Trump Seizes Oil Tanker, Threatens Colombia "Could Be Next" Target For Regime Change

President Donald Trump triumphantly announced yesterday that the U.S. Coast Guard had seized a large oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela, while failing to identify it by name or specify where it had been intercepted, typical omissions for the Ignoramus-in-Chief. This is but the latest news accompanying the massive U.S. military build-up in the Caribbean, which includes aircraft carriers, fighter jets, landing ships, and tens of thousands of U.S. troops. At the same time, Trump threatened Colombian President Gustavo Petro that he "could be next" in line for regime change, after Washington (presumably) overthrows the Venezuelan government. 

The attack against Venezuela's principal revenue source is yet more evidence that Washington's military build-up around the South American nation has nothing to do with combating drug trafficking, but rather, is motivated by an imperial desire acted on by the last five U.S. administrations to expel the Bolivarian Revolution from power and install a puppet regime in Caracas that will hand over the largest oil reserves on the planet to Western corporations.

This lust for hydrocarbons, which should have been subdued some time ago in order to deal with growing climate break-down, has returned full force with the second coming of Trump and his determination to extract and burn off as much oil as possible while eliminating even the most modest efforts to ameliorate the climate crisis. In July, for example, the Trump administration eliminated a regulation limiting toxic emissions from cars and power plants, and a week ago rolled back automobile fuel efficiency standards. This will aggravate the ecological crisis by increasing fuel consumption and carbon-dioxide production.

Though suppressing the drug trade is clearly not motivating U.S. policy, one can reasonably wonder whether the ongoing attacks on Bogota and Colombia are part of a Washington plan to take possession of existing cocaine-trafficking routes and open up new ones, for example, through "liberated" Venezuela, which territory at the present time doesn't even accommodate five percent of the drug flow coming out of Colombia. It is worth keeping in mind that the White House and its intelligence agencies have a well-established record of working with governments that publicly take a hard rhetorical line against drug-trafficking in order to hide their own criminal involvement in it, as occurred with Felipe Calderon in Mexico and with the Colombian paramilitaries under Alvaro Uribe. In the Calderon case, even the U.S. concedes that strongman Genaro Garcia Luna (secretary of public security under Calderon) was directing narco-trafficking while heading the agencies tasked with combating it. 

As noted by Luis Hernandez Navarro in the Mexican daily La Jornada, the rising prospects of Uribe governing Colombia again through a figure-head following next year's elections give the Trump administration an incentive to close the noose around Venezuela, the last unfallen domino Washington needs to achieve complete control of the narcotics trade in Central and South America.

At the same time, Hernandez notes, the open contempt for Latin American and Caribbean sovereignty reflects Trumpian confidence in being able to perpetrate whatever atrocities Washington needs to with impunity, which appears to be an accurate assessment given the lack of consequences to more than two years of wholesale slaughter in Palestine by the U.S. and Israel. 

Furthermore, Hernandez goes on to point out, the presence of right-wing and extremely right-wing governments allied with Washington in Argentina, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Panama, Peru, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Trinidad, and Tobago smooths the probable path to power of a Pinochet-aligned group in Chile, as well as the threat of Uribe-ism in Colombia, all of which emboldens Trump to indulge calculated imperial abuse of a divided region unable to overtly resist it, whether it takes the form of illegal sanctions, acts of piracy like the recent seizure of the oil tanker, or bombardments and massacres.

Such policies are hardly the recent invention of an aberrant Trump regime, but rather, trace back to the unsuccessful 2002 U.S.-sponsored coup d'etat against Hugo Chavez, an effort that was aborted (but never completely abandoned) when masses of poor people (the Bolivarian base) surrounded the presidential palace and successfully demanded Chavez's release from captivity. Since then, and always in the name of freedom, democracy and human rights, the U.S. has unleashed sanctions, media slander campaigns, color revolutions, oil embargoes, assassination attempts (against president Maduro), robbery of currency reserves and infrastructure, threats of invasion, armed clashes between Colombian and Venezuelan forces, and attempted military coups against Bolivarian rule, once even recognizing a puppet government of its own choosing (Juan Guaido).

These actions have caused great damage to Venezuela and immense suffering to its people, taking the form of millions of dollars in lost oil income and a large displacement of Venezuelans, who have migrated to other countries in order to survive. Meanwhile, the oligarchs of old live the high life in great palaces in Miami and Madrid waiting for Washington to restore its lost privileges. 

All prior efforts to effect regime change in Caracas have run up against what appears to be an immovable object: the unity of the National Bolivarian Armed Forces, which has emerged from twenty-seven years of revolutionary effort designed to make Venezuelan sovereignty invulnerable to compromise, whether by conquest or manipulation. To date there isn't the slightest indication of an internal fissure anywhere in its considerable armor.

An important part of this unity has been the development of a new military doctrine known as Comprehensive National Defense, which confronts the U.S. military threat with three unyielding components: (1) strengthened military power; (2) deepened civilian-military union (people and army); and (3) fuller popular participation in national defense tasks. 

The pre-revolutionary Venezuelan armed forces were fragmented in divisions and brigades. Hugo Chavez organized the country in regions, and insured that in each region there was a military structure with all the necessary components: Army, Navy, National Guard, popular militias, and the people. If one region comes under attack, it has the capacity to defend itself alone. Caracas has no need to move in units from somewhere else.

President Maduro takes a hands-on approach to national defense, visiting all the barracks and showing up at dawn. He freely shares with the troops, runs with them, and does military exercises with them. There is complete unity of purpose and frequent contact between the government and the troops. Many have been Chavistas since childhood, forming unbreakable bonds of loyalty to each other and the Bolivarian Revolution. They will not be easily dealt with. As Venezuelan Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello observes: "For the friends of Chavismo the popular militias are a diamond; for the enemies they're the worst possible news."

Foreign military intervention in Venezuela is enormously complicated, and not just because of civilian-military unity. Venezuela has weapons, manpower, determination, and land capable of sustaining prolonged popular resistance. It has modernized its weaponry, buying from China, Russia, and Iran, while also forging an alliance with those countries. In addition, it is blessed with geographical diversity measuring almost a million square kilometers, including extensive mountain ranges, dense jungles, and the long Orinoco River basin. It has 4208 kilometers of coastline, a 2341 kilometer border with Colombia, and a 2199 kilometer border with Brazil. And the popular barrios of Caracas are ratholes.

None of Venezuela's neighbors will lend themselves to being  platforms for imperial war exploding on their borders. 

Obviously, U.S. firepower can inflict enormous damage, but power without legitimacy is just another name for impotence.

 

Sources:

Luis Hernandez Navarro, "Venezuela, the Day After," La Jornada (Spanish), December 9, 2025

Luis Hernandez Navarro, "Trump: the Context of the Aggressions," La Jornada (Spanish), December 11, 2025

 

 

 

 

Trinity and the Morals of Extermination

Perhaps never before in history had a group of scientists so fervently prayed. J. Robert Oppenheimer, slumping against a wooden post, told himself: "I must remain conscious!" Afraid it might electrocute him, the normally unflappable Sam Allison dropped the microphone at the last second of the countdown: "Five . . . . four . . . three . . . two . . . . . . . . . zero!"

After what seemed an interminable silence, a strange light never before seen in the world ignited the horizon and a reddish-orange fireball infinitely brighter and 10,000 times hotter than the sun rose majestically over the desert, turning darkness into light for a hundred miles around. On that day - the day of the Trinity blast - even a blind woman reported seeing the dawn.

A New York Times reporter was reminded of the Lord's command, "Let there be light!" Physicist Isidor Rabi feared the fire in the sky would burn forever. His colleague Dick Feynman, momentarily blinded, turned away in pain. Oppenheimer recalled a line from the Bhagavad Gita: "I am become death, the shatterer of worlds!"

The boiling mushroom cloud swirled into the heavens, presaging catastrophe. Under a curtain of fallout, jubilant Manhattan Project scientists broke into a jig on the desert floor.

Thus did the nuclear genie escape the bottle in the desert of Alamagordo New Mexico eighty years ago. Of one thing there could be no doubt: Washington was issuing unconditional surrender to the morals of extermination. Even as the atomic bomb was nearing completion, the U.S. was razing whole cities to the ground with "conventional" bombs and burning hundreds of thousands of civilians alive with napalm sticks. In April 1945 one of FDR's advisers declared that he favored "the extermination of the Japanese in toto." It was not an isolated sentiment.

