The rise of anti-Zionism in U.S. politics traces back to 2003, when bipartisan support for Israel fractured—Democrats now embrace "containment anti-Zionism" (e.g., Harris, Newsom) to outflank MAGA-aligned figures like Rubio, while figures like Noam Chomsky act as curated voices to suppress overt anti-Semitism. Dr. Al-Adawan’s expulsion highlights the movement’s boundaries, while Schumer’s past aid threats and Obama-era "Pod Save America" reveal shifting Democratic stances. A "limited hangout" tactic frames Tucker Carlson as a deep-state tool normalizing Israel, despite inconsistencies, contrasting with Netanyahu’s maximalist Zionism. Ultra-Orthodox demographic dominance in Israel—backed by Eric Kaufman’s research—threatens secular liberalism, yet the speaker dismisses determinism, advocating extreme Jewish propaganda (e.g., Hagee) to destabilize Zionist narratives while elite control persists. [Automatically generated summary]
Do you think that the Democratic Party will genuinely go anti-Zionist in terms of its politicians?
And I'll give a few points here.
First off, we're talking about 20 years ago, 2003, both parties were totally aligned in terms of Israel.
Both parties were totally aligned to 2003 on the Iraq war.
They were definitely aligned with Israel.
Anti-Zionism is something that just simply wasn't expressed outside of the marginal alternative outlets.
Things have really changed.
And the base of the Democratic Party, I could say it's not anti-Semitic, but I would confidently say that the base of the Democratic Party is anti-Zionist.
And the Groypers are anti-Zionist, but I don't think the base MAGA base is anti-Zionist.
And so there's that data point that things have just changed.
At some point, the politician has to follow the crowd.
They can't just be standing against the wave for too long.
They might want to be anti-Zionist just simply to differentiate themselves from Marco Rubio and JD Vance.
I just feel like, I guess I'm answering my question before asking it.
I wonder if Kamala Harris and Gavin Newsom are going to actually surprise us in what they say.
I feel like they'll go to, they may go to what you might call containment anti-Zionism, right?
Let me make the distinction a minute.
I've had a few conversations recently with some hardcore Marxist-Leninists.
I always think you can always tell what's happening in the scene by speaking to their surregies, people like Caleb Morpin and the Communist Party leaders, guys will stand for Stalin and things like this, could just get the view from the outside.
And I had a chat with, remember when Nanon Chomsky was named in the Epstein files?
Oh, yeah.
Yeah, I had Morphe on to talk about that, about does this change how we view his work or like, how do we pass Chromsky?
Because he is an anti-war figure and he was anti-Zionist and so on and so forth.
And Morphe's view is that actually Chomsky was given the kind of role of core anti-Zionist.
Does that make sense?
And whenever he was always there as the kind of outermost voice to shepherd the quote-unquote far left back onto a certain type of reservation to get it away from actual genuine.
So there's still an element of control there.
And another figure like this is Naomi Klein, right?
You've got to think, why are these radicals being sold in your local in your water stones in your local bookstore and so on?
Why have they got deal with massive New York presses?
It's because they also have a structural role.
So the Democrat Party has always had enough slack to go to Naomi Klein or Chomsky or Michael Moore or somebody like this, right?
There's some slack there.
I've already started to hear Gavin Newsome.
Like he gave that, he gave a speech yesterday or the day before saying, why are we bombing little girls?
Now, I don't believe for a second that Gavin Newsom will be like a died in the wall anti-communist, anti-anti-Zionist.
I think when Push comes to Shabbat, he'll still be one, right?
As will AOC or somebody like this, but it will, as ultimately, will Bernie Sanders, right?
Ultimately.
But they'll still have to having to give quite a bit of lip service to these sorts of talking points, even if it's an ultimate containment.
It's still going to push the party left on these sorts of issues.
So I do think they are going to go there and that they are, you could say the pieces are in place already for them to go to these sorts of places.
There's the gray zone, Max Blumenthal, and Aaron Matte and all these sorts of characters.
They've got a lot of talking points, but it's also a particular type of anti-Zionism.
It's not in this country, there's this Palestinian doctor who has been kicked out of the pro-Palestine movement for being an anti-Semite.
Have you seen this character?
She's had her house raided four times.
Her name's like Dr. Al-Adawan or something like this.
And the reason is that she's been kicked.
She's been kicked out of the pro-Palestine movement.
And the reason for that is because the pro-Palestine movement is, in a sense, got some controls around it.
It's not allowed to be anti-Semitic, for example.
And so they're calling her a Nazi and so on, because she's pointing out, hold on a second, what about this?
What about that?
She's actually just calling them out.
And now she's been kicked out of that movement.
And she's a Muslim.
She's a Palestinian.
She's actually a Palestinian, but she's not allowed in the official British pro-Palestine movement.
So I do think that the Democrats have got enough like, even like Chuck Schumer, go there.
You know what I mean?
Yeah.
He went there a little bit actually in the Biden administration.
I think after they assassinated a pizza delivery man who was trying to feed children or something, he was even saying at some point we need to withhold aid.
The Obama era smart young white boys of Pod Save America, they were just sounding pretty strong on this.
We are going to stop all financial and military aid to Israel unless they comply.
Very, I think they can go there.
And yeah, it's limited anti-Zionism, no question.
I don't think these people are going to get into Mark Brahman anytime soon, but sometimes you can't limit that thing.
It's like the limit is this cup.
There's too much water going in the cup.
It overflows.
I think some of my similarities are up, but I should explain.
I mean, I've said this on Nimros shows now, where I think a kind of modest thing for us to wish for and want, okay, which is realistic, is simply for Israel to just become a normal country, to in a way, become part of the global American empire and just be another gay liberal country, same as the rest of us, rather than laughing around as Nazis.
And I do think that there's quite a large number of Jewish diaspora, you could say, who also think this, who think, okay, we have to look at the situation.
They're causing us more problems than ever before.
It's not consistent.
It is not principled.
It doesn't appeal to our moral vision at all.
And we've built up a lot of social and cultural capital here from our point of view.
It would just be better if they just went, stop doing this religious nutter thing and go back to being a normal country.
And I do think that there's a sizable number, those 70% of Jews in New York who voted for Mamdani, they probably genuinely think this.
Limited Hangout Controversy00:04:29
I don't think it's a ruse or a, I think they're genuine about, I think there's a genuine split between Zionists and I guess what you might call internationalists.
Do you think that Tucker Carlson, Megan Kelly, and even Candace Owens, who's gone off the reservation a bit recently, that they too also represent this kind of limited hangout concept, which I had actually just, but also it represents the limitations of the limited hangout.
I actually didn't know the origins of the concept of a limited hangout.
It's, we use the word hangout a lot in different contexts now, but it actually is an old espionage rule where you go and you give them 80% of the truth, actually.
You let it hang out, so to speak, and just enough, not too much.
But it's not, you're not giving them disinformation directly.
You actually are telling them the truth in a remarkable way.
I feel like Candace Owens, she's gone totally nuts.
She's talking about Frankist or are they Frankist sexual perverts?
Are they KRs, Turks?
Are we the Jews?
Because we're Israel.
Who knows?
But remember, Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk and George Farmer and all they saw something in her of this black girl who would ultimately be good for them and their aims and even good for the Jews on some level.
And I'm sure Ben Shapiro thought that when he hired that woman.
And were they wrong?
Tucker Carlson, you can find clips of Tucker Carlson being a neocon.
I think he was actually truer to himself when he was a neocon because you didn't see the hysteria and weird laughter and things like that.
He was actually more on point and sound and so on.
And you see him act in just these kind of hysteric ways when he has to be quasi-semi-anti-Semitic.
So I think they were a limited hangout.
On the other hand, sometimes when you give someone 80% of the truth, they figure out the last 20% on their own.
And so there's almost, it's this weird thing with Tucker Carlson where I don't like him to be honest.
And I feel like he is not expressing, not articulating things in a sound fashion.
However, and I would probably say, oh, he's just a containment strategy.
It's a distraction.
He's there to misinform you less than you did about a subject going in.
I would say all those things.
But on the other hand, just the fact that he's doing this and he's obviously getting all this traction, at some point, the containment breaks down and you haven't focused all of the anti-Israel or just to be frank, anti-Semitic energy into one little jar.
In fact, the jar is broken and it's spilling all over the place.
And I think we might, again, I don't like these people and I'm going to continue to criticize them, but just to give the devil his due, we might be at a point where there's just no more containment and it's spilling over and all of these unintended consequences are going to occur.
I have a slightly unusual take on Tucker Carlson.
