It is a Catch-22 for Jews around the world who support Israel above all else. For example, if they cancel, suppress, or target figures like Nick Fuentes—who accuses those Jews of controlling Hollywood, media, finance, and U.S. politicians—they only confirm his claims and those of like-minded voices, including Tucker Carlson, Glenn Greenwald, and many others.
Of course, such suppression will bolster the number of Americans and people worldwide who believe Jews wield too much power, especially by using it to aid a foreign country.
Most fair-minded people around the world support Israel’s survival as a nation with a Jewish majority—religious or not—as a safe haven for Jews. For most, it makes sense that Jews grew tired of persecution and second-class citizenship in nearly all non-Jewish countries.
Many even view Israel’s creation in Palestine as fair, despite the inevitable conflict with Palestinians—even if those Palestinians are Muslims descended from those who conquered that region of the Eastern Roman (Christian) Empire, where millions of Christians, Jews, and Samaritans once lived.
All of them were treated as second-class citizens under Muslim rule, paying taxes for not being Muslim, plus heavier levies if they owned land or traded.
Over centuries, this encouraged conversions to Islam, including among those seeking to join the ruling elite.
So, when Jews began migrating to Palestine—especially after the Holocaust—most in the West sided with the Jewish newcomers. Besides, they arrived as peaceful immigrants.
Quite naturally, the Palestinian majority (mostly Muslim, with some Christians) felt threatened by the prospect of becoming a minority, victims of an earlier version of “population replacement”.
The Moslems, and the 10% Christian Atabs too, revolted; the Jews fought back and prevailed from the start. After every conflict, the Jews gained more power and land.
The final result is what we have today: Palestinians are citizens of Israel or live in Gaza and the West Bank—territories which together are five times smaller than Israel.
Unfortunately, Palestinians have suffered under poor leaders unwilling to accept Israel’s existence. Theystubbornly but unrealistically, thought they could “throw the Jews into the sea”. They grossly miscalculated their military force-ability in relation to the Jews, instead of accepting Israel as long as a viable Palestinian state coould be established.
Quite naturally, Palestinian intransigence created Jewish intransigency and more and more Jews opter for a mindset which coould be described us: “you hate us, you want to kill us, you want to throw us into the sea?, to hell with you!”.
More and more Jews felt fustified in thinking: “you want to destroy us as a people and a nation?, we will destroy you!”.
Over the years, the Jews of Israel, knowing themselves stronger militarily, economically and technogically than the Palestinians, and backed by the Jews in the US and by US politicians, could not resist the temptation of taking the opportunity to recreate the Biblical Israel which went from the Nile to Turkey.
Perhaps they do not want that far but who could fault rhem from including Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza? They feel strong, the Palestinians are weak and make stupud attacks like October 7, why did they expect?, that Israel would surrender? Insane illogic
At the same time, many Jews migrated to the U.S., etc., where they prospered and grew increasingly influential there, in Canada and other Western countries. Logically, they used that influence to support Israel.
Up until recently, most in the West remained strongly supportive of Israel, due to the Holocaust’s shadow and the effective efforts of Jews to keep its memory alive through books, movies, museums, and more.
Perhaps they were too successful; a number of non-Jews began to find it unfair—or even felt resentful—that Jews seemed to “push” their tragedy “too much”, especially when other horrors killed far more millions, like the Ukrainian Holodomor under Communists, their vast gulags, or the tens of millions starved by Mao and the CCP.
Other non-Jews started to feel tbat it was u fair lf Jews to even criticise the US of not doing enough to save Jews from the nazis, even if it was thanks to the Americans that many more Jews were not killed by the nazis. After all, if the US had not entered WW II it is very likely that Germany and Japan would have won the war.
Perhaps it is true Americans coyld have done more but to most non-Jews such criticism does not seem fair given what America did for European Jews.
But Jews managed, intentionally or not, to make many Americans uncomfortable; perhaps guilry, perhaps resentful, not good.
Jews (and others, perhaps mostly Marxists) accused the U.S. of more, turning away Jewish refugees, discriminating against American Jews (e.g., quotas limiting Jewish university admissions). While all this is true, more and more Americans grew uncomfortable with the endless guilt.
As often happens, some concluded America was inherently bad, and that their (mostly white) parents and grandparents belonged to a bad people.