With Hitler dead, Germany defeated, and Japan in ruins, the U.S. Target Committee met to select a Japanese city for atomic doom. Seeking to heighten the international impact of the bombing, General Leslie Groves, Director of the Manhattan Project, favored Kyoto, on the grounds that the inhabitants of an intellectual center would be "more apt to appreciate the significance of such a weapon." Secretary of State Henry Stimson, having visited Kyoto and grown fond of it, vetoed Groves's preference. The committee ultimately opted for Hiroshima, amidst a lament that its mountains weren't close enough to the city to maximize the bomb's effects.

Everyone involved in the operation was well aware of the historic nature of the occasion, and strove to act appropriately with an eye toward posterity. Moments before the Enola Gay obliterated Hiroshima, Colonel Paul Tibbets told his crew, "watch your language." Since the bombing was being recorded, he didn't want a slip of the tongue to reflect badly on his crew. Profanity, not extermination, was the feared sin.

At 8:09 a.m. Hiroshima broke into the Enola Gay's view. Four minutes later, the bombardier took control of the plane, lined up the "T" of the Aioi Bridge in the cross hairs of his bombsight and announced, "I've got it."

At 8:15 a.m. the bomb-bay doors swung open, lightening the plane's load by five tons. The plane lurched skywards. Tibbets pulled on his goggles.

Nothing happened.

With the crew suspecting a dud, the cockpit was suddenly flooded with bright light, which was followed by two strong shock waves that jolted the plane upward. Sergeant George Caron dictated into his tape recorder: "A column of smoke is rising fast. It has a fiery red core . . . . Fires are springing up everywhere . . . there are too many to count . . . " In the copilot's seat Robert Lewis scribbled a more emotional reaction: "My God, what have we done?"

On the ground thousands of feet below him came the answer. Eyes turned skyward liquified in the blinding flash, streaming down upturned faces. Bodies turned to charcoal. Infrared rays melted skin like wax.

Windows exploded, buildings crumpled, people hurtled through the air like missiles, limbless and headless bodies piled up like logs and lay under piles of fallen debris. After the ear-shattering roar, an immense column of dirt blotted out the sun. At 8:16 a.m. Hiroshima suddenly turned as still and black as night.

On the Aioi Bridge eerie silhouettes of the vaporized were permanently burned into the concrete. Along the streets, blackened and bleeding survivors swarmed towards water, hands and arms aloft, patches of roasted skin flapping in the wind. Stunned, terrified, in agony, they moved - herdlike - toward estuaries of the Ota River, which quickly filled with bloated corpses. Helpless voices cried out for water, for their mothers, for the relief of death.

The few functioning medical facilities were overwhelmed as ten thousand wounded jammed the Red Cross Hospital contending for four hundred beds and a handful of dazed doctors. Burned beyond recognition, patients hoping to be reunited with their families finger-painted their names in blood on the lobby walls.

Back in Los Alamos Hiroshima represented sweet triumph. Robert Oppenheimer received word by phone from General Groves, who confirmed that the bomb had exploded "with a very big bang indeed." Relieved and proud, Oppenheimer had an announcement issued over the public address system that a "successful combat drop" of one of Los Alamos's "units" had taken place, and called a meeting in the theater to celebrate with his ecstatic fellow scientists.

It was a showman's dream moment, and Oppenheimer didn't let it go to waste. Arriving to the meeting late, he strode up the aisle amidst the bedlam of clapping, foot-stomping, and shouting coming from his fellow experts in emotional discipline. For once the scientists were irrepressible and the celebratory din did not subside until long after Oppenheimer clasped his hands over his head in the ritual victory stance and mounted the podium to speak.

In the evening a party was held in the men's dormitory. Off in a corner Oppenheimer showed a colleague a telex of the Hiroshima damage reports. The colleague shook his head. Oppenheimer, depressed, left the party early and spotted a scientist vomiting in the bushes outside. Meanwhile, back in Washington President Truman was apparently enjoying great peace of mind, calling the atomic bombing "the greatest thing in history."

Three days later a piercing flash accompanied by a thunderous blast announced the world's first plutonium bomb in the skies over Nagasaki (Hiroshima had been a uranium bomb). At ground zero, there were no screams or moans: within a radius of 1000 yards the unsheltered perished before they could react.

The swath of destruction roared through northern Nagasaki at 9000 miles an hour, making it rain debris. Houses and buildings were smashed, crushed, and burned. Stone was pulverized and tiles shot through the air like bullets. The sturdy beams of the Mitsubishi Steelworks twisted and turned like silly putty while the roofs of reinforced concrete buildings crumpled and collapsed. Trees were ripped from the ground, utility poles snapped like matchsticks, and a hurricane of shattered glass embedded countless shards in human flesh.

Yellow smoke hung over the carbonized remains of the city. Near the epicenter fires raged out of control. Stunned survivors cupped detached eyeballs back inside their skulls.

Six days later the Japanese signed the surrender. Shortly after that the U.S. War Department announced that the atomic bombings had not been militarily necessary:

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts . . . it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

Cultural historian Lewis Mumford recapped fission's ugly debut by accusing the U.S. government of having reverted to Bronze Age barbarism and "reversed the whole course of human history." At Hiroshima and Nagasaki the U.S. had lifted the curtain on the atomic age with the annihilation of an estimated 200,000 non-combatants, "virgin" targets deliberately selected to isolate and measure the atomic bomb's unique effects. So ended what historians have taken to calling the "good war."

That Japan was already putting out peace feelers through its emissary in Moscow did not stay the hand of the nuclear executioners, nor did the cosmic destruction deter General "Hap" Arnold from staging the war's grand finale five days after Nagasaki - a 1000-plane raid that bombarded what remained of Japanese cities, killing thousands as leaflets fluttered to the ground announcing the Japanese government's surrender. Some, however, were still not satisfied. General Carl Spaatz wanted to use a third atomic bomb on Tokyo, but decided that bouncing rubble around the demolished capital might fail to make a discernible point.

In view of the foregoing it is safe to paraphrase Mark Twain and say that reports of Hitler's defeat in WWII are greatly exaggerated. Germany was defeated, but the loathesome tenet that wholesale slaughter is praiseworthy if it brings victory was perpetuated. At Nuremberg and Tokyo the victors framed their war crime indictments to exclude Allied atrocities, deliberately pardoning U.S. officials for the atomic bombings, though Justice Radhabinod Pal of India did manage to declare in his dissent that "the decision to use the atom bomb is the only near approach to the directives . . . of the Nazi leaders . . . "Secretary of War Henry Stimson justified atomic incineration on the basis that it saved lives - by obviating an American invasion of Japan. Within a generation the same "humanitarian" logic was at work in Vietnam as the CIA employed systematic torture to deter a guerrilla movement and blackmail its supporters into capitulating to U.S. demands.

Accompanying the morals of extermination was a shadowy nuclear priesthood stockpiling the bombs of cosmic violence and advancing the fascist religion of permanent war to justify them. Fine-tuning deranged technological fantasies in totalitarian enclaves of total secrecy, the Atomic Apostles operated completely outside the process of democratic government, poisoning earth and sky with radioactivity, upsetting a delicate ecological balance, and contaminating the genetic heritage of life itself. A critical focus of their work was the institutionalization of atomic testing, which showered fallout on hundreds of thousands of American G.I.'s at test ranges in Nevada and Utah while the U.S. government downplayed the radioactive dangers, assuring its conscripted guinea pigs that all would be well if they just placed complete faith in the Pentagon. At the same time in the South Pacific, Marshallese Islanders sickened by atomic tests were removed from their radiated islands to face years of bitter exile, only to return home and be evacuated anew after it was discovered that the area was still radioactive. When thousands of soldiers and islanders found themselves dying of cancer, Washington disclaimed all responsibility for their plight.

Eight decades later the heirs to these atomic crimes bombed Iran to prevent any possibility of its developing an atomic bomb. Iranian theocrats, the reasoning goes, are strangers to rationality and therefore cannot be trusted to use nuclear technology responsibly like the civilized master race in Washington has done for so long.

