likud party, which is described as having “traditionally supported the idea of Greater Israel (the belief that Israel’s borders should extend to include Judea & Samaria), even if it has not always defined the state’s borders precisely.” Another member party named Shas has championed the idea of “returning the crown to its former glory” and aspires to gather Jews throughout the world in Israel. Other parties, such as the National Unity Party, support the idea of Israel as the nation-state of Jewish people, and two religious parties, including United Torah Judaism and Religious Zionism, which represent the ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel. To the Arabs, Christians, and other non-Jewish civilians in Israel, it is clear that the aim of Netanyahu’s government and the majority of the voting public, is an Israeli state made by and for Jews.
The greatest threat the Israelis pose, their greatest flaw and their worst crime on the international stage is not their killing; it’s their nationalism. They pose an existential threat to the balance of power in the world, they threaten the relationship between America and the House of Saud, they have threatened the delicate balance of power between Iran and their proxies and the United States military, and they strengthen the position of the Chinese in the Middle East and on the world stage, and this is the greatest threat of it all. The American Empire today rests on the foundation on the illusion of international law. They had fought a war with the German nationalists for this world, now their hypocrisy is revealed on the world stage, and American elites must make a decision. In the realm of friend-enemy, Jewish influence in America has worked tirelessly since the 12 Day War to maintain support, but they dig themselves deeper in the grave, and they’re taking America with them.
Jewish Influence
To say that the image of Jews in America and worldwide has changed drastically would be an understatement; they’re hated, and they’re being accused of the same things they have been accused of throughout their history. But the opinions of the regular person or an influencer do not matter; just ask the members of the America First Committee or any anti-war protestor from Vietnam or the War on Terror how effective their decade-long efforts were. Only the friend-enemy distinction of the ruling class matters, so this is the main focus. The masses of people, particularly the youth among the right, think they know what the elites in the West want. It’s true on the surface level that foreign influence, particularly from the Jews, is incredible. But as per-usual, they fail to see the bigger picture or even the truly obvious within American politics. American politicians are for sale from NGOs, corporations, and foreign governments. Whether this is Israel, Saudi Arabia, or Taiwan, this has always been the nature of the political class within empires. AIPAC, for example, has been at the forefront of controversy for many decades; the organization “AIPAC Tracker” tracks the funds given to American politicians by this organization regularly. A Democrat representative from Minnesota, for instance, Jared Golden, has received more than $1 million in AIPAC funding.
Other politicians have had all expenses paid trips to Jersualam; visits to the Western Wall is a particularly popular place for photo ops. What the Israelis do is simple interest group politics using the Jewish diaspora in America; this is no different than what the hundreds of other lobbying organizations do. But does the Israel lobby pose a particular threat to American interests and the ruling elite within the country that other lobbying groups may not? The role of Jews and of Israel has been fundamental to the animating spirit of America since the end of World War Two; these were the poor people who were being exterminated and were liberated by the free democratic forces of the West. President Nixon explained this special relationship with Ted Koppel, even though he admitted Israel is of little strategic importance, saying:
“The United States is concerned with more than strategic values, that may be a weakness, but that’s the way we are. There are moral issues involved here, we don’t have an alliance with Israel, as you know they’re not an ally of the United States in the technical sense. But we have a bond to Israel that’s much stronger, a moral commitment because of what happened during the Holocaust, and a moral commitment because it is a democracy, the only democracy in that area. Under the circumstances that is why American presidents and the American people in the future, will support, all out, the survival of Israel if attacked.”
The American, and the wider globalist elite, face a dilemma with the current question of Israel and the influence of Jews in their countries. They have built their Power on the order that was built after World War Two. The Holocaust was essential to this animating spirit, but the recent actions of the Israelis have resulted in crushing criticisms, and the consensus surrounding the aforementioned war is being challenged by the general population. This is the true danger that the Israel lobby poses in America, at least the only one that matters. Every so often, America and Israel have had intersecting interests such as in the second Iraq War, but this was not always the case. President Bush had stopped advancing into Iraq in 1991, opting to leave Saddam Hussein in power because of the pragmatic nature of his administration; it was said that Bush found Israel’s ideological confidence “hard to take.” The Saudis agreed with this decision as they wanted Iraq as a buffer state and did not want a power vacuum on their border. The Israelis, who saw Saddam as a threat to their existence, continued to advocate and lobby for regime change. In 2003, the Saudis had not changed their position, and neither had the Israelis, but in October of 2000, Saddam wanted to dump the “currency of the enemy” and sell oil for the euro instead of the dollar, a direct challenge to the American financial system. In this case, the Israelis and the American elite had an intersecting interest in removing Hussein from power; life is not always a zero-sum game.