Add to that the emphasis by leftist Jews and non-Jews on white guilt over Black slavery—despite whites abolishing it, and despite Jewish and other slave owners—and many whites felt even more burdened.
Guilt often metastizes into one of two things: It erodes the self-worth of the guilty (here, mostly white Americans and Anglo-Europeans), or it morphs into resentment and anger toward those seen as its source—in this case, Jews and leftists (often Marxists posing as Democrats).
These anti-Jewish sentiments have likely been simmering quietly for years. You could sense them in private conversations, but people stayed silent to avoid being labeled antisemites, facing job repercussions, etc.
I have no doubt Jews believed they were doing the right thing—ensuring the Holocaust’s memory endured. Unfortunately, many non-Jews found the insistence “excessive.”
What counts as “excessive” is subjective; reasonable Jews and non-Jews disagree on both sides.
But there’s more. Due to two flaws in the U.S. system—flaws predating significant Jewish presence or influence—Jews and other lobbies realized the advantages of swaying elected officials.
In the U.S. and similar democracies, voters elect politicians who then hold unchecked executive and legislative power. Once in office, there’s no mechanism for citizens to veto laws, force new policies, or intervene between elections. Voters can only write letters, post on social media, protest, or wait for the next vote. New politicians, however, wield the same unchecked power as their predecessors.
From the start, the U.S. Constitution permitted lobbying, so big money, unions, professional groups, and businesses exerted far more influence than ordinary voters ever could.
America never had pure “government for the people”—it was always for special interests with resources.
Logically, Jews—like all ethnic groups—lobbied politicians. Jews simply proved more successful, and I can’t criticize them for that; it’s legal.
The situation worsened into a disaster, effectively gutting representative democracy, when the Supreme Court in 1976 (Buckley v. Valeo) and 2010 (Citizens United) removed limits on campaign financing. These decisions, to me, are insane.
They destroyed democracy because all U.S. politicians now depend on massive donations and in-kind support to run viable campaigns. Reject them, and you’re unelectable. The result? Every politician owes favors to lobbies upon taking office.
A candidate might decline one lobby’s money, but they’ll need others’—or face silence in the media.
The richer or more influential the donor or group, the more sway they hold over more politicians.
Donors fund pro-candidate ads but can also bury them with attack ads or boost rivals. For powerful lobbies, their endorsement or opposition can decide elections. Big media or influencers like Joe Rogan can tip the scales, as in the last election.
Lobbies also realized that it was necessary to “donate” to both parties as a sort of insurance policy to have the ear of politicians on key lobby issues, regardless of which party wins.
This means that all politicians are reduced to enact policies the majority of the people want as long as it does not irritate the key lobbies too much for the next electoral campaign.
In other words, democracy in the US is real democracy only in areas that satisfy the majority on issues not critical for key lobbies. As Trump could say: “it is fake democracy”, except that he can not sau that because he too has no option but to practice it.
The Jewish lobby in particular, can mobilize vast funds and resources like no other group, using perfectly legal means.
This dependence of politiciams on lobbies is so deep that even a billionaire Trump accepted hundreds of millions from Musk, Mrs. Adelson, and others.
Post-election, he betrayed promises on Epstein files and H-1B visas—and he can’t champion majority-will issues like universal healthcare.
U.S. politicians are beholden to some lobby. They also know lobbies offer sweet post-office perks: million-dollar book deals, high-paid speeches, corporate board seats, foundation heads, university presidencies, or consulting gigs—even cushy jobs with donors.
Judges, too, meddle in the popular will, corrupted by partisanship. Democratic appointees block Trump relentlessly; Republican ones do the same to Democrats—though Democrats have more activist judges.
Those judges, and prosecutors corrupt democracy because they undermine the trust of the people in the system; in the US, trust in Congress is around 20%. In the Presiden is not much better and normally below 50%
In my view, all lobbies—even noble ones—undermine democracy. They mean no harm; they just advance their interests. Like termites gnawing a house. Termites don’t intend collapse—they just eat. But when pipes burst or fire strikes, the house falls, and the termites perish with it.
The Jewish influence over U.S. politicians, media, and Hollywood was uneasy but tolerated for years.
The real explosion came with Israel’s actions in Gaza. Yes, Hamas committed atrocities against innocent Jews on October 7. But painfully for Israel and its global Jewish supporters—including in the U.S.—most Americans concluded Israel overreacted.
