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

 

 

Workers Triumph in New York: Mamdani Wins

Zohran Mamdani, an anti-Zionist Muslim socialist of South Asian descent, has won the New York City mayor's race, triumphing over billionaires and powerful Zionists to take the reins of city government in the heart of U.S. capitalism, where the largest Jewish population in the world outside of Israel resides.

President Donald Trump, who has called Mamdani a "Communist lunatic" and threatened to deport him (and cut federal funding to New York) should he become mayor, denied that his victory at the polls had anything to do with him, though it was clearly a repudiation of the MAGA (Make America Grotesque Again) agenda, while also much more than that.

Voter participation in New York was the highest it has been since 1969, exceeding two million, while Mamdani's campaign enlisted a diverse volunteer force of 100,000, including South Asians, Latinos, Africans, and indigenous peoples, an ethnic and cultural kaleidoscope of Muslims, Christians, and Jews.

The popular outpouring of support for Mamdani was expressed in New York City's two hundred different languages, a Tower of Babel whose champion - an immigrant, Muslim, and socialist - appears to be the antithesis of the vulgar degenerate in the White House. Upon news of victory, large crowds of supporters that had gathered in bars, nightclubs, and Mamdani campaign headquarters joyfully broke into song, and dance, and cheers.

In a powerfully lyrical victory speech before a packed crowd at the Paramount Theater in Brooklyn, Mamdani cited the great socialist leader Eugene Debs saying, "I can see the dawn of a better day for humanity." Again and again he called his victory a triumph of the working people of New York and assured them that the future "is in our hands." He gave thanks to Yemeni bodega owners, Trinidadian line cooks, Mexican grandmothers, Senegalese taxi drivers, Ethiopian aunties, and Uzbek nurses.

Excellent message discipline around vital economic issues (rent, transportation, child care) spurred the campaign to victory. On other topics, however, Mamdani has shown ideological vulnerability, such as when he called the presidents of Cuba and Venezuela "dictators" while downplaying the ruinous sanctions imposed on those countries by the dictatorship of capital. He also maintained that Israel has a right to exist "as a state with equal rights," without noting that it is precisely this that Jewish apartheid can never become. Finally, on the second anniversary of the October 7 attacks he denounced Hamas for having committed "a horrific war crime," without mentioning that Palestinians have both a legal and moral right to forcefully resist Israeli occupation, and that they were breaking out of a concentration camp full of children at the time.

But if we cannot yet pronounce this a new dawn for New York City, we can and should at least acknowledge that it's an expression of real democracy, as well as a timely reminder that tomorrow doesn't have to mean a repetition of today.

Sources:

"A New Progressive Generation in The U.S. Bursts Forth With Election Victories," La Jornada (Spanish), November 5, 2024 

"Zohram Mamdani and a Small Victory for the People," Black Agenda Report, November 5, 2025