Rumble link Bitchute link False Flag Weekly News link

As E. Michael Jones and I agreed on False Flag Weekly News (watch it above) it was a week of harrowing threats. First, Iran and Israel circulated a video offering ten million dollars to anyone who kills Trump’s college student son Barron, while detailing the target’s location, movements, and security. Then Linh Dinh came on my radio show to taunt white nationalists, whom he calls Angry White Pussies (AWPs), for being all talk and no action, adding that “A Meaningful Assassination Will Galvanize the American People.” Meanwhile, leftist firebrand Hasan Piker was raked over the coals for his prediction of violence against American Jews if they continue being rabidly loyal to Israel while destroying the USA. (Piker was responding to Michigan state Sen. Jeremy Moss saying, “The entire purpose of my career is to make sure America continues to support Israel.”)

Would things change for the better if Iran and/or Israel assassinated Barron Trump, or the white nationalists killed Barack Obama, or a patriotic anti-Zionist American killed Jeremy Moss? I doubt it. I really don’t see how such an event would “galvanize” anything but backlash.

If Iran and/or Israel killed Barron Trump, the Zionist media would make sure Iran got blamed even if it was Israel that did it. They would make Barron a martyr: A poor, sweet, innocent, semi-autistic kid whose only crime was having a scumbag for a father.

Any fair-minded observer would say: Wait a minute…on February 28, Trump slaughtered not just Iran’s revered Supreme Leader, but his 14-month-old grandaughter Zahra, as well as his daughter Boshra, son-in-law Mesbah, and daughter-in-law Zahra. Trump also murdered at least 156 people, the vast majority schoolgirls, with his demonic double-tap strike on the girls’ school in Minab. Since then, he has mass-murdered thousands of Iranian civilians and committed an endless list of war crimes by targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure. It is entirely understandable why many tens of millions of Iranians want to kill Trump and/or his family. Who could possibly blame an Iranian for targeting Trump or his family members?

But that’s not how the Jew-owned-and-operated US media would report it. They would dehumanize the Iranians, ignore the righteousness of their defensive war, slander their religion, and paint the assassination of Barron Trump as the foulest crime ever committed on American soil. And they would provoke Trump to take maximum revenge on Iran (in order to benefit Israel) and try to rally the American people behind that revenge. The result would be accelerating carnage in West Asia, as well as further damage to America’s reputation, credibility, and economic and geopolitical interests.

And what if a white nationalist assassinated Obama? Like an “Iranian” assassination of Barron Trump, the main result would be blowback. The white nationalists, who are already demonized in mainstream media and culture, would suffer even more demonization and become even more marginalized. Obama, who is seeing his reputation and legacy soar by virtue of the pathetic performance of his immediate predecessors and successors—especially Trump’s cataclysmic Iran war—would go down in history alongside JFK and Lincoln as one of America’s big three presidential martyrs. He’d likely be added to Mt. Rushmore, much to Trump’s (and the white nationalists’) annoyance.

So rather than galvanizing America for white nationalism, an Obama assassination would likely de-galvanize it.

Aside: Remember when Andrew Adler, publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times, editorialized that the Mossad should kill then-president Obama for not being loyal enough to Israel?

Finally, how about an anti-Zionist assassination of Jeremy Moss or another especially egregious Israel loyalist? Would not that send a message? The operation could be framed as “execution for treason, genocide, and war crimes.”

The [[[media]]] would of course frame it as antisemitism. They would use it to conflate opposition to Israel and its control of the US with “irrational Jew-hatred,” which is what antisemitism supposedly is. And they would demand stricter anti-antisemitism laws and policies, beginning with even more draconian censorship of the internet. They would say, “see, this proves the anti-Israel people are terrorists! This illustrates why we need to put our military under Israeli command!”

Would patriotic forces rise up and burn down the media? Would the president sign an executive order declaring a state of emergency, based on Israel’s having killed JFK and attacked the USS Liberty and perpetrated 9/11, enabling the round-up of pro-Israel traitors infesting American politics, finance, and media? I don’t think we’re quite there yet. Give it another couple of years. But as of today, a high-profile execution of a treasonous Israel loyalist and genocide perp, deserved or not, would probably postpone rather than hasten the day that the USSA solves its most pressing problem.

