Video Link

Most in the dissident sphere hardly paid attention to Charlie Kirk but for the fact that his TPUSA organization was an object of mockery(usually by the so-called Groypers around Nicholas Fuentes). Kirk came across as manufactured, typical shabbos goy, reliable shill for Zion, or an outreach con-artist for the youth vote working in cahoots with Conservative Inc. In Rock culture, there are self-made artists and industry-made idols. Politics is no different, and Kirk was clearly an idol, like the Teen Idols of the early 1960s. Within that context, Kirk could hardly be considered a dissident, maverick, or alternative figure on the Right.
Yet, he wasn’t entirely an Establishmentarian either, given that part of his appeal owed to a youthful spirit at odds with the moribund GOP that has yet to digest the MAGA phenomenon, which too has been marked by ambiguity given the multi-faceted and contradictory nature of Donald Trump’s campaign in 2016.

Now, it’s questionable if the notion of the Establishment Right or Conservative Establishment is even valid anymore. In order for any organization, agenda, or movement to claim establishment credentials, it has to have a dominant or at least competitive positioning in the most powerful institutions and industries, but it hasn’t been the case for American Conservatives as long as anyone can remember.
The media, academia, legal institutions, cultural industries, federal agencies & departments, urban centers, and etc. have all been utterly dominated by Democrats. Even the military and the church, traditionally bastions of rightism, have largely gone ‘woke’. It’s been said immigrant groups arrive with generally conservative values, but their children soon take notice that success, power, privilege, and prestige are all synonymous with the Democrats, whereas the Republicans are saddled with the ‘sinful’ legacies of the US(and ‘loser’ or ‘white trash’ working class).

Video Link

Social and ideological trends haven’t been favorable to the Republicans for a long spell, but at least the Conservatives, especially during the Cold War, had the business class by promising higher profits via lower taxes, ‘free trade’, and de-regulation. But then, the Cold War ended, and anti-communism became a dead horse, with global capital taking over everything. The global rich no longer needed the anti-communist political parties to fend off the threat of radical socialism.
And Clintonite Democrats dumped big labor and won over the business class that, over the years, came to contribute more to the Democrats than to the Republicans. The GOP could once boast, “We don’t have the institutions, but we still have the industries.” It used to be Republicans and Big Business vs. Democrats and Big Government. But when the biggest industries went with the Democrats, who also had the institutions, the Republicans looked lost and stupid, made worse by the tongue-tied brand buster George W. Bush and the Neocon cretins around him. It was telling that Karl Rove’s strategy was to dig deeper into the Base, an admission that the Republicans were hopeless at winning over new converts, especially among the young.

Of course, Republicans could still rely on the support of at least half of the American electorate and thus could fill up sufficient numbers of seats in Congress and state houses to matter in the sports of politics. But when it came to elite establishment power, they were toast, utterly without prestige. They totally lost out in academia. They hardly had any representation in urban centers where wealth and influence were concentrated(as Albert Brooks’ character realizes in LOST IN AMERICA). Even patriotic military men couldn’t do anything about the homos prancing around as officers, Pentagon waging wars to promote sodomy, top brass taking it up the arse from Israelis, and campaigns promoting jungle fever & trannies. And just about every other church in the US came to display ‘gay rainbow’ banners. They say Israel is ‘the gayest country on Earth’, which means Zionism has effectively morphed into Sodomism, which further means so-called Christian Zionism is really Christian Sodomism. (Israelis sure love to anal-rape their Palestinian prisoners. All for the gods of Sodom.)

Video Link

Given the grim reality, the ONLY qualification for Republicans to have a seat at the Establishment Table came by the way of Israel Firsterism. After all, the biggest power in the US wasn’t Democratic but Jewish, or Jewish-Zionist-Supremacist. Even though the great majority of Jews were Democratic, the reasons were tribal & ethnic instead of ideological & principled. If most powerful Jews had to choose between progressive/liberal principles and Jewish Power, they’d always opt for the latter.
As the cucked and wussy Republicans lost the Culture War on just about every issue, their only remaining admittance to the Establishment Table came by way of total obeisance to Zion.
Even though the Democratic Party Establishment was reliably pro-Zionist, Jews figured it’s always better to have boot-lickers on both sides. Besides, rich and powerful Jews could always threaten the Democrats with less funding in favor of the GOP as long as the Republicans had a place at the table.
Politicians crave prestige and privilege; they want to be part of the Club. Given that the Democrats totally dominate so much of the Establishment, it’s understandable why the Republicans are so desperate to cling to Israel-Firsterism as their last remaining lifeline to the Club.

Trump, the chieftain of the MAGA movement, made noises to the contrary in 2016, threatening to drain the Swamp and expose the Neocons, but Jewish Power so thoroughly thrashed his arse and donged his bung that he got the message in no uncertain terms that, in order for him to survive the lawfare and regain the presidency, he would have to bend over for ass-ramming by Netanyahu all day and all night.
Thus, his re-election had nothing to do with patriotism or principles and everything to do with assuaging his fat wounded ego; Jews would at least grant him that if he served them like a dog. He would get his revenge of sorts to the consternation of those who loathe him at the personal level, but he would totally deliver on Jewish demands, rather ironic since his main tormentors have been the Jews, not least the Neocons in the GOP.
Imagine Jews doing everything to destroy you and bury you alive, but you climb out from the grave to show that you’re still alive and unbeaten, only to take your revenge on everyone and everything but the very Jews who hit you over the head and buried you alive. Can politics get any more demented and pathetic than this? Well, that’s Trump whose idea of acting tough and getting even is to throw his weight around against the enemies of the very people who did most to hurt his reputