patrick.net

It’s a great interview. He does note the role of Israel in U.S. foreign policy going back 30 years, and he’s right to do so. Israel boosters are upset. Oh well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ks0l_Zpt1xA

You mean, it's okay to fluff up a Climate Fraud Pusher and WEF Advocate BECAUSE Israel was mentioned negatively.

Now that Woke is declining, it's time for them to shift. So long as they get their goal of control.

AmericanKulak says

You mean, it's okay to fluff up a Climate Fraud Pusher and WEF Advocate BECAUSE Israel was mentioned negatively.

WokeRight exposed again.

Not really. The smears by association (“climate fraud!” “WEF!”) are non-sequiturs, irrelevant to his foreign policy assessment. Seems to me Sachs wants to keep us out of WW3. He sees feckless Bidenites (Sullivan, Blinken) leading us off a cliff, on a road paved by neo-cons and Israel-firsters. What specifically did you disagree with in his interview ?

They aren't non-sequitors.

Tucker is platforming a WEF Director, Climate Fraudster, Brookings, WHO, Big Finance Guy with a Spouse in Rockefeller Foundation.

None of that is debatable, none of that isn't true.

Here's his hagiography on the World Economic Forum site:
https://www.weforum.org/stories/authors/jeffreyd-sachs/

YOU are okay with it because there's one humbug you really dislike that is more important than anything else.

Again, not so much. I think you also like RFK Jr, who has referred to climate change as an “existential” threat. I’ll still appreciate his advocacy on placebo-controlled vaccine trials and removing indemnity for manufacturers. I won’t take him as credible on climate.

As usual, no purity tests. People can agree on issues, disagree on others without the labeling.

It appears even I have a label, after identifying Jewish influence in our policies. (Look up who started woke and feminism btw.) The unspoken truth is the most interesting to debate.

goofus says

Again, not so much. I think you also like RFK Jr, who has referred to climate change as an “existential” threat. I’ll still appreciate his advocacy on placebo-controlled vaccine trials and removing indemnity for manufacturers. I won’t take him as credible on climate.

It's a bad analogy.

RFK is wrong on basically one big thing. On a host of issues from Big Pharma to Health to Limited Government to Lobbyists he's correct.

Whereas Sachs is wrong on the Entire Direction of the Future - he wants a neoliberal Globalism, he simply doesn't agree with the way it conducts Foreign Policy.

goofus says

. (Look up who started woke and feminism btw.)

Feminism? Check out Maquis de Sade ("freeing" women from parents so he could practice... Sadism on them), Mary Wollstonecraft (hailed as the first Feminist), the Oneida Community, Margeret Fuller, Victoria Woodhull and sister Tennessee Clafin (daughters of a con artist, occultists, and underwritten by Vanderbilt, and other Financiers).

I strongly recommend "Occult Feminism" by Rachel Wilson (wife of Andrew Wilson of Crucible and Whatever podcast). It's packed.

Woke? Foucault, Sartre ("Authentic" rejection of "Petty Bourgeois Values" aka Middle Class), and Fannon (Decolonialist Terrorism liberates the mind), Derrick Bell. Each one is read 10000x times more often than members of the Frankfurt School and almost everybody that attended college these past 50 years will have probably read them.

A little less insinuation, a little more action. I think Kulak has no intention of watching the interview, just breezy takedowns of it. Going to primary sources punctures the media bubble we claim to oppose.

goofus says

A little less insinuation, a little more action. I think Kulak has no intention of watching the interview, just breezy takedowns of it. Going to primary sources punctures the media bubble we claim to oppose.

Updated my prior post with lots of juicy links that offer counterfactuals to "Jewness Studies" (Whiteness studies for Wokeright).

They only discussed foreign policy. At no time did Tucker, the alleged anti-Globalist, bring up any of Sach's pro-WEF, pro-"Sustainability", etc. stances.

There's a difference between "Alt Globalization" and "Anti-Globalization". I'm beginning to suspect many of the latter are actually the former.

I’ve tried to square Sach’s advocacy for “shock therapy” with Russia (in the perestroika era) with what he says he tried to do. It’s confusing, to be fair.

His descriptions of 30 years of US foreign policy, however, do align with what we know of Middle East and Russia policy. Phony WMD in Iraq to justify war, CIA funding of ISIS in Syria, provoking Russia with NATO expansion, etc. Because he implicates Israel in the long-term planning of US FP, he makes reflexive enemies. It’s clearly a job hazard.

But find where he’s wrong, and I’d be happy to reconsider.

You realize that about a decade ago I was pushing Mearsheimer, critical of Iraq War (nothing to do with Israel, everything to do with the militant wing of Globalists-neocons instead of more cautious globalist neoliberals like Sachs), talking about the neocons in Ukraine starting shit, etc. I was one of the first posters pushing that issue.

Every rebel group in Syria - and there were more than just ISIS - has various backers.

The #1 supporter of ISIS was Turkey. Now Turkey backs it's latest iteration, HTS, to impose it's influence on Syria. The reason Assad lost so fast wasn't because the CIA got competent, and Israel had more than enough problems as it is, it's because Hezbollah stupidly intervened at the request of Iran to save Hamas and got the shit slapped out of it, depriving Assad of his reliable allies. Russia, busy in Ukraine, could not help like they had done. And Russia can't afford to piss off Turkey right now, either, with the Turks looking the other way on a host of things that benefits Putin.

The consensus among Israelis is that the new boss will probably be as bad as the Old boss in regards to Assad and ISIS/HTS.

And of course, a look at Middle East history shows the worst wars don't involve Israel, like Hussein trying to sieze territory from Iran when he thought it was too weak and isolated (neither US or USSR support) after the Revolution.

Example: 2015 by me.

https://patrick.net/post/1281654/2015-06-07-realism-in-one-lesson

When Tucker first came off Fox, he was great, and I "Noticed"
https://patrick.net/post/1380895/2024-02-06-tucker-putin-interview

Then he (or his program staff) began to cultivate an interest. Funny thing is when Tucker DOES have pro-Zionist guests on, he ONLY talks to them about other issues. Yet does the opposite with Sachs and others despite having a field day of things to talk about from Climate Baloney to 15 minute cities with him.