The most profound form of political control is the control of truth: people may want to ignore politics, but they cannot want to ignore the truth

BY Bruna FRASCOLLA

The politicians in the Epstein Files certainly shocked us, but that shouldn’t make us forget the academics. One of them, Noam Chomsky, gained a lot of attention from pro-Palestinian activists, since Chomsky is the Jurassic pope of anti-Zionist Jews and the Jewish couple Epstein-Maxwell are often pointed out as Mossad assets. Could Chomsky, then, be a controlled opposition?

It seems to be exactly the case. The journalist Max Blumenthal, who is also Jewish and anti-Zionist, pointed out: “At approximately the same time Noam Chomsky was wagging his finger at the Palestinian-led BDS movement, he was meeting privately with Ehud Barak, among the worst war criminals in Israeli history. The meetings were brokered by Jeffrey Epstein.” The BDS movement stands for “boycott, divestment, and sanctions” on Israel and is inspired by the measures that helped to end the Apartheid regime in South Africa. Ehud Barak was Prime Minister of Israel between 1999 and 2001. Max Blumenthal found about the meeting between Chomsky and Barak that took place in 2015 in the Epstein Files.

The Chomsky case is a political one, and it repeats the general political picture of the Epstein Files: just as the disagreements between Democrats and Republicans are a façade, staged to keep the masses divided and mobilized, Zionism has in its dressing room the longest-serving actor who plays, before passionate leftists, the role of a radical intellectual, communist, leftist, and anti-Zionist. This ends up having an impact, because a serious anti-Zionist Jew like Norman Finkelstein grew up admiring Chomsky, and ended up adhering to his criticisms of BDS.

The reader might ask themselves a politically incorrect question: “But how does she know Finkelstein is serious, if he’s just another Jewish communist and, moreover, a fan of Chomsky?” Because he paid a high price for his anti-Zionism and has a very different academic trajectory from Chomsky’s. Chomsky is a living god: an academic star who shines by adopting the radical positions of the moment and, at the same time, the father of the Universal Grammar theory, which makes him, in terms of academic authority, a kind of living Einstein of linguistics. He has a theory unrelated to political posturing that is mandatory for Linguistics.

Well, Finkelstein is no father of theory, but he is “only” the leading expert on Gaza, which should be more than enough for him to secure tenure. He buried his academic career when, in 2003, he accused Alan Dershowitz of being a plagiarist who chose a discredited work to copy. Dershowitz’s recently published The Case for Israel was, according to him, a copy of journalist Joan Peters’ From Time Immemorial (1984).

This Dershowitz, who was accused of rape by Virginia Giuffre (a courageous Epstein victim), had among his clients none other than Jeffrey Epstein (2008) and Donald Trump (2020). In 2024, he was also preparing to defend Israel at the Hague Tribunal.

He is not an academic specializing in the Middle East; he is a Harvard law professor. The book criticized by Finkelstein was propagandistic in nature, and its author was a notorious Zionist. However, he was a man with extensive political connections, to the point that he even campaigned for Arnold Schwarzenegger, the governor of California, to prevent the publication of Finkelstein’s book (Beyond Chutzpah, chutzpah being a Hebrew word similar to the Greek word hybris), which was a rebuttal to his own. The book was published, but Finkelstein never managed to achieve tenure, even though he’s a major scholar.

Amid the cancellation, Chomsky gave Finkelstein moral support, which was enough to earn his gratitude and trust – but not to guarantee him the job he deserved. Isn’t it strange that Chomsky managed to go so far in his academic career being so “radical”? If people like Dershowitz can interfere for the harm of someone, can’t they interfere in the same way for the good?

Certainly, Finkelstein obtained academic recognition through the citation of his work. Nevertheless, Gaza is a political and objective issue, and it would be difficult to disregard the work of someone who went there to study in situ – which later led to Finkelstein being banned from entering Israel (and, therefore, Gaza), something that never happened to the “radical” Chomsky. Finkelstein would certainly have a much more difficult intellectual life if, keeping his political activity, he dedicated himself to a subject as speculative as the relationship between human nature and language.

Things get even more complicated when we remember the other major scholar, who appeared in one of the most sinister recordings in the Epstein Files: Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker (also Jewish, it should be noted) appears smiling next to Epstein on the plane known as the “Lolita Express,” and a child’s voice asks, “Where are you taking us?” Was Pinker on a plane with an unequivocal victim of pedophilia? This recording is a new information; the relationship between Pinker and Epstein is not. Epstein was a “philanthropist” and gave money to Pinker’s research at Harvard. When Epstein began to have problems with the law, Alan Dershowitz, a friend of both, asked the famous Harvard scientist for help with his defense, and he did indeed collaborate.

It is interesting that these two cases of scientists intimately linked to the leader of a pedophilia ring are dedicated to the study of the human nature. And it is very unlikely that Epstein’s friends have the freedom to defend whatever conception of the human being and still get the same support.