That the perversely comic premise of good U.S. nukes vs. evil Islamic nukes will not ever be debunked in front of mass U.S. audiences illustrates how far the United States is from anything remotely resembling democratic debate. In spite of the the fact that the constituency that desires that it not be annihilated by nuclear bombs or subjected to slow death by radiation poisoning includes everyone, no "focus group" is ever asked its reaction to the morals of extermination heralded by its leaders as merely gutsy realism in a "dangerous world."

No doubt the world is a dangerous place. But the point is that it is made a suicidal place by the lunatic policies of "rational" nuclear war upheld by the United States government. That the world has survived this nuclear recklessness for eight decades is nothing more than blind luck, and as is well known, luck inevitably runs out.

Sources:

Lewis Mumford, "The Conduct of Life," (Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1951)

Lewis Mumford, "My Works and Days," (Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich, 1979)

Howard Zinn, "Postwar America: 1945-1971," (Bobbs-Merrill, 1973)

Noam Chomsky, "Year 501- The Conquest Continues," (South End, 1993)

Peter Wyden, "Day One," (Simon and Schuster, 1984)

Stephen Hilgartner, "Nukespeak: Nuclear Language, Visions, and Mindset," (Sierra Club, 1982)

John Hersey, "Hiroshima," The New Yorker, August 31, 1946

Frank Chinook, "Nagasaki: The Forgotten Bomb," (World Publishing, 1969)

Howard Zinn, "A People's History of the United States, 1492-Present," (Harper, 1995)

Walter LaFeber, "The American Age - United States Foreign Policy at Home and Abroad since 1750," (W. W. Norton, 1989)

Democratic Notes On Anti Democratic Social Reality

 By Frank Scott

 

Many of us are so mentally abused by the lies of ruling power that we believe only the most far fetched tales of plots seemingly conducted by forces of evil invisible to all but the anointed who can spot false flags a mile away but are blind to political economics staring them in the face.

 

Reduced to an endless mob of consumers buying bullets, cosmetics, pizza, fashion, beer or pet food, and a parade of proles carrying plastic bags filled with merchandise, garbage or dog shit, most of us are innocently swept up in whatever trend of the moment comes via our networks of believability. And all those networks are directly or indirectly owned by the same financial powers which have nothing to do with fantastic schemes or the illuminati but everything to do with what is quite visible, material and threatens the world we all live in whether compelled to wave fabric painted red white and blue or coerced to carry mentally false banners denoting a sub-human status forced upon us as alleged minorities.

 

We are legitimately upset about the dangerous decline in relations among Americans, not least over the police controversies but we need to remember the police are not vigilantes who appoint themselves to uphold law. They are state workers who have nothing to do with creating low income communities of higher crime than affluent communities - at least on the streets where people suffer drive by shootings and more while the affluent don’t even have streets - but police are sent to regulate reality when social breakdowns occur. If we don't un-create low incomes, poverty, and all the other injustices which help create if not necessitate street crime, and the larger crimes of the people in the suites who rule and run society, things will get much worse. Defund the police? We need to defund the Pentagon, get the hell out of the rest of the world unless invited by the people to visit in friendship, and stop swallowing mythology about how everyone is evil and plotting to destroy America when most of the evil and plotting originates right here.   Among the more destructive aspects of the private profit market religion of capitalism that keeps us at each others throats rather than acting as a democratic majority and transforming our political economy into something that serves all of us rather than only some at the expense of others is the information and thought control that teaches us nonsense about the world and murderous lies about our relations to foreigners and one another. Thus we are reduced to alleged minorities- identity groups - while being subjected to mind menacing horror that describes war as some sort of natural way of living. Ruling power minorities reign supreme by keeping people divided, as in the cases of human beings suffering the outrageous realities that deny comfortable survival for all by creating luxury for only some while the majority are forced into competition and resentment for one another instead of joining forces and taking on ruling minorities before they destroy all of us.   These two areas, the division of humans into allegedly different races when there is only one human race, and rationalizing mass murder as some natural act of life because some identity group or other is an enemy of some other identity group though the only identity group that should concern us is the small minority that owns and controls material reality while we are used to seeking a better life for disabled polish American gay Jews of color while not noticing the enormous numbers of people without food clothing or shelter who represent the identity group all of us belong to: the human race.

Individuals are racists, brutes, sadists, killers, rather than social policies and social influences and cultural training, as in grunts raping and killing, cops killing unarmed people etc. …Never the result of social always the result of individual evil, whether at the bottom, middle or top…the leader is a demon-monster-killer, the cop is a demon monster killer, the soldier is a demon monster killer. At worst, they commit “war” crimes, which like hate crimes that mean there must be a love crime, insure that there must be a legal war and by George we have it. Angelic folks in business suits, with law and other degrees, figure out how to commit mass murder the politically correct way.

 

Of course, grunts and other monsters carry it out under the command of a demon, for the losing side, while heroic figures operating under the sway of an angelic leader are the winners.

 

And big Pharma operates to help regulate all those working to maintain the system. If you have a problem with survival it must/can/should be solved by you as an individual. You have A.D.D., depression, HDBA, neurosis, psychosomatic disorder your own personal problem .but just because millions like you have the same problem, means it is exclusively individual, demanding a personal solution meaning a drug administered to thousands, millions, whatever number makes the biggest profits. If you can afford it and/or have coverage you can go to a shrink – legal- and get your prescription for the drug that will ease your social dilemma and buy it – legally- from a legal dope peddler – HMO, Walgreens, RiteAid, Blue Cross, Red Cross etc. If you can’t afford it and/or you have no coverage, you can go to an illegal drug dealer – or undocumented pharmacist – and get the stuff you need to ease your social dilemma. Mental bliss awaits if you can afford the drug-therapy-treatment Both sides of the legal coin deal with individual problems having nothing to do with society, but they are dealt with differently based on economic power, but all of that, too, is individual and has nothing to do with any social arrangements, especially class membership and economic status.

 

When we cannot pay for the car, the house, whatever, what do the private insurance companies, banks, financial institutions do? They “repo”, as in repossess. Who insures the banks? What is FDIC? The taxpayers insure the banks? We insure one another, as well as most especially them? When the banks under private control cannot pay, the people should, need to, must, “repo” the banks!

 

Gated communities at one end with split-levels, moats, sun decks and armed guards & gated communities at the other end with bars, cell blocks, isolation holes and armed guards. The America we are taught to call “our” democracy is believable under heavy mind managing and drug sedation.

 

 

An environmental, political, economic and growing mental breakdown is being attributed to every conceivable outside force or source but its core which threatens ultimate destruction of humanity itself. Capitalism didn’t just bring us a pandemic that killed millions but has long sustained vicious poverty and warfare which have killed millions more in pursuit of lucrative market profits that benefit fewer each day and threaten more each stormy overheated undernourished experience being suffered by the poorest among us first, as always, but all of us, eventually.

 

Is there a solution to the wretched state of reality as experienced by growing majorities? A truly Democratic state, when the state becomes an “us”, not an “it”. We need to become aware and act on social reality and end belief in individual fiction.

 

 

email: fpscott@gmail.com Frank Scott writes political commentary and satire which appears online at the blog Legalienate http://legalienate.blogspot.com)  

Solidarity With Palestine Means De-Nazifying Israel

The International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People recently passed on November 29, amidst a shameful silence about Israel's ongoing extermination campaign in the West Bank and Gaza. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres marked the dismal occasion pointing out that hunger, disease, and trauma are still the order of the day in Palestine, with schools, homes, and hospitals bombed into ruins and murderous injustice also prevailing on the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, where Israeli military operations, settler violence, settlement expansion, evictions, home demolitions, and threats of annexation continue unabated.

Israel's ongoing massacres make it abundantly clear that norms of international law that have existed for generations are not even window dressing in the face of the Jewish state's barbaric transgressions. As it always has, but now on a larger scale than ever before, Tel Aviv presumes a unique right to slaughter civilians, annul the sovereignty of any nation it perceives as an enemy, maintain a secret nuclear arsenal, use famine as a weapon of war, organize selective assassinations and state terrorist operations on a vast scale, and all this not only without being punished, but while maintaining its membership in international cultural, educational, and sports organizations as though a Jewish supremacist settler state were the most stellar example imaginable of a law-abiding nation.

Alas, that is anything but the truth. Two years into Benjamin Netanyahu's acceleration of the ethnic cleansing that began in 1948, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have been killed or wounded by Israeli occupation forces, armed by the U.S. and Europe, with the survivors forced to live outdoors amidst 61 million tons of rubble. Since October 10 when a fake cease fire went into effect, IDF troops and Zionist settler fanatics have killed another 500 Palestinians, blocked the entrance of more than three quarters of humanitarian aid sent to Palestine, maintained thousands of abducted Palestinians in conditions of permanent torture (conditions conceded to be inhumane even by the Israelis themselves), and proceeded with systematically destroying the West Bank and Gaza. To date the "cease fire" has revealed itself to be nothing more than a cynical propaganda exercise orchestrated by Washington and its allies in order to help Israel continue with its extermination project without the annoyance of the faint media and political pressure against the effort that existed previously in response to Israel's unrestrained barbarity. 

To speak of solidarity under these conditions, with the Palestinian people languishing under the boot of vicious colonialism, forever at the mercy of an apartheid state that openly calls for and celebrates its campaign to annihilate them, would be a sick joke. 

For those who have been paying attention it has been clear for years now that the only way to have international law worthy of the name, and a just outcome for Palestine, is to disarm and de-Nazify the Jewish state, on the way to establishing for the first time ever a genuine peace process in Palestine.

 

Source: 

"Urgent Solidarity With Palestine," La Jornada (Spanish), November 30, 2025

 

 

Mass Murder As "Public Service" In "Our Democracy" - The Return of Elliot Abrams

Super-hawk Elliot Abrams is back in the news again, worrying that Donald Trump lacks "clarity" about what he intends to do in Venezuela. Abrams recommends the president eliminate all doubts and ambiguities in his mind and directly attack Venezuelan territory, in order to bring down the "dictator" Nicolas Maduro. 

Abrams, U.S. special envoy to Venezuela during Trump's first term, said in a recent Foreign Affairs article that the president's advisors should promptly persuade him that the point of no return has already been passed in Venezuela, and that the only possible outcomes are that either Trump or Maduro will win the contest that is now well underway.  Forthrightly titled, "How To Topple Maduro," Abrams calls for doing more than blowing up "narco-trafficking boats" (i.e. Caribbean fishing vessels), though he does not go so far as to advocate the deployment of U.S. ground troops in the South American nation.

According to the Mexican daily La Jornada, Abrams wants Washington to destroy Venezuelan's air defense systems, the F-16s at the air base of Palo Negro, and the Sukhoi jets at the air base in La Orchila, an island one hundred miles off the coast of Venezuela. He also desires to see U.S. attacks against bases in western Venezuela used by the Army of National Liberation (ELN) a Colombian Marxist group allied with Maduro. 

Abrams worries that after a prolonged show of massive U.S. force off the coast of Venezuela, Washington may end up leaving Maduro in power, sending a signal to the world that it has declined from superpower status to the "pitiful helpless giant" that Richard Nixon feared the U.S. was becoming by not being aggressive enough in Vietnam. Such an outcome, he feels, would only benefit the Venezuelan "regime", as well as irrationally hostile countries (presumably) like China, Russia, Cuba, and Iran.

Abrams nowhere takes note of the huge risks U.S. military escalation necessarily carries with it, namely, that it might provoke a Vietnam-style bloodbath or worse, after uniting all of Latin America against Washington's unprovoked aggression. Even Colombia, which regards the Marxist ELN affiliated with Maduro as a drug-trafficking terrorist group, has made it very clear it will not tolerate a U.S. attack on Venezuela. If Washington overthrows Maduro and Venezuela turns to prolonged popular resistance via guerrilla war and sabotage, expect a large number of Americans to return home in body bags.

Instead of facing this sobering prospect, Abrams indulges the usual imperial fantasy that regime change will lead Venezuela promptly to democracy, broad prosperity, and national reconciliation under the enlightened tutelage of its friendly occupiers, who are said by many experts on democracy to be on the path to civil war at home.

Of course, all of this is only to be expected from Abrams, who is a former senior Middle East adviser on the National Security Council for George W. Bush, in which position he promoted the 2003 invasion of Iraq (with similarly rosy results predicted), and a disastrous coup against the democratically elected Hamas government in Gaza, which eventually produced the genocidal horror show we have been watching on our live feeds for the last two-plus years.

Before these ghastly events Abrams was Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights under Ronald Reagan (1981-1989). During those years he staunchly defended U.S. support for a death squad client regime in El Salvador that tortured and murdered staggering numbers of peasants struggling to gain their most basic human rights, a "democracy" campaign that ended with an estimated 70,000 dead and the country devastated almost beyond repair. Abrams rated it a "fabulous achievement."

He did the same with respect to Guatemala, where another U.S. client state was carrying out a scorched earth campaign that was  determined to be genocide by the United Nations and a Guatemalan court of law, with entire villages razed to the ground. He whitewashed the El Mozote massacre, in which hundreds of Guatemalans were beheaded, shot, raped, and burned alive, including children. Confronted on live T.V. in 1995 by journalist Allan Nairn about his role in covering up the torture, rape, and murder of Guatemalan human rights leader Rosario Godoy (her baby had his fingernails torn out), Abrams shamelessly stuck to the official story that "they died in a traffic accident."

The rational basis for slaughter policy was to deprive the guerrilla armies that Washington opposed of the civilian support they needed to survive. If there were no civilians, there could be no support. A U.S. mercenary in El Salvador in the 1980s corrected the erroneous view that the U.S. was targeting Communist insurgents: 

 

"The army is not killing communist guerrillas, despite what is reported. It is murdering the civilians who side with them. It's a beautiful technique. By terrorizing civilians the army is crushing the rebellion without the need to directly confront the guerrillas (emphasis added). Attacking civilians is the game plan. . . . Kill the sympathizers and you win the war." 

Abrams also worked diligently to destroy the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua, which had overthrown the dictatorship of Anastasio Somoza, whose long record of human rights crimes rivaled those in El Salvador and Guatemala. Ex-Somoza National Guardsmen famous for torture, rape, and murder, formed themselves into a mercenary army financed by Washington, spending the decade attacking civilian infrastructure like schools, farming cooperatives, medical clinics, and electricity generating plants, killing roughly thirty thousand Nicaraguans to punish them for having carried out a popular revolution. 

Later tried for lying to Congress about the Iran-Contra scandal, Abrams called the prosecutors "filthy bastards" and denounced members of the U.S. Intelligence Committee as "pious clowns" who asked "abysmally stupid" questions. When journalist Terry Allen told him that much of the world considered him a war criminal, he called her a "rotten bitch."  In 1991, he actually pled guilty to two counts of lying to Congress, but this was apparently only because he "wasn't authorized to tell the truth," as he put it.

After hearing Abrams testify, Missouri Senator Thomas Eagleton remarked, "I want to puke," a common enough sentiment among those subjected to the neo-con's perverse rationalizations for unspeakable crimes. 

The aforementioned Allan Nairn, a rare journalist who actually covered the truth rather than allowing it to be covered up, had the following exchanges with Abrams on the Charlie Rose show on March 31, 1995.

 

Nairn: . . . in the face of this systematic policy of slaughter by the Guatemalan military, more than 110,000 civilians killed by that military since 1978, what Amnesty International has called a "government program of political murder," the U.S.  has continued to provide covert assistance to the G-2 and they have continued, especially during the time of Mr. Abrams, to provide political aid and comfort. For example . . . .  

Abrams: Uh, Charlie.

Rose: One second.

Nairn:  . . . during the Northwest Highland massacres of the [early] 80s when the Catholic Church said: "Never in our history has it come to such grave extremes. It has reached the point of genocide." President Reagan went down, embraced [General] Rios-Montt, the dictator who was staging these massacres, and said he was getting "a bum rap on human rights." In '85 when human rights leader Rosario Godoy was abducted by the army, raped, and mutilated, her baby had his fingernails torn out, the Guatemalan military said: "Oh, they died in a traffic accident." Human rights groups contacted Mr. Abrams, asked him about it, he wrote back - this is his letter of reply - he said: yes, "there's no evidence other than that they died in a traffic accident." Now this is a woman raped and mutilated, a baby with his fingernails torn out. This is long-standing policy. 

Rose: . . . these are specific points raised by Allan having to do with your public conduct. 

Abrams: . . . I'm not here to refight the Cold War. I'm glad we won. . .

Nairn: Won against who, won against those civilians the Guatemalan army was massacring?

Abrams: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. We're not here to refight the Cold War . . . If Mr. Nairn thinks we should have been on the other side in Guatemala, that we should have been in favor of a guerrilla victory, I disagree with him.

Nairn: So you're admitting that you were on the side of the Guatemalan military!

Abrams: I am admitting that it was the policy of the United States, under Democrats and Republicans, approved by Congress repeatedly to oppose a Communist guerrilla victory anywhere in Central America including in Guatemala.

Nairn: "A Communist guerrilla victory!" Ninety-five percent of these victims are civilians - peasant organizers, human rights leaders, priests - assassinated by the U.S.-backed Guatemalan army. 

Rose: I'm happy to invite both of you back to review Reagan and Bush (Senior) administration policy. Right now I want to stick to this point . . . . 

Nairn: Let's look at reality here . . .  We're talking about more than a hundred thousand murders, an entire army, many of its top officers employees of the U.S. government. We're talking about crimes and we're also talking about criminals; not just people like Guatemalan Colonels but also the U.S. agents who've been working with them, and the higher level U.S. officials. I mean, I think you have to apply uniform standards. President Bush [Senior] once talked about putting Saddam Hussein on trial for crimes against humanity - Nuremberg style tribunal. I think that's a good idea. But if you're serious, you have to be even-handed. If you look at a case like this, I think we have to start talking about putting Guatemalan and U.S. officials on trial. I think someone like Mr. Abrams would be a fit subject for such a Nuremberg-style inquiry. 

Abrams: [laughs]

Nairn: . . . but I agree with Mr. Abrams that Democrats would have to be in the dock with him.

Rose: Well, well I  . . . again, I invite you and Elliot Abrams back to discuss what he did, but right now . . . .

Abrams: No thanks, Charlie, but . . . .

Rose: Elliot, go ahead Elliot, to repeat the question, do you want to be in the dock?

Abrams: It is ludicrous, it is ludicrous to respond to that kind of stupidity. This guy thinks we were on the wrong side in the Cold War.

Nairn: Mr. Abrams, you were on the wrong side in supporting the massacre of peasants and organizers and anyone who dared speak. Absolutely. And that's a crime. That's a crime, Mr. Abrams, for which people should be tried. It's against the law.

Abrams: (sarcastically) All right, we'll put all the American officials who won the Cold War in the dock.

Rose: . . . Allan Nairn is a distinguished reporter who won the George Polk Award last year. So, I mean, you know, I don't want him characterized on this broadcast as a crackpot. I mean, you can have a personal argument about what he says about you specifically, but . . . 

Abrams: Well, Charlie, Charlie, Charlie, when a guy tells me he thinks the entire U.S. leadership during the Cold War needs to have a Nuremberg trial, he's a crackpot.

Rose: OK, I mean, I, I wouldn't, point well taken.

Nairn: Well, it's Mr. Abrams's right to say whatever he wants, but the facts speak for themselves. And in the case of Guatemala you have this ongoing pattern of murder which has been public record - the Catholic Church in Guatemala has documented it, all the human rights groups have documented it. And on the public level, not even talking about the covert level, year after year the U.S. has continued to provide all different kinds of aid to the Guatemalan military. . . 

Abrams did indeed say whatever he wanted, which in the case of Guatemala was that General Rioss-Montt, later convicted of genocide, had "brought considerable progress" to the "war" - against defenseless civilians.

 

Sources:

Carlos Fazio, "Elliot Abrams Pressures Trump," La Jornada (Spanish) November 24, 2025 

Jim Cason and David Brooks, "Officials Present Trump Options For Military Action Against Venezuela," La Jornada, (Spanish) November 14, 2025

Jim Lobe, "Elliot Abrams returns promoting a Caracas cakewalk," Responsible Statecraft, November 21, 2025

Leigh Binford, The El Mozote Massacre, (University of Arizona, 1996) pps. 18-22

Terry J. Allen, "Iran Contra Villain Elliot Abrams is Back," Public Serpent, www.InTheseTimes.com, August 2001

U.S. mercenary in El Salvador quoted in Joel Fish and Cristina Sganga, El Salvador: Testament of Terror (Zed, 1988) p. 72

Abrams confronted on Charlie Rose March 31, 1995

Nick Fuentes Calls For Left-Right Cooperation To Elect An Actual Government of the People

"We're going to get into our featured story tonight, which is this resolution by Chuck Schumer. And this is a story in the New York Times about it. Today, the Senate minority leader, the top Democrat in the United States Senate, who is a Jew from New York, announced a resolution specifically condemning me, for anti-Semitism and white supremacy. This is the story. I'll read it, it says: 

Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer announced on Thursday that he will introduce a resolution condemning neo-Nazi influencer Nick Fuentes and his white-supremacist views after President Trump declined to condemn him or Tucker Carlson's platforming of him. Schumer announced the move while criticizing Trump's comments from over the weekend, in which the president noted that Carlson has said good things about him over the years, and defended his decision to host Fuentes on his show. 

After calling Trump's remarks "disgusting," Schumer warned that anti-Semitism in the United States has reached a dangerous tipping point. "Jewish Americans are facing threats, harassment, and violence at levels we have not seen in generations," he said. "For Donald Trump to continue to excuse and protect the spread of Nick Fuentes's ideology confirms what many of us have long said: white supremacy and anti-Semitism are taking deep roots within the Republican Party. Just as we saw from the leaked text of the young Republicans and administration officials, the Nick Fuentes saga on the right reveals that anti-Semitism and white supremacy had been growing with disturbing currency within the right wing." 

Schumer said his resolution will be focused on rejecting Nick Fuentes and his views, condemning Carlson's platforming of hate and anti-Semitism and white supremacy wherever and whenever it occurs. He said, "I hope my Republican colleagues will join me in this effort and co-sponsor this resolution calling out anti-Semitism, (which) should not be a partisan issue." He said, "When we refuse to condemn anti-Semitism, we stay silent and fail to reject anti-Semitic rhetoric. When we normalize hateful figures spewing disgusting anti-Semitism, this is when anti-Semitism spreads."

This is the Senate minority leader. This is the United States Senate. How many times . . . take a shot every time he says anti-Semitism. Is this all the government actually cares about? Because that's certainly how it seems. It seems like Republicans and Democrats, the only thing that they care about is that. On both sides. Like Chuck Schumer is right. It isn't a partisan issue. It's both parties. The GOP is in power, and currently it is a priority for the Department of State, for the Department of Health and Human Services, for the Department of Homeland Security, for the Department of Labor, for all of the federal departments and agencies, to fight anti-Semitism. 

 (The) Department of State is going through all of the visas. Every visa holder in the United States is having their social media reviewed for anti-Semitic content. The Secretary of Health and Human Services declared anti-Semitism as a public health crisis. The Department of Homeland Security Secretary has been firing people who criticize Israel in a memo. That's all they care about. And in the United States Senate the Democrats are passing a resolution condemning anti-Semitism. 

Let me ask you this. When Charlie Kirk was shot in the neck by a gunman whose identity we may not even know, was there any kind of outcry condemning the violence from Chuck Schumer then? Did we get resolutions in the Senate? Did we get mobilizations in the departments and agencies, or did people just forget and move on immediately? 

How about the war in Gaza? You've got an actual genocide, an actual ethnic cleansing, and by the way, that's government officials talking about it. You've got their (Israeli) finance minister and national security minister, in Israel, saying, "We're going to kill them all. We're going to deport every last Palestinian. We're going to take their land. We're going to kill them all." You've got members of the United States Congress like Randy Fine that have said the same thing. Kill them all (mocking tone). There's no innocent Palestinians.

 Think about the things in the country that we tolerated. That we tolerate. The political violence from the left, the mass migration, illegal and legal, the genocide in Gaza, which we support, the kind of hateful rhetoric we see from Republicans about Palestinians. About a genocide that we're paying for. And this is what the Senate is getting behind. And by the way, think about even the non-social issues. Like, for example, I don't know, how nobody can afford a house. 

So let's see, Republicans and Democrats can't agree on Obamacare subsidies. Chuck Schumer can't deliver on that. Chuck Schumer shut down the United States Senate for 45 days, and in the end couldn't even get the health care subsidies. Where's the Obamacare subsidies? So, not only will the Democrats not condemn a genocide in Gaza, they can't even get their own people health care. So what is the purpose of the Democratic Party? 

It's the same story on the right. The right-wing cannot deliver mass deportations. The right wing cannot deliver a protectionist agenda that creates jobs, but it can condemn anti-Semitism. Is that all the government can do? I would rebut and I would retort to Chuck Schumer. I would say, "Hey, man, why don't you get us the Obamacare subsidies? Why don't you get our people the Obamacare subsidies? Isn't that what your constituents elected you to do? Chuck, Senator, why don't you spend a little less time condemning a live streamer. And why don't you get your constituents their Obamacare subsidies that you promised?"

Forty-five day government shutdown. You had government workers furloughed, risk losing their jobs, flights delayed and disrupted, threatened with a loss of food assistance and other benefits. And in the end you didn't even deliver. You didn't even get the Obamacare subsidies, something that, by the way, I support. But you are going to propose a bill condemning anti-Semitism. 

To this day Israel bombs Lebanon, Gaza, the West Bank with impunity. They kill journalists. They kill international observers, peacekeepers, innocent people, in violation of all their various ceasefire agreements. No condemnation of that? From the Democrats, from the United States Senate. So, what is it that you actually stand for ultimately? Because it seems like a lot of hypocrisy. It seems like a lot of hypocrisy, a lot of lies, false promises. 

And it's like that on both sides. This is why I said the other night, why don't we have populist Republicans and populist Democrats that just solve problems? Just solve problems for Americans. And by the way, I am willing to compromise with the left 100%. I'll work with anybody. I saw the track AIPAC people. It's some progressive woman and some progressive gay guy. I'd work with them on shutting down AIPAC in a second, in a heartbeat. Same goes for Anna Kasparian and Cenk Uygur. They were in favor of democratic populism, they want to deliver health care, they want to deliver education. I would work with them in a second. In a second. A Zohran Mamdani, all day. 

That's why I said we need to re-think and re-align our politics, based on what actually matters, and what matters to us. We have to drop the wokeness, arguably on both sides. We have to drop the wokeness on the left, which is anti-white and obsessed with immigration, basically throwing the borders open. They have to get rid of the tone policing and language policing. And on the right we can work together with the left. Maybe we have to let go of some of the cruelty and abuse directed at some of the marginalized communities on their side. It's true. There are marginal people. What else would you call a racial minority, other than a marginal person? I'm okay with living in a society where we, where we, as long as we close the borders, we can take care of everybody in the country. We can figure out how we can all get along together, as long as there is a consensus agreement that we can put America first. But what I see from the Trump administration and from the Democrats is neither of them are willing or able to actually do anything for people, for people, for the actual people . . . . 

Chuck Schumer opens the government with no Obamacare subsidies, after they funded the Trump government earlier in the year, without a fight at all, but now he wants to put forward a bill on anti-Semitism. Really? So, which constituents are you working for exactly? 

You can't condemn the genocide in Gaza on behalf of your many Muslim or progressive constituents, or even Jewish constituents that have a problem with it, you can't deliver on Obamacare, but you're obsessed with anti-Semitism, white supremacy . . . that's just a race hustle. You're just a race hustler. That's just a load of crap. You can take your (anti-Semitism) resolution and shove it up your ass. No one cares. 

And the same is true on the Trump administration. What are they doing? The Trump administration has deported 300,000 illegal immigrants to date. There's nothing massive about that. Ten million came here in four years. They deported 300,000 in a year. 

The Trump administration extended the corporate tax cut. No tax cut for the middle class, no infrastructure bill, no jobs, nothing. Fifty thousand jobs down in October, they won't even release the data. But they're subsidizing AI, and eradicating regulations for AI, and cutting the corporate taxes. They're giving contracts to little tech, all their Silicon Valley donors. Policing anti-Semitism. 

And again, from both sides you're getting a lot of talk. You're getting Stephen Miller, larping his Goebbels, talking about hippie boomers and, you know, you are nothing. We don't like the third world. And on the left, you've got Chuck Schumer bitching about white supremacy and anti-Semitism. They get nothing done for anybody. Neither the left nor the right wins. The populists on both sides get nothing. The people are not being helped in any way. And yet, the one thing they are able to come together and work on is furnishing Israel with missiles, condemning anti-Semitism, funding Holocaust museums, endless stuff like that. 

So this is where we need to re-align the politics. I'm sorry, but I don't see myself as aligned, actually, with these guys on the right that are obsessed with Israel. And I think that a lot of the populists on the left don't see themselves as aligned with the pro-Israel people in the Democratic party.

                                               --------Nick Fuentes

 

Source:

Nick Fuentes EXPOSES Israel First Policy as a Bipartisan Plague," Liberty Vault, You Tube, November 24, 2025  

Nick Fuentes Throws Down The Gauntlet To Israel-First GOP

AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, deploys $100 million specifically to unseat left-wing progressive and right-wing nationalist Congressmen and women that are going to vote against foreign aid to Israel. The ADL, Anti-Defamation League, defamation of who? - the Jewish people - led by Jonathan Greenblatt, he's got a line at every social platform. In some sense he controls who has a platform and who doesn't. He leads the boycott against Ye (formerly Kanye West), against Mel Gibson, against other companies. 

Are you starting to see? This is how they operate. This is how they maintain control. They find the bottlenecks. They find the chokepoints in the elite institutions, and they focus their money, position, and resources to squash dissent, create chilling effects, so that other people are afraid to step out of line, and this is how they drag a country to war. This is how they get a bankrupt country to promise to give them $4 billion a year for twenty years. That's how they do it. That's how they've always done it. And that's all these people like Josh Hammer, and (Ben) Shapiro, and (Mark) Levin, and (Laura) Loomer, and the rest of them, that's all they care about. 

They don't want people to think these things; They don't want people to hear these things, say these things, organize on the basis of them. They don't want people that think these things in positions of power, because they know that the more that that happens, the less money Israel is going to get . . . . And Israel needs that money because they want to expand their borders, and they have a lot of enemies that they cannot fight by themselves. That's the grand irony. Shapiro says, "If you can't afford to live in the city you're born in, well, live somewhere else." If Israel can't afford to fight its own wars, (Shapiro says) "we have to send them $20 billion immediately!" Really? And this is where people are getting pissed off. Cause that's bullshit. 

Americans are being told - if you can't afford groceries, if you can't afford your house, get a 50-year mortgage, I don't know, get a debt contract with the bank for half of a century. You can't afford to live in a city your ancestors are buried in? I don't know - go work on an oil rig or something. Oh, Israel can't afford to fight its millions of enemies that they created to make their country bigger? Oh, well, send them the missiles they need - $20 billion immediately. Really?

You (Ben Shapiro) with your Israeli wife? Are you kidding me? And that's all they care about. This punk - Ben Shapiro - look at what a spiteful mutant he is. Look at what a spiteful little creature he is. He looks wicked. He looks in his face wicked. He's got his big giant hat on, and he sits there and he says, "You can never retire, Goyim, just get a 50-year mortgage. Go move somewhere else." 

Our country's broke. Our future was mortgaged. We're debt slaves to the government and BlackRock. If we can't afford it, get lost. Fuck off. If Israel can't afford the wars that they themselves start, Shapiro says what? We have to bail them out. We have to defend them. 

We have to give them our money? Why don't you (Shapiro) go and live there? You didn't even marry an American. You don't have American kids. You don't have an American wife. What's stopping you? What are you even doing here? Get lost. This country's for Americans. The tax dollars are for Americans. The government is for Americans. Everything you see here - this is for us. This is our country. And Trump is being used to thwart it. 

As long as Trump is America last, I'm not with Trump. And these guys like Shabbos Kestenbaum and Mark Levin and Randy Fine, they want to hide behind Trump and say,' "You're not MAGA." You're right. As long as MAGA puts America last, to hell with Trump. I don't want him. As long as Trump is with those guys, you can keep him. If Trump is with Randy Fine and Lindsey Graham and Ben Shapiro and fucking psycho (Laura) Loomer, and Mark Levin, you can have him. If that's what MAGA is, you can keep it. We want America First. We want America First. We want Tucker. We want Candace (Owens). We want Fuentes. We want Brett Cooper. We want Marjorie Green, Thomas Massie. We want America First. That's the new movement. You can have Trump. You can have Shapiro. You can keep all that shit. We're done with that.

And for people that say, "good riddance," I say, "See you in the mid-terms." For all those people that would say, "Who needs you?" "We don't need you in MAGA." Yeah, well, good luck in the mid-terms. Good luck with your majority, cause we're out. You put America last? You want us to vote for a Republican Congress, for what? So you can give our money to Israel? Fuck off. 

We won't show up. We won't be there in '26 and we'll be there in '28, but you're not gonna like it. We are coming in Iowa. We are coming for you in Iowa. We are coming for you in New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina. 

That's what they don't want to see. We are in the universities. We are in the think tanks, we are in the Congressional offices. We are in your fucking walls. And we will be there in every caucus in early primary state(s). We will be there in the GOP primary. And if you think you're going to pull this next time? Forget it. Trump says,' "I don't need your vote"? Well, let's see how that goes for your buddy J. D. Vance. Not going to go the way you think. You're not going to like it. So that's that."

                                            --------Nick Fuentes

Source:

"Nick Fuentes REVEALS the Only Way to Salvage the MAGA Coalition," Liberty Vault, You Tube, November 16, 2025

Heresy On The Right: Nick Fuentes Says Jewish Identity/Israel Incompatible with "America First"

  . . . as far as the Jews are concerned, I think that, like I said, you cannot actually divorce Israel and the neo-cons and all of those things that you talk about. . .  ethnicity, religion, identity . . . .and let me give you like a perfect example . . so you say on your (Tucker Carlson) show that we have to treat Israel like any other country . . . and I sort of understand that in principle because Israel is another foreign country, but Israel is unlike every other country in the sense that, because the Jewish people are in a diaspora all over the world, there are [a] significant number of Jews in Europe but also in the United States, and because of their unique heritage and story, which is that they're a stateless people, they're unassimilable, they resist assimilation for thousands of years - and I think that's a good thing - and now they have this territory in Israel. 

There's a deep religious affection for the state. It's bound up in their identity. The story of the Exodus from Egypt, the promise of the land, all these things. Let's say in the United States, for example, somebody like a Sheldon Adelson. He's not Israeli. Is he an ideological neo-con? Does he believe in the promise of democratic globalism? I don't think necessarily. His heart is in Israel. And it's because he's a proud Jewish person. 

And I guess what I'm saying is that, if you are a Jewish person in America, you're sort of, and again, it's not because they're born, but it's sort of a rational self-interest politically, to say, "I'm a minority - I'm a religious ethnic minority. This is not really my 'home.' My ancestral home is in Israel." That's like a natural affinity that Jews have for Israel, and I would say, on top of that, for the international Jewish community.  They're extremely organized and many of them are critical of Israel, or Israel's current government, or the project of Israel, but I guess what they have in common, unlike let's say, like Singapore, for example, is that they have this international community across borders, extremely organized, that is putting the interest of themselves before the interests of their home country. 

And there's like, there's no other country that has a similar arrangement like that. No other country has a strong identity like that, this religious blood and soil conviction, the history of being in the diaspora, stateless, wandering, persecuted, and, in particular, the historic animosity between the Jewish people and the Europeans. They hate the Romans because the Romans destroyed the Temple. That's why Eric Weinstein goes to the Arch of Titus and gives it the finger and takes a picture. We don't think like that as Americans and white people. We don't think about the Roman Empire and two thousand years ago. They do. 

And I guess that's really, and I don't think that's me saying the Jews, the Jews, the Jews. I don't think that's me being hateful. I don't think that's me being collectivist. I think that's understanding that identity politics, whether you love it or hate it, whatever you feel about it, it's a reality that we live in a world of Jews and Christians, of whites and blacks, these identities mean something to us and they mean things to each other. And we can't sort of wish them away. And it feels like white people and Christians are the only ones that do that. . . . .

A big challenge to (putting aside the tribal interest for the general interest*) is organized Jewry in America. I don't think Bill Ackman is capable of that. I don't think Sheldon Adelson is capable of that. I don't think Yoram Hazony is capable of that, for that matter. And many other(s) on the right and the left. And I see Jewishness as the common denominator. And you're right. It's not (that) all Jewish people feel the same way. No one would say that, but that does seem to be the common denominator. And I just feel like it needs to be called out explicitly. And I like what you said the other day. If you're serving in another country's military or have dual citizenship you really can't be a part of this (America First) project. . . . 

What I would like is for the United States government to not be influenced by these kinds of foreign allegiances. Not with money that comes from, you know, "American citizens" like Sheldon Adelson, not from foreign lobbyists. Like in terms of tangible things I don't think we disagree on any of it. Like registering AIPAC and FARA (Foreign Agents Registration Act), banning dual citizenship . . .. . 

We don't want to kill anybody, we don't want to harm anybody, we just want to put America First.

 

--------Nick Fuentes on the Tucker Carlson podcast, 10/27/25

*The specific phrase Tucker and Fuentes used for "general interest" was "corporate interest," which is, of course, the "tribalism" of Big Capital over the rest of us. 

 

Standing Up To The Bully: Moscow Rejects U.S. Attacks In the Caribbean

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov once again denounced U.S. actions taken against Venezuela yesterday, particularly the blowing up of nineteen small vessels that have claimed the lives of dozens of people not shown to have committed any crimes, let alone crimes deserving an instant death penalty without trial.

"On the pretext of fighting narco-trafficking it arbitrarily destroys boats without evidence that they are transporting drugs, as they claim," Lavrov said, adding that "that's not how countries that respect the law behave; it's how countries that believe themselves above it behave."

The top Russian diplomat, citing a recent article published in the British Daily Mail to the effect that corruption in the Belgian Embassy "is converting that country into a narco-state," recommended that Washington direct its drug war efforts there rather than to the global south. "Instead of fighting narco-trafficking in Nigeria or Venezuela, and while you're at it trying to keep their oil," he advised, "it would be better to dedicate your efforts to eradicating the rot in Belgium." 

Lavrov observed ironically that since the U.S. and other NATO member states already have troops stationed in Belgium, it's really unnecessary to attack Caribbean fishing boats with a handful of people on board. "I'm convinced the Trump administration's policy towards Venezuela isn't going to bring anything good nor will it increase U.S. prestige in international circles," he said.

The foreign minister denied that Venezuela had requested military aid from Russia in response to escalating U.S. threats against Caracas, as has been alleged by the international press based on anonymous sourcing, still less was the Kremlin going to install arms in the South American country. 

Deputies of the Russian Duma, the lower house of the Russian parliament, yesterday approved a declaration condemning the U.S. military presence off the coast of Venezuela, which includes the largest aircraft carrier in the world, guided missile destroyers, fighter planes, bombers (B-52 nuclear bombers regularly overfly Caracas to "terrorize" President Maduro, according to the Department of Homeland Security), elite helicopters, and at least ten thousand U.S. troops, a show of force that began in August. The legislators exhorted the international community "to firmly condemn the build-up of U.S. military force in the southern Caribbean, next to Venezuelan territorial waters, with the excuse of fighting narco-trafficking." The deputies "oppose Washington's aggressive and provocative actions" against Venezuela, "a sovereign state," which "contravenes universally accepted principles and norms of international law."

The document denounced the "attempts from outside to impose a puppet government" and maintained that the Venezuelan people "made their choice in favor of independence and defending their sovereignty."

Sources:

Juan Pablo Duch, "Moscow Rejects Washington's Harassment of Caracas and the Arbitrary Destruction of Boats," La Jornada (Spanish), November 12, 2025

Angel Gonzalez, "Venezuela Activates Massive Military Deployment In The Face of Possible U.S. Aggression," La Jornada (Spanish), November 12, 2025

"The United States Destroys Another Boat in the Caribbean With a Total of Three Dead," La Jornada (Spanish), November 7, 2025

Who Was Eugene Debs?

 Zohran Mamdani's quoting of Eugene Debs in his recent victory speech (for mayor of New York City) should awaken interest in the man who gained a name for himself as "Mr. Socialism."

For seventeen years Debs was the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, starving himself of sleep to bone up on politics, economics, and history. With painstaking effort he made himself into a manager's worst nightmare: an educated union man who could unravel the knots of capitalist contradiction, making the need for revolution plain for all to see. 

Unable to ignore workers' constant pleas for help, he went everywhere he was called, never managing to get his suitcase unpacked. In bad years he donated up to $900 of his $1500 salary to keeping the union and its magazine afloat, steering the workers through strikes, depression, and looming bankruptcy. 

Night after night he went tramping through railroad yards, where his constant agitation got him thrown out of the roundhouse (a circular building used for servicing and storing trains) and ejected from trains.