But now, twenty-two years later, Israeli interests have completely moved away from practical realpolitik and into the chaotic idealism of its own nationalist political formula. The country is attempting to maintain its public image through powerful Zionists like Larry Ellison by using TikTok to “combat hate and extremism.” After delegates at the United Nations walked out on Netanyahu’s speech, he held an audience with American Jewish and Christian influencers in New York City, who praised him for being a “protector of the Jewish people” and discussed plans to turn the tide of public opinion. This is where the new current of right-wing thought fails in their analysis, falling into emotion and nationalism instead of realpolitik. What ruling elite would allow such subversion from a country that is ruining its own ability to conduct foreign and domestic policy? The events of the past months show that there is a powerful class that is pushing back against the Israelis, but to truly understand this pushback, the Palestinians and their diaspora must also be analyzed.
Palestinian Resistance
Where do the Palestinians stand on the scale of friend-enemy in the chaotic discourse of American politics? To the American right and the Christian and nationalist revivalists, they can see that the Palestinians are on the front lines fighting Israel, America’s supposed puppet master; but they’re Muslim heretics who follow a false prophet and undesirable immigrants who flood Europe and America. To the American left, they’re a poor minority people suppressed by an apartheid state, anguishing under the imperialism of America and their Israeli ally; but they’re not progressive, they kill homosexuals, repress women, and commit acts of violence. Both sides miss key elements of the Palestinian cause, trapped by their own ideological commitment. A priest of the Catholic Church, Father Chris Alar, recently gave a speech trying to give the Church’s position on the conflict; he attempts to explain the Palestinian and Israeli reasons for the conflict through a moral and attempted political understanding. Father Alar criticizes both sides but falls short in his explanation of the motives of the Palestinians and Islam in general; he says:
“A class in Palestine teaching the little kids to kill Jews, to kill them, I have not found any in Israel, teaching little kids to kill Arabs, I looked. The Palestinians were taught to stab classmates dressed as Jews, and the books that I found online, very clearly show hatred in the Palestinian Authority schools for the Jews. I was not able to find too much on Israel raising children to hate and kill, I’m not denying that it’s not out there, but I can’t find it.
He continues to speak about Iran and their proxies and the Jihadist movements that call for the death of infidels. From the establishment in the Western moral regime, these are horrible acts of barbarism; not even the most extreme Christians in the West advocate for violence and often reject violence altogether, preferring rhetoric over physical altercations. The priest’s explanation is fair and unbiased in the West, but it is an explanation of a church that has been contained by the same liberal order that was established after World War Two, a fair Church that is removed from politics so it doesn’t interfere with the affairs of the state. The explanation given to the Israelis and the Jewish diaspora cannot be applied to the Palestinians or their diaspora; the Palestinians are not as politically coherent or as well established in foreign influence. They have chosen as a people, however, the mindset of resistance: resistance against an apartheid state, against the forces of Western liberal politics and the emptiness of individuality, and the colonialism of corporate economics. They take this universal characteristic extremely seriously. Alaistar Crooke, a former British diplomat, explains the Palestinian mindset in his book “Resistance: The Essence of the Islamist Revolution.” He explains:
“Resistance is seen by these prisoners as an opportunity to alter their existence, to choose struggle as a new way of living. Yet, as the prisoners’ descriptions make plain, it is not simply a matter of individuals making a choice of opting for resistance. It is a key theme to revolutionary Iran– life itself, the essence of living beings that is asserting itself in the descriptions by these Palestinian prisoners. They are united, not by a political programme, or an ideology, but by collective will. At a certain point, a man or woman will give preference to the risk of death over the certainty of having to obey. Palestinians feel that their life is one of struggle and resistance.”
This mindset is also their greatest flaw; they believe with such great faith that their life is resistance, but this sucks the energy out of their social and economic type around the world. This is why the children in Palestine are taught to kill Jews so blatantly; they’re primitive in their propaganda because they do not have the political wit to uphold a higher, more advanced civilizational structure like the democracies in the West, truly they’re more akin to the feudal societies of the Middle Ages. The way in which punishment is carried out in Palestinian lands is evidence for this, while the West had transitioned away from public torture and executions, moving their focus from the punishment on the body to control over an individual’s mind and soul through a therapeutic regime. The Palestinians, and Arabs in general, continue to focus their punishments in the traditional way. After the October ceasefire, a video surfaced of Hamas publicly executing eight men by firing squad. While it could be claimed that since they have lived under such brutal repression, they’ve never had the chance as a people to truly attempt to govern and learn how to properly engage in regular Western-style politics. This may be true, but it is unlikely that the Palestinians will simply drop their pride and become parliamentarian liberals. There is also a trait among current Arab leaders of absolute incompetency in managing a democratic society with too many institutions. For this reason, Iraq and Syria lasted far longer politically under Hussein and Assad than under a democratic regime.
The Palestinian threat is not one of military might, terrorism, or political influence; it is who they are as a people. The western institutions and people, such as the Catholic Church and other organizations, do not understand the Palestinian cause because they have all been contained by the bourgeois humanism that has been seared into the minds of western people. The Catholic Church openly embraced the modern reforms of Vatican II; the new traditionalist youth may insult the clergy’s decision, but they refuse to resist because their liberal minds reject political violence, and yet traditionalist rhetoric is full of crusading and warlike jargon. This isn’t to say the Palestinians do not pose a threat in America and elsewhere; the Israelis may pose a threat to the balance of power in the world, but the Palestinians, the diaspora especially, pose a threat to the domestic institutions and the native peoples’ hegemony in their host country.
Palestinian Subversion
In June of 2025 at the Glastonbury concert in the UK, the Jamaican singer, Bob Vylan, caused an uproar when he led a chant saying, “Death to the IDF.” This was the main concern of Keir Starmer and the BBC. But Vylan also did something else; he sang a song that goes like this: “Heard you want your country back, shut the fuck up. Heard you want your country back, uh uh you can’t have that.” Minority and liberal groups throughout the West have picked up the Palestinian cause as their own, brothers defending each other against oppressive colonists and racists. The ruling elite of a host country to Palestinians may find a short-term friend in the Palestinians, especially if the regime is hostile to Israel, but even so, they should ask themselves this question: “What if they win?” The Palestinians have made it clear for decades that they do not want to integrate into any country; they want their own home. In 1975, a member of the Syrian Social Affairs Ministry, Soraya El-Hayani, was asked if the Palestinians wanted to integrate into Syrian society; her answer:
“Oh no, never. They do not want to live here, or in Lebanon or in Jordan. They want to stay as a whole, as a Palestinian. They call themselves “those who go back.”
If the Palestinians win the war, if America truly disciplines Israel through force or some other means, would the Palestinians be grateful? The answer to this question lies within the lessons of the failed Soviet reformists like Gorbachev in the 1980s; his perestroika and democratization had weakened the Soviet elite to actual collapse. The Russians, the Baltics, the satellite states, and others within the Union were not grateful for the new liberal Politburo; they hated them even more as the reforms continued. This hate, and the weakness of the Soviet elite, can be seen in the 1 May celebration parade of the international proletarian solidarity in 1990. The event unfolded as follows:
“Popov had advised Gorbachev to allow “an alternative” demonstration of political clubs, parties and associations, which on the day mushroomed thanks to liberalization. Liberal Democrats, Christian Democrats, anarchist-syndicalists, and other “independent political parties and clubs” came to the celebration under different colors. Some brought red flags with the hammer and sickle ripped out. About a hundred of the demonstrators stopped in front of the Mausoleum and began to chant: “Socialism? No, Thanks!”; “Communists: You Are Bankrupt!”; “Down With The Fascist Red Empire!”; “Freedom to Lithuania!”; “Down with the Politburo!”; “Down with Gorbachev!”; “Resign! Resign! Resign!” Most of the crowd were ethnic Russians. The nationwide television broadcast was halted, but cameras captured the stony-faced Kryuchkov and Yazov, who stared above the crowd with blank eyes. In August 1968, when eight dissidents had come out on Red Square protesting the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, they were beaten and arrested by the KGB. This time, the ranks of the KGB stood motionless, without instruction how to behave.”
The liberals will not be grateful, the minority groups will not be grateful, and the Palestinians, a group that will never give up its mind of resistance, will find solidarity in fighting for the other “oppressed minorities” in the colonial countries of the West or Arab puppet states like Egypt and Jordan. When the Soviet Union allowed travelers into the Western countries, the standard of living within these countries had shocked them; they returned disillusioned and unhappy. The standard of living that they were used to suddenly became truly unbearable. Once people get a taste of freedom or a higher standard, they will no longer tolerate what they once accepted. The minority and liberal groups will become emboldened; deportations, policing, welfare, and voting will all be influenced by outsiders who hate the ruling class and the animating spirit and want to mold it to themselves. This is why the elite rule in the manner they do. If the churches were to truly follow in absolute the doctrine of poverty, they would collapse without organized structure, so with democracies, they will never truly follow the “will of the people” because that would mean the collapse of the current system. The recent Gaza ceasefire is one such power play made not by the Israelis nor the Palestinians, but by the Western elite who aren’t yet ready to merely stand stony-faced like Kryuchkov and Yazov.