The above analysis is largely pragmatic and amoral. It attempts to evaluate the likely outcomes of three types of political assassinations. (That, of course, is how professional political assassins, most of whom work for Mossad, look at things.) If we want to abandon all traces of ends-justify-the-means logic, and just focus on the morality of killing this or that person, the obvious criterion is the target’s degree of innocence or guilt. While most people worldwide might agree that killing Netanyahu or Trump would be a morally virtuous act, since both men are guilty of a long list of heinous crimes including genocide, few would argue that Barron Trump deserves to die simply because his father is the world’s most notorious mass murderer. More complex arguments might arise concerning the likes of Jeremy Moss, focusing on whether his genocidal treason reaches the level of “the first degree.”

It can be argued that all forms of political assassination are morally problematic or worse. They stir up anger and hatred and invite revenge. In many cases they remove the people that the assassin’s party should be negotiating with, and impede negotiations with surviving leadership. That’s what Israel has achieved with its long history of assassinating resistance leaders, and it’s what Trump achieved by caving to Netanyahu and murdering Iranian leaders.

But what if your country has been taken over by a vicious, psychotic gang of mega-assassins? How can you remove them without resorting to their reprehensible tactics?

Lex talionis, known as qisas (proportionality) in its Islamic formulation, prescribes answering offenses with similar and proportional dissuasive punishment. If a nation, in this case Israel, commits more assassinations than the rest of the countries of the world put together—including hundreds of targeted assassinations of journalists during the past few years alone—lex talionis would seem to demand a policy of “assassinating the assassins.” But the goal would be to remove Zionists from power, and most assassinate-the-assassins scenarios would be counterproductive. So it isn’t obvious that straightforward applications of lex talionis would be defensible.

A “Galvanizing” Assassination?

Getting back to Linh Dinh’s claim…the only assassination I can imagine “galvanizing” the American people would be an assassination of Donald J. Trump. It might actually galvanize the Trump-haters, who represent at least one-third of the population (and a strong majority of educated people) to stand up and publicly cheer for whoever had assassinated the Narcissist-Moron-in-Chief. If the perp were thoughtful and sympathetic, and had written a good manifesto, like Luigi Mangione, half the women in America would be ripping off their panties and throwing them at the handsome young killer’s image on their big-screen. And it would certainly galvanize the pro-Trump die-hards, who probably represent less than one-third of the population (and are uniformly low-IQ now that the smart MAGA people have all deserted) to rise up and demand revenge.

In other words, a Trump assassination—a real one, not a fake spectacle like the Butler, PA charade or the lame PR stunt at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner—would galvanize the two sides of America against each other. It might even trigger civil war.

The [[[media]]] would insist that Iran did it, and try to rally the people behind a “let’s smash Israel’s enemies in revenge” policy. But unlike an assassination of Barron Trump, which very few people would openly welcome, the “neutralization” of Donald Trump—a dark triad psychopath who presents a bigger threat to the world than any other human being in history ever has and perhaps ever will—would be greeted by at least 100 million Americans, including the majority of the most educated and articulate people in America, with ecstatic celebrations and/or huge sighs of relief.

Please note that I am not, repeat NOT, calling for the assassination of the President of the United States. That would be extremely illegal.

The truth is, I actually think the US would probably be an even worse place after a Trump assassination. So I oppose the idea with complete sincerity. (There might be exceptional situations, such as James Comey and his friends “seashelling” Trump to prevent World War III, in which all good people would agree that the right thing had been done, but far be it from me, a mere amateur lacking the requisite security clearances, to speculate about such sensitive internal affairs of our beloved National Security State.)

So the bottom line is this: I disagree with Linh Dinh and oppose political assassination.

But what do you think? Sound off in the comments, and say anything you like…as long as it isn’t illegal!