Who's In Charge And What's Going On?

It’d be interesting to take a poll that asks, Were you surprised by Zhou’s obvious dementia in his debate debacle? The results might give some clue as to who follows politics in this country. Nobody who does follow politics could possibly have been surprised. And yet the Fourth Branch, the media, desperately want us to believe that they didn’t know—or that we shouldn’t worry because he’s reported to be more or less in touch for about 6 hours a day (according to Axios’ sources). I suppose Bluto Barr would like you to believe he didn’t know Zhou was fuzzy on the best days, a criminal, or that the Hunter laptop was real. Everybody except six SCOTUS justices knows better—at least if they follow the news just a little bit.

Andrew Korybko insists on this point:

Don't Let The Elite Get Away With Gaslighting That They Didn't Know About Biden's Senility

…

The reality is that they knew about this all along but covered it up by lying that any claims to this effect were “Russian propaganda” and/or a “conspiracy theory”, all because they actually approved of the Democrats installing a literal placeholder in the White House who the liberal-globalist elite could control. It was a refreshing change of pace from Trump, who was much too independent for their liking despite his occasional capitulations to their demands, and it also reassured America’s allies who disliked him too.

... The country is being ruled by a shadowy network of transnational and domestic elites that are united by their radical liberal-globalist ideology.

Biden was chosen as the Democrats’ candidate in 2020 precisely because he was already senile and therefore completely controllable. That party, which functions as the public face of the above mentioned elite network, wanted someone who’d do whatever they demanded on the home and foreign policy fronts. In particular, they sought to turn America into a liberal-globalist hellhole while ramping up NATO’s containment of Russia in Ukraine, but the second policy backfired after the special operation began.

Nevertheless, they’ll never have another chance to install someone like Biden since 2020 was an exceptional election year due to it being a referendum on Trump – who a significant share of the public was preconditioned to falsely believe is the new Hitler – and mail-in voting due to COVID-19. These conditions can never be replicated in the same way again no matter how hard the elite try, which is why they decided to keep Biden as their candidate instead of replace him early on.

Although there’s now a push by some for him to be replaced during the party’s upcoming national convention, Politico and NBC News among others both pointed out that this would be a difficult process, so there’s no guarantee that they’ll seriously attempt it. ...

Any acknowledgement that they were aware of this would expose their role in 2020’s de facto coup, which was the elite’s latest after the ones in 2001, 1974, and 1963. Back then, 9/11 was exploited as the pretext for taking the national security state to its next level, while Nixon’s resignation in the face of the CIA’s Watergate scandal was meant to remove a truly independent and popular visionary leader. As for Kennedy’s assassination, many believe that it was aimed to stop his planned withdrawal from Vietnam.

The elite’s latest coup was meant to turbocharge the US’ preexisting liberal-globalist trajectory after Trump partially offset it with his comparatively more conservative-nationalist policies, which necessitated provoking a proxy war with Russia in order to unify the West around this ideological cause. The damage has already been dealt and a lot of it is irreparable, but Trump’s return to power would still be better for Americans and the rest of the world, which is why the elite are dead-set against it.  

…

Two key takeaways to remember:

1. Trump’s occasional capitulations, and

2. The country is being ruled by a shadowy network of transnational and domestic elites.

Moving on. David Sacks came out with what you could call a convergent narrative—it works very well with much of what Korybko wrote. Obviously, there’s nothing terribly remarkable about what Sacks is saying here. What’s at least somewhat remarkable is that Sacks and some others like him are saying it out loud:

Revolver News @RevolverNewsUSA

Remarkable monologue from David Sacks:

"The Democratic party is a collection of interests who want to remain in power. The Democratic Party is the party of government. Its goal is to allocate money and power from the government to the collection of interests who back the Democratic Party. In other words, it's basically a collection of interests who want to loot the Republic.

Well obviously, no one's going to vote for that. So they have to make it about something else. They choose a figurehead, they talk about how this is about saving democracy. They basically invent, hoax after hoax, lie after lie to basically maintain their power.

And I think what's happened is, the mask has come off, the whole shell game has been revealed. It's obvious that Biden was always a puppet for these interests who were hiding behind him. And now, it's all being exposed."

12:39 PM · Jun 29, 2024

I hope all that sounds at least vaguely familiar. But, who are the people in this “shadowy network” (Korybko), “these interests who want to loot the Republic” (Sacks)? Ultimately “shadowy networks” and “interests” are made up of people—real people with names connected to other people with names. If Zhou was simply a figurehead or placeholder, then there had to be real people who could call the shots and make them stick. People with clout. People who could lay down policies like, War with Russia, or, Open borders.

Interestingly, another guy like Sacks—super wealthy, tech oriented—accepted a narrative about the Open Border policy that raised some eyebrows. Not Bill Ackman’s eyebrows, mind you—this is from Ackman’s Wikipedia page, footnotes 87 and 88:

• Squire, Paul (December 8, 2023). "Why Bill Ackman says Harvard needs to answer for antisemitism, but says Elon Musk's comments are OK". Business Insider.

• "Jewish communties [sic] have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them. I'm deeply disinterested in giving the tiniest shit now about western Jewish populations coming to the disturbing realization that those hordes of minorities [they supported] flooding their country don't exactly like them too much. You want truth said to your face, there it is". Twitter. November 15, 2023.