And if you see me glazing him, as the kids say on my timeline, it bothers me every time I see it.
This is where I slightly disagree with you and with Nick.
I was convinced by Nick's arguments that Tucker is CIA.
And I continue to believe that he still probably is CIA, which explains an awful lot of things like how he can just randomly speak to world leaders, get security clearance.
Now he's talking to PC and now he's talking to the president of Iran.
Now he's going to the White House three times in a week and things like that.
How his streams aren't taken off air, how he's never banned, all the rest of it.
And this could just be a cope for me, right?
But as someone who's usually seen as one of the most black people around, I allow myself one cope.
And my one cope is this, Richard, is that Tucker is part of an ongoing American, you could say deep state operation Operation to rein in the Israelis, not to destroy Israel or to get rid of Zionism altogether, simply to return Israel to being a normal country that plays by the same rules as everyone else.
Demographics and Destiny00:04:09
Okay.
And I think that when viewed in that context as a kind of limited, moderate, and realistic short-term goal, I give him support on those grounds and those grounds alone, because I don't see any, I don't see any scope really for outcomes beyond that for us at this time in history.
I don't think we're going to see another expulsion.
I don't think you're going to make like the majority of the population anti-Semitic or anything like that.
Neither do I necessarily think that you should want that.
But as a realistic outcome of where we've been versus where we're going, at the end of all this, you could see a more normal Israel.
That's one outcome.
And not if Netanyahu and friends have anything to do with it.
They've got much more maximalist aims.
I would like the strain, I think, Tucker.
So that's why you're right.
It is a limited thing.
He doesn't ever go that far.
And if you listen to what he says, it is all consistent with that end goal.
And I also think this explains why YouTube has been just chock full of former CIA guys, former FBI guys, and former military guys all day, every day, family Israel with no censorship whatsoever, or how Candy Sowens has been allowed to grow into being what, like, how many people, the four, five million people per episode now?
And also, it may explain why it comes packaged with this kookiness that you refer to, kookiness.
You know what I mean?
Yes.
That's where I am.
I may not go as far as many people would like, but I'm a realist, sensible centerist, Richard.
So I have to take what crumbs I can get.
I just want them to go full retard, actually.
So that's my strategy.
I have my own little CIA and I have my own little agendas.
And I want to promote totally retarded, insanely apocalyptic Jewish propaganda.
I want more of that because the only way out is through.
We've tried the little Israel as its own little country thing.
That was actually Herzl's vision.
In fact, was it, and it's very funny.
It's, it's, we Jews, yeah, we're gross.
Like we're weird and we don't get along.
We can't assimilate.
So we want to pick up the baton of nationalism that is the hot ideology right now.
And it's, it's not too far left, not too far right.
It's neither left nor right in some level.
We want to pick up this baton and be our own secular little country.
And we have too many bankers and not enough farmers, we Jews.
We got to go back to the land.
And this was the way he thought.
He's a remarkable man.
And that didn't work.
That's gone.
So I just think at this point, Israel needs to be hoisted by its own batard.
And so I don't know.
I'm more likely to promote Reverend Hagee or something than I would Tucker Carlson because I'm like, the fact that they're just making, they're making like the Bible look so bad.
Like they're doing Mark and my work for us.
It's, I don't know.
I, that, that's my diabolical scheme.
It could be, I think it's worth saying that demographically, if you truly believe that demographics are destiny, something I don't believe, by the way, as an elite theorist, pretty much every country ever is ruled by an elite that is not part of the people, right?
So I don't believe demographics are destiny.
But if you do believe that, I do think that the notion of a secular, normal, liberal Israel, the demographics are against that, because if you look at who's breathing in Israel, it's the ultra-conservative, ultra-orthodox, kind of crazy, almost like quasi-Armish sect.
I've got this guy I'm friendly with, Eric Kaufman.
If I've seen him tomorrow, he's done a lot of work on this.
He was actually, he was explaining to me over dinner one day.
Ultra-Orthodox Breeding Success00:00:30
He said, look, they're actually breeding at such a big rate that by this point, there won't be any secular Israelis left.
It will just be like a kind of, it's going to go into like full-on fundamentalist retardism at some point.
But as a survival strategy, it's been quite successful because they've solved the, they're the one place on earth that has solved the birth rate problem.
Birth, like I think their replacement rate is five or something among that group versus sub-replacement everywhere else on earth.