Even a number Jews agree, some very vocally.
Protests also erupted worldwide against Israel.
Here, pro-Israel Jews and Istael made a fatal error. Perhaps from affective reasons, perhap for a touch of arrogance, misreading fellow Americans, a reflex to equate Israel criticism with antisemitism.
The protests I suspect also reflect frustration over years of U.S. policy prioritizing Israel over American interests—the explosion of protests panicked Israel and Jews supporting it. They unleashed their full resources, broadly branding street and campus protesters, media figures, and YouTubers as antisemites.
They are compounding the mistake by having people like Larry Ellison buying Tik Tok; everyone believes the goal is to silence tiktokers critical of Israel, of Larry Ellison, of AIPAC, of the ADL, etc. Quite logically such actions will create even more hostility towards the Jews supporting Israel.
We are in a deadly spiral: More suppression, more cancelling, more deplatforming, more “antisemitism” accusations breed more resentment and in the eyes of many confirms the “Jewish control” narratives.
If Jews silence Fuentes, Carlson, and others, anti-Jewish feelings will accelerate. As Jews are only 1-2% of the population, this could spell disaster for Jews—and doom Israel. There is no way the Jews suppirting Israel can control the situation over the ling term. In fact, I believe we are at the end of the long term.
There’s one sane exit: U.S. Jews must align with most Americans on Gaza—condemn Israel’s excesses and push for a viable Palestinian state.
Another key step for U.S. Jews and Israel to regain credibility and respect in the US among non-Jews, at least among manyis to help dismantle the CCP, bringing democracy to China and the world.
Finally, all democracies—including the U.S. and Israel—must amend constitutions along Swiss lines to avoid the current crisis in representative democracies, Israel included: Become true people’s democracies, with direct power over politicians.
The polarisation caused by the Gaza issue, by massive legal and illegal immigration, by the national debt, ny poligicians ignoring the will of most voters would have been prevented if we had the Swiss system, as they have been preventef in Switzerland.
In Switzerland, lobbying loses potency—even for giant multinationals—because politicians can’t deliver without public buy-in. The lobbird must argue directly to voters.
The system also yields multiparty executives, decade after decade. This means that in every legislature approximately 80% of the voters are represented in the executive, which reflects the composition of the legislatute.
The system produces of decisions matching public will. Furthermore, by the referendums the people can call on any issue, it is assurex that government stays aligned witj the will of voters.
This system ensures efficient governmemt and fair government.
I have no doubt that it is this unique Swiss system, now spreadeing to, surprise! Taiwan, that without natural resources beyond water, Switzerland has a higher GDP per capita than the U.S., far lower debt, better jobs, lower unemployment, lots of guns but minimal crime, remarkable unity amid multiculturalism, multilingualism, and multireligion, world-class universal (capitalist) healthcare, lower taxes, managed immigration, no wars, superior chocolate, and enduring democracy for over 150 years.
Of course, Switzerland is the most democratic country and because of that the most stable.
By the way, the ranking of democracies by the Economist, Amnesty International amd others do not place Switzerland as the mumber one democracy in a cayegory of its lwn, they place it behind Norway, Denmark and several others, it is ridiculous. I do not have space here to show why but I can and in any forum or debate anywhere.
Approval of Swiss politicians by voters is around 80%, compare that with the US figure, and even Canada or the Scandinavians. All other democracies rank below Switzerland.
Some people say in Switzerland voter turnout at referendums and elections is often not very high, around 40%, although sometimes referendums reach 70%. There is an obvious explanation; the Swiss vote in elections every four years but vote four times per year, mostly from their homes, to decide all sort of issues, laws, policies and changes to the constitution that in most cases the people themselves bring to a referendum.
It is important to note that 90% of the Swiss people every year cast their vote for an election or a referendum, no other country comes even close to this level of citizen participation and devision making, none.
Like the U.S., Switzerland started with the U.S. Constitution but quickly amended it. There, people are first-class citizens because the vote do decide isdues, not just to elect politicians; in other democracies we are second-class citizens. In dictatorships like China, the people are free like hardworking farm animals.
Those who wield money politically risk losing it all if democracy crumbles. Sustainable democracy demands one thing: Politicians must align with majority views on big or controversial issues—no exceptions. The Swiss system demonstrates decade after decade that delivers like no other.
For details, see TheSwissPoliticalSystem.com and similar resources.