Musk replied to the post and said it was the "actual truth." Now, in the X post that Musk said was the “actual truth,” “whites” means Gentiles, white Christian Americans—the kind of lazy ass people Bill Kristol famously said “we” need to replace. The poster was saying that “Jewish communities” have supported flooding America with “hordes of minorities”, presumably to replace those “whites”, and Musk responded, Duh, yeah—that’s the “actual truth.”

Look at it this way. Walt and Mearsheimer in their famous book on The Israel Lobby focused on Jewish American influence over America’s foreign policy as regards matters affecting Israel. But Jewish American consensus policy interests are not confined to Israel—revenge against Russia, as we now understand, ranks high up the list. As I’ve maintained, the American war on Russia does have a connection to Israel—in that maintaining America’s global hegemonic status is in Israel’s interest, given that Jewish Americans control America foreign policy. It doesn’t take much reflection to realize that “diversity”—including the flood of migrants—is a part of the self identified “interest” of a majority of Jewish Americans in diluting what remains of traditional Christian culture in America. That certainly appears to be what Musk said was the “actual truth.” Anti-gentilism is a thing.

Which is a long way of saying that maybe the “shadowy network” and the “interests” have places of intersection with The Israel Lobby. Walt and Mearsheimer discussed this with respect to America’s Israel policy, but Musk—in a one liner—asserted that the “actual truth” of Jewish American policy interests and actual influence extends to other major issues and challenges facing America. Musk and Sacks see those preoccupations as harmful to America. That, of course, means that Jewish Americans are not uniformly in favor of the policy preferences of the organized Jewish Community—but Musk and Sacks do recognize the danger for America in those policy preferences and preoccupations. And of course the current of anti-Christian prejudice runs deep in the modern former West—it’s very largely the story of the West from the14th century onwards. The point is to isolate those groups who are in charge of America at this particular juncture.

What does it all mean—in a practical sense?

Yesterday Alexander Mercouris had a disturbing discussion about the US having deployed medium range nuclear capable ballistic missiles to Europe and to the Philippines. He specified that those missiles could hit targets in European Russia. It’s important to understand that there was an arms control treaty in place that banned the development of such missiles. The US unilaterally withdrew from that treaty in 2019.

That’s right—Trump did that. That was one of his “occasional capitulations” to Neocons and their fantasy that we could fight and “win” a nuclear war. Larry Johnson has a good review of what this means for the world, and how foolish Trump’s “occasional capitulation” was.

This is an elaborate and potentially deadly game of international chess. The US withdrew from the INF. Russia held its fire and did not launch a program to build such missile systems. Now, after the United States brought these weapon systems to Europe and conducted a military exercise that simulated an attack on Russia, Putin effectively announced that Russia will start building a new group of medium-range cruise and ballistic missiles with an effective range of 500 to 5,000 kilometers.

Given the decrepit state of the Western industrial capacity, it is highly likely that Russia, has it has done with hypersonic missiles, will dramatically outpace and outproduce the West in bringing these new missiles as just one more weapon system it can employ against the West, if needed.

Korybko’s contention—and Sacks probably agrees, given his support for Trump—that Trump gave in to heavy pressure from the “shadow network” and “interests” that control most of the policy decisions that come out of DC. That whole issue didn’t come up in the debates, perhaps because to raise that issue would also have exposed the fact that, while Trump made this foolish decision possible by withdrawing from the INF treaty, it was the Zhou “shadowy network” that made the decision to actually deploy those missiles. So the question is, What sane person would feel comfortable about that type of decision being made by the hollow shell of a person they saw on stage with Trump the other night? There’s another question, which is, Who were the people who actually pushed that decision on Zhou? In strategic terms, that was a truly momentous decision that should have been discussed in NatSec circles from top to bottom in our government. Or maybe it was a decision that was more or less imposed from on high by the “shadow network” and “interests.” Scary enough for ya?

There are other important things going on out in the world, too. Things that one would ordinarily occupy the full attention of your average Commander in Chief. However, Zhou is not your average CinC—we’re now being told that he only has about 6 semi-lucid hours in any given day, and you can bet that most of that time is occupied with campaign affairs. So who’s really calling the shots, say, in the Middle East. There’s lots going on there. Especially the buildup to a possible war on Hezbollah—which Iran reliably assures us will end up involving virtually everyone that mattes in the region. Here at MiH we’ve been focused on the activity of Amos Hochstein—the Israeli citizen who’s also the US “special envoy” to Lebanon. As is typically the case with US special envoys, Hochstein’s brand of “diplomacy” appears to be attempting to pressure the Lebanese government to be our proxy in attacking Hezbollah. This would certainly lead to an explosive regional war, beyond the borders of Lebanon. The UK is supporting the US in this venture, as we’re now learning:

UK HAS SENT 74 WAR PLANES FROM CYPRUS TO LEBANON SINCE MARCH

Number of RAF aircraft landed in Beirut by Britain, a key backer of the Israeli military, has surged in recent months amid threats of a new offensive, but their purpose remains unclear.

There are four months until the election. Who will be in charge? Who will be responsible for the conflicts and confrontations that we will inevitably face? We know Zhou won’t be the one. Who will it be?