The most profound form of political control isn’t even the control of political parties and actors. It is, instead, the control of truth: people may want to ignore politics, but they cannot want to ignore the truth. This pedo-Zionist network is far from foolish, and chose the humanities.

https://strategic-culture.su/news/2026/01/01/is-science-also-under-control-of-pedophile-network/

READ FROM TOP.

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

Ukrainian far-right activists have marked the 117th birthday of WWII-era nationalist leader and Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera in the city of Lviv in Western Ukraine.

In footage published by Ukrainian media on Thursday, a line of people holding red flares is seen, meant to honor one of the leaders of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) during WWII. The group allied with the invading Nazi Germans to carry out massacres of Poles, Jews, Russians, and Ukrainians they accused of collaborating with the Soviets.

Former Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko declared Bandera and the UPA national heroes in 2010, with his decision reaffirmed by the leadership installed following the 2014 Western-backed Maidan coup.

Ukrainian nationalist groups, especially in the West of the country, regularly commemorate dates connected to other infamous Nazi collaborators, such as Roman Shukhevich, another prominent figure in the UPA.

The Ukrainian authorities’ connivance in the glorification of such controversial figures has recently strained relations with Poland, one of Kiev’s key backers in the conflict with Moscow.

Officials in Warsaw, including President Karol Nawrocki, have repeatedly called out Ukrainian authorities for glossing over the atrocities committed by the UPA during WWII. Between 1943 and 1945, Ukrainian nationalists conducted what became known as the Volyn massacres, slaughtering up to 100,000 ethnic Poles in the regions of Volhynia and Eastern Galicia, which were later incorporated into Ukraine. 

The Russian government has consistently accused the current Ukrainian leadership of embracing Nazi ideology and whitewashing known WWII-era collaborators. When the conflict between Moscow and Kiev escalated into open hostilities in February 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin named the “denazification” of the neighboring country as one of the key objectives of Moscow’s military campaign.

https://www.rt.com/russia/630326-ukrainian-nationalists-commemorate-nazi-collaborator/

... AND 600,000 JEWS MURDERED BY BANDERA'S OUTFIT....

READ FROM TOP.

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

Anthony Albanese prides himself on being a long-range political thinker. He likes to game out the end point, to work backwards from where his opponents might land, and to quietly deny them an escape route. Few passages in recent political writing capture that instinct more cleanly than Niki Savva’s account in Earthquake: the election that shook Australia.

It is all part of Albanese’s strategy, she wrote, thinking ahead to “where are we going to end up, where are they going to go”.

“So how do we turn their roads into cul-de-sacs? That is what I say to people literally,” he told her later.

It is a line that once read as evidence of a disciplined, hard-headed political operator. Three weeks on from the Bondi terror attack, it reads instead like a warning. Because if there is a cul-de-sac in Australian politics right now, even his allies fear it is the one the prime minister has driven himself into – and he is still refusing to reverse.

After last May’s election, Albanese loomed as untouchable. His authority within Labor was unchallenged, the Coalition looked diminished, and his personal standing was buoyed by the sense that he had mastered the rhythms of office. Today, some within Labor say he’s visibly shrunk. His handling of the past three weeks – marked by silence, stubbornness and an unyielding refusal to call a royal commission – has left allies confused, critics enraged and a growing number of Australians uneasy.

This is not a manufactured controversy. Nor is it a noisy or narrow media cycle. Experienced political commentators from press gallery doyen Michelle Grattan to Robert Manne, emeritus professor of politics at La Trobe University, find Albanese’s response odd and confusing.

It is a moment that has begun to cut through to Labor MPs, ministers and staff, many of whom privately concede the prime minister is risking misjudging both the scale of the crisis and the public mood.

READ MORE OF THIS STUPID TRASHING: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/just-six-months-ago-albanese-was-seen-as-untouchable-now-some-say-he-s-politically-shrunk-20251231-p5nqw1.html

ONLY A FEW BOZOS — ESPECIALLY IN THE MEDIA AND RIGHTWING BATS, INCLUDING THE JEWISH LOBBY — WANT TO DUNK ALBO'S HEAD IN THE DUNNY WITH A ROYAL COMMISSION... YES OVER 100 SILKS HAVE ASKED FOR ONE, BUT HEY, IT'S THEIR BREAD AND BUTTER.

A ROYAL COMMISSION IN THE BONBI SHOOTING WOULD BE LIKE SHOOTING LAME DUCKS IN A POND. THESE "PEOPLE" SHOULD HEAD THE WISDOM OF RICHTER, QC. 

ANYWAY, SHOULD ALBO CAVE IN [WHICH IS POSSIBLE], HE WOULD HAVE BEEN TAINTED EITHER WAY AND THE ROYAL COMMISSION WOULD SOLVE NOTHING IN REGARD TO ANTISEMITISM [EXCEPT POSSIBLY INCREASE RESENTMENT AGAINST THE JEWISH COMMUNITY]... 

READ FROM TOP.

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.