Discipling the Disruptor of Balance
In the following two decades after the second Iraq War, America had created a delicate balance of power, a MAD doctrine narrowed to the Middle East. American bases litter the region in Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Syria, and elsewhere; their force packages stand mission-ready to deploy quickly in the CENTCOM area. This was counterbalanced by Iran and their proxy forces in the region: Hezbollah, Hamas, the Assad regime, and the PMF in Iraq. This situation had created balance; neither the Iranians nor the Americans wanted a full blown war between each other. This is why Iran gave prior warning to the Americans that it would launch missiles at its base in Qatar, and American media was quite open when tracking the B2 bombers en route to Iran, giving the Iranians time to evacuate their facility. While there are many Zionist aspects within the American and European governments, these events prove that the international globalist system has its limits, specifically with Netanyahu and his coalition. It’s noteworthy that even the American intelligence services do not agree with Israeli claims of an Iranian nuclear program. The Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabard, had stated on March 25th, 2025:
“The IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and that supreme leader Khomieni has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.”
There are further claims that the CIA and the Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency, have a very bad relationship. John Kiriakou, a former CIA officer and whistleblower, had claimed in interviews that the CIA has a deep-seated hatred for Israel and has a deep mistrust of the Israeli intelligence agencies, going as far as even banning the Mossad from Langley. Accusations of harassment have also been claimed by CIA agents who were working openly in Israel, their apartments broken into and even a pet dog’s tail cut off. Other than Kirakou’s claim, it is not a widely public rivalry, and so these claims can only be taken by his word, but the CIA does have an interest in maintaining power and stability for the ruling class, something Israel has threatened both directly by attempting to draw America into war with Iran and by undermining negotiations. It’s for this reason the consensus of dialogue in the West is incorrect; they, the public, seem to believe that the Western nations are in complete servitude to Jewish interests, but they’re missing a key component in realpolitik. A bitter component that young right-wing ideologues will one day have to swallow: leaders of nations, especially influential ones, cannot be nationalist. In the realm of great power politics, nations will pursue their own interests, but this does not mean these players are exempt from playing the game of international relations. Ian Smith, the last president of Rhodesia, learned this the hard way after the whole world turned against his country; he said:
“Look what detente has meant for the people in South Vietnam, where did that exercise go wrong? They were gullible enough to put their trust in the promises of those with whom they were negotiating, and what is their redress now? What can the greatest military power on this Earth do to recover the situation which has developed because they dropped their guard? Without covering themselves against the possibility, indeed probability in this world of double standards, that the other side would not honor their part of the agreement. What use is it in this present world of complaining that the other party did not abide by the rules of the game? You will be told that if you were gullible enough to let the other party take you for a ride, that’s your hard luck. Let us be honest with ourselves, in this world we live in today, there are no rules to the game, as we know from recent history from other parts of the world, even your own best friends walk out on you.”
South Africa suffered a similar fate to Rhodesia even though the whites in the country were extremely well organized in parties like the AWB with Terre’Blanche. The apartheid government was sanctioned by the international community, and Nelson Mandela became president. The Americans and the British were conspiring to go to war against Nazi Germany years before the invasion of Poland; the nationalism of Britain had created independence movements throughout their colonies, such as Gandhi in India and the Mau Mau in Kenya. When Trump was first reelected in 2024, European leaders began to distance themselves because of the nationalism of the new American president. In Germany, the newly elected Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, had pledged to gain independence from America, saying:
“The Trump administration looks to overturn about 80 years of policy and raises the prospect of abandoning security guarantees for Europe. My absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that, step by step, we can really achieve independence from the USA.”