He became a magnificent popular speaker, eventually making socialism as American as the Liberty Bell.  He praised the fighting spirit of the workers and heaped scorn on the mining companies and "cockroach" small shop capitalists who exploited them.  Even those who had heard it all before couldn't resist his spell. When he rehearsed his speeches at home his neighbors came out onto their porches to eavesdrop.

By the time he ran for president in 1904 (the second of five attempts, the last one from a prison cell), socialism had elbowed its way onto the national political scene. Schoolteachers warned of its growing menace; workers jammed meeting halls to hear of its glowing promise.

Debs was the unanimous choice to represent the Socialist Party that year. In the wake of a dizzying spate of corporate mergers, three hundred firms controlled more than forty percent of the industrial capital of the country and monopoly quickly emerged as the dominant issue of the campaign. Selling out auditoriums with paid admissions, Debs ridiculed Teddy Roosevelt's trust-busting schemes for their failure to realign class power, and scoffed at the notion that a state dominated by gigantic private corporations could ever alleviate the workers' distress: "Government ownership of public utilities means nothing for labor under capitalist ownership of government," he thundered. 

With muckraking journalists continuing to expose the profit system's massive fraud, waste, and abuse, more and more people inclined to the belief that capitalism was doomed.

The socialist Appeal to Reason boasted a readership of half a million, educating a huge mass of farmers, factory-workers, and railwaymen in the Mid-West alone. Its December anti-trust issue that year piled up three million advance orders, the largest edition of any newspaper in American history. In New York City, The Call was a staple of every working-class neighborhood while red-covered pamphlets of Marx and socialist brochures circulated in the millions throughout the country. Teddy Roosevelt warned that socialism was "far more ominous than any populist or similar movement in times past." Radicals and reactionaries alike saw the Socialist Party as the future opposition party of the United States. 

An army of Debs volunteers solicited contributions, rang doorbells, sold newspapers, talked up strangers, and shouted the political heresy of justice for workers from soapboxes and courthouse stairs, delivering four hundred twenty thousand votes for Debs, quadrupling his support of four years before. 

Conceding that charity had a claim on private conscience but strenuously rejecting any worker entitlement to monopoly profits, Teddy Roosevelt rode a tsunami of corporate cash to victory at the polls.

Refusing to be stopped by rheumatism, lumbago, or chronic headaches, Debs ran for president again in 1908.

Touring the country by train in his "Red Special," he drew huge crowds yearning to see the burning eyes of a prophet and feel the glow of solidarity from a real man of the people. For sixty-five consecutive days he addressed five to twenty rallies a day all across the country. The New York Times called his sold-out appearance in New York's Hippodrome the greatest political meeting ever held in that city. 

As vulgar smears and incendiary slanders failed to stop the rising socialist tide, a note of desperation crept into the voices of Democratic and Republican officials scheming to "Stop Debs."

Republican William Howard Taft spoke for free at the Music Hall in his hometown of Cincinnati and could barely fill the seats; Debs charged a dime admission at the same hall to poor workers and had to turn many away.

In a spirit of fair competition the socialists proposed that Taft address their rally for twenty minutes in exchange for Debs speaking to the Republican audience for the same length of time. The Taft campaign quickly rejected the offer. 

Known among workers as the "father of injunctions" for his success in quashing strikes by court order, Taft won the White House on the strength of vast corporate campaign donations via the National Association of Manufacturers.

Unable to crack the capitalist monopoly of political power, labor's influence continued to grow in subsequent years through popular organizing and education. Finally, in 1917 it was dealt a decisive blow by Woodrow Wilson, who drafted workers into the industrial slaughter of modern warfare and sent them into Europe's killing fields (WWI). Rejecting appeals to "patriotism," Debs refused to go along, and was jailed for obstructing the draft. His speech at sentencing was a masterful appeal for socialism.*

Given ten years in an Atlanta penitentiary, he befriended all his fellow inmates, in the end winning over even his jailers with his unfailing kindness and sincerity. 

Only one heart was too hard for him to reach - Woodrow Wilson's. In his waning days in the presidency the Great Idealist refused a customary Christmas pardon for Debs, whose conduct actually lived up to Wilson's high-minded rhetoric, which merely rang hollow in the president's mouth.

Finally released by Republican Warren Harding on Christmas Day 2021, Debs enjoyed the rare privilege of being able to say farewell to his fellow prisoners when the warden waived regulations for the occasion.

As Debs proceeded down the walkway leading away from the jail, a huge roar went up behind him from two thousand of society's forgotten and despised. Turning to say goodbye, Prisoner 9563, who always refused special privileges and treated them as the men they were, took in the ovation, tears streaming down his face.

*"Your Honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.

"I listened to all that was said in this court in support and justification of this prosecution, but my mind remains unchanged. I look upon the Espionage Law as a despotic enactment in flagrant conflict with democratic principles and with the spirit of free institutions . . . Your Honor, I have stated in this court that I am opposed to the social system in which we live; that I believe in a fundamental change - but if possible by peaceable and orderly means. . . 

"I am thinking this morning of the men in the mills and the factories; of the men in the mines and on the railroads. I am thinking of the women who for a paltry wage are compelled to work out their barren lives; of the little children who in this system are robbed of their childhood and in their tender years are seized in the remorseless grasp of Mammon and forced into the industrial dungeons, there to feed the monster machines while they themselves are being starved and stunted, body and soul. I see them dwarfed and diseased and their little lives broken and blasted because in this high noon of Christian civilization money is still so much more important than the flesh and blood of childhood. In very truth gold is god today and rules with pitiless sway in the affairs of men. 

"In this country - the most favored beneath the bending skies - we have vast areas of the richest and most fertile soil, material resources in inexhaustible abundance, the most marvelous productive machinery on earth, and millions of eager workers ready to apply their labor to that machinery to produce in abundance for every man, woman, and child - and if there are still vast numbers of our people who are the victims of poverty and whose lives are an unceasing struggle all the way from youth to old age, until at last death comes to their rescue and lulls these hapless victims to dreamless sleep, it is not the fault of the Almighty: it cannot be charged to nature, but it is due entirely to the outgrown social system in which we live that ought to be abolished not only in the interest of the toiling masses but in the higher interest of all humanity . . . .

"I believe, Your Honor, in common with all Socialists, that this nation ought to own and control its own industries. I believe, as all Socialists do, that all things that are jointly needed and used ought to be jointly owned - that industry, the basis of our social life, instead of being the private property of a few and operated for their enrichment, ought to be the common property of all, democratically administered in the interest of all . . . 

"I am opposing a social order in which it is possible for one man who does absolutely nothing that is useful to amass a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars, while millions of men and women who work all the days of their lives secure barely enough for a wretched existence.

"This order of things cannot always endure. I have registered my protest against it. I recognize the feebleness of my effort, but, fortunately, I am not alone. There are multiplied thousands of others who, like myself, have come to realize that before we may truly enjoy the blessings of civilized life, we must reorganize society upon a mutual and cooperative basis; and to this end we have organized a great economic and political movement that spreads over the face of all the earth. . . . 

"Your Honor, I ask no mercy and I plead for no immunity. I realize that finally the right must prevail. I never so clearly comprehended as now the great struggle between the powers of greed and exploitation on the one hand and upon the other the rising hosts of industrial freedom and social justice." 

                                                               --------Eugene Debs, 1918

 

Sources:

Philip S. Foner, History of the Labor Movement in the United States, Vol. 3 -The Policies and Practices of the American Federation of Labor 1900-1909, International Publishers, 1964) p. 306, 349, 356-7

Joseph Freeman, An American Testament - a narrative of rebels and romantics, (Farrar & Rinehart, 1936, p. 36)

Ray Ginger, The Bending Cross - A Biography of Eugene Victor Debs, (Rutgers, 1949) p. pps. 226, 230-3, 281-2

Mathew Josephson, The President Makers - The Culture of Politics and Leadership in an Age of Enlightenment 1896-1919 (Harcourt, 1940)pps. 168-9

Louis Adamic, Dynamite - The Story of Class Violence in America,  (Chelsea House, 1958) pps. 128-33

Howard Zinn, Eugene Debs and the Idea of Socialism, August 8, 2022, www.rethinkingschools.org

Debs speech at sentencing quoted from Chris Hedges, America: The Farewell Tour, pps. 107-9