Can anyone point me to a politician in the West, with executive power and not a legislator, who mouths all the usual bromides about support for Israel, but who after getting into power, did absolutely nothing on the issue, or perhaps actively worked against Israel's foreign policy interests?
Comments (42)
sorted by:
Populist leaders might- i think this is why globalist hate them: they put their country's interests first when things get complicated
Along those same lines about populists, has Bolsenaro drank the Kool-aid?
That's what i was implying to examine actually
What's the difference between a "Populist" and a"Nationalist" ?
Probably should have said nationalist technically. The difference is in the method. Populists appeal to the interests of the population whereas nationalists to the national state.
OK, so what's the difference between "Democracy" and "populism" ?
Any thoughts?
Democracy is rule by majority interest not necessarily by popular interest. Also populism implies the opposite is special interests this ie. ant-"elitism". It can be used both by the left (eg Obama) and the right (ie trump)
Also... if you don't mind:
What's the difference between a "nationalist" and a "globalist" ?
I assume it's possible to be globalist AND a populist, correct?
But can someone be anti-globalist without being a nationalist?
Sorry to digress... just curious to get some opinions on this issue.
Globalist use arguments that nation states should forgo their national interests in lieu of global good. For example, developing basins shouldn't be allowed to industrialize because it's bad for the -economy- i mean the environment.
AIPAC exerts heavy influence on our foreign policy in regards to IsRaEl.
There is not a single Executive or legislator who will defy them.
To do so would be political suicide.
Been this way since Truman.
So the personal and political animus between Obama and Netanyahu wasn't real? He won reelection handily.
Well, Obama, a Muslim was photographed at the wailing wall, wearing a yamika, as POTUS. Answers that question. Any public display of animosity between political rivals is mere theatrics, an illusion.
Does it really answer that question? And is it really an illusion?
Exile all Jews from America to Israel.
No more dual citizenship. No more stealing our intellectual property. No more looting our nation of its resources and treasures. Your fiat federal reserve notes are scratchy toilet paper.
I would go one step further....
I would pay anyone $50,000 to:
give up their USA citizenship
and leave the USA
...and no more dual citizens.
Pick a side. We'll pay you to leave.
I figure it might cost $1 trillion to exile all the douchebags who believe the USA sucks / isn't worthy of their participation.
Seriously... can you imagine how awesome USA would be after a "spring cleaning" like that ?
Impaling them would be cheaper
I agree with this - implies you pay taxes twice ?
Anyway, dual citizenship is a nasty business
More to the point: there is absolutely no need for it.
Do you know that many Americans maintain dual citizenship with other countries beyond Israel? Does that keep you up at night or are you only scared of Jews?
I'm not scared of Jews. I just acknowledge they are dominant in positions of power. Not because they are strong warriors. Only because so many "goyim" are deceived believing their real oppressors are the ultimate victims of the 20th century.
lol, are you a "strong warrior"?
Yes
LMAO, then how come you're so scared of those big bad Jews?
Quite the contrary.
Jews reveal how scared they are of White Christian Conservatives every time they're screeding about "white nationalist terrorists" on CNN and the rest of their jew liar propaganda networks
Really? Because it seems like you do a lot more whining about Jews than Jews do about you. Have you ever met one?
That would be a breath of fresh air, a good strategy.
a) one ignores power when using it to consent to be represented by the power of others.
b) getting into suggested power implies being vetted by the ones wielding it.
c) the power of the "chosen ones" represents each other ones ignorance of representing choice.
d) the few wield the ignorance of the many as the power over them.
Natural law represents LEGIS (law) LATUM (given); those within represent EX (out of; from) SEQUOR (to follow); hence one being executive (living) within legislating (process of dying).
All suggested legislation by the few tempt the many to consent to submission of choice...a choice required to execute within the legislating natural law, hence expressing (growth) within impression (loss).
a) that which HE BREWS (process of dying); she transmutes out of (living). A suggested brand to hide an alchemical process.
b) ISRAEL; noun - "the jewish people". he-brew no "j"; hence "yew" aka kabbalistic phonetic for "YOU"
c) the few suggest jew vs gentile to tempt the many to ignore oneself (me) among the "generated yous". For the generated (process of dying) me (living) every one else represents a perceivable "you". Who can one blame but other ones? Who can I blame but the YOUS (jews)? Are the YOUS (jews) living rent free in my head when I choose to blame others?
d) what if all represents one in energy? What if one (perceiving) exists within oneness (perceivable) aka as partial (living) transmuted out of whole (process of dying) aka as temporary growth within ongoing loss?
What if being form (life) within flow (inception towards death) implies flow to form (inception); form within flow (life) and form to flow (death) aka ingredient transmuted out of base alchemy?
e) what if one thing (perceiving) within everything (perceivable) can be suggested to ignore it for nothing? What if the suggested word (fiction) tempts one to ignore the perceivable sound (reality)? What if consenting to suggested over perceivable allows those suggesting to define (idolatry); redefine (revisionism) and contradict (talmudic reasoning) the suggested meaning at their free will of choice?
f) what if choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law; not only binds one to the choice of others; but also tempts one to ignore being reaction (perceiving) within enacting (perceivable) under natural law?
SUPPORT, verb [Latin supporto; sub and porto, to carry.] - "to sustain"...what if support implies self sustenance by carrying the burden of response-ability (living) within temptation (process of dying)?