Now Trump has reversed his stance and continued to send weapons to Ukraine; he did this because his nationalist rhetoric threatened the very foundation of the American Empire in Europe. For playing the game, Trump was granted an extremely lucrative and one-sided trade deal from the EU’s Ursula von der Leyen. Trump’s deportations, however, despite being mostly theatrical because of his inability to fight the judicial system effectively, have garnered criticism from leaders like Pope Leo. In the modern Western mind, any form of nationalism is repulsive; the Pope is repulsed by Trump’s deportations because of his rhetoric; punishment is supposed to be private, not posted as YouTube edits. Netanyahu may be many things, but unlike the populist leaders in the West, he is actively engaging in nationalist policy on behalf of the Jews. This means exterminating their enemies, and this has brought chaos to the world stage. Netanyahu’s position is best summarized by what Adolf Hitler said on the eve of war to a select group of German officers:
“The first half century of my life is now over. Much has been accomplished, much still has to be done to safeguard the future of our Reich. The next years will be crucial, until 1942 or 1943, we shall still have the lead in the arms race with the western power. But with each passing year this lead narrows, so if anything is to be won, it must be fought for now.”
This is the position of Netanyahu and Israel; they do not want America’s balance of power, October 7th was the chance to safeguard the future of their state. The two years since October 7th were crucial for the Israelis; if they wanted to destroy the Palestinians, the Iranian proxies, and the regime in Iran, it must be done now. This makes Netanyahu not only an enemy to the Muslims but to America and to the globalist community, and so Tony Blair was sent to discipline him and the nationalist coalition to bring them back in line with the international globalist community. The first stage to this was the planned recognition of Palestine as a state by France’s Macron and England’s Starmer; both were met with backlash from both the Israelis and even pro-Palestian movements in their country for some reason. In the eyes of the globalists, Israel isn’t the problem, abusing Palestinians is not the problem, it’s the lie, the way in which Netanyahu and his government used their political tools and turned themselves into a pariah state for the sake of idealistic nationalism. This peace agreement is another form of discipline for Netanyahu; this ceasefire, however, will fail without the leadership and support of Tony Blair. While considered Donald Trump’s plan, only Blair has the technical and political know-how to create a twenty-point peace plan that the globalists and Hamas can agree upon. In recent days, Israel has tested the waters of the peace plan, continually coming up with reasons to attack Gaza. No doubt that Netanyau, who is already on trial in Israel for bribery and corruption, realizes their plan. Once they get rid of Netanyahu, not by arrest and trial for war crimes because that would condemn the West and Israel in general, Israel can be liberalized further in the hopes of grinding down Judaism among the population and therefore the Jewish nationalism in the country.
At the same time, the Palestinians will be forced to obey; this is the essence of the peace plan. The “deradicalized terror free zone” will see the defanging of Palestinian resistance, the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza, and the takeover by a peace board led by Tony Blair, which will ensure the cooperation of Netanyahu and the rehabilitation of Israeli politics. Hamas was right to accept this deal; it had saved them from certain extermination, but they too will face the discipline and punishment of the West. It’s no conspiracy that during Tony Blair’s tenure as prime minister he had pushed for digital IDs; now Keir Starmer, a very close associate, is introducing digital IDs in England. It’s not a matter of debate; it will be argued as it is applied, and what better people to test this on than the rebellious and primitive Palestinians? The failure of the Palestinians also means that this will protect host countries from the subversion of the Palestinian diaspora; they will be too focused on their homeland to worry about the situation of minorities in Western nations.
Finally, there is the rabble in the West, the youthful left and right-wing youth that has grown exponentially in the past half-year. The system of Power in the West will ignore their complaints and suggestions, and truthfully, they would be right to do so. Both factions of the plebiscite have so far been incapable of making it past YouTube videos with slop video titles; they’re incapable of creating and solidifying effective leadership, with their main figureheads eventually being tarnished through a scandal or being accused of being a federal agent. The leftists and their politicians lack the revolutionary will and expertise to even understand the system they live in; their politicians, like Zohan Mamdani, will be deadlocked and contained by the established bureaucracy. Meanwhile, the right is obsessed with the idea of marriage, family, and nationalism; all of these are beliefs that play into the hands of the system, ensuring the continuation of the country and the containing of political movements through parenthood and domestication. This is simply the way the world works; the sovereign leaders in nations decide who is a friend and who is an enemy, and they will deal with it in their own way. Ideological enemies can work together closely in common goals; the Saudis and Americans are extremely close despite being polar opposites. The liberalism of America and the extreme Wahhabism of the Saudis have been put aside for the sake of money and power. If elites do not play the game, they will face the consequences; if they refuse to confront issues or worse, follow the will of the general public, they will face the same embarrassment that Gorbachev had on the May Day parade. The rising current of nationalists in America do not yet understand this. The people do not understand that if America deports millions back to the Middle East without a plan, or openly calls Islam a false religion, or collapses the dollar system through socialist or libertarian means, the Saudis will be quick to turn to the up-and- coming Chinese. The American people may be ready to give up the empire, but the ruling class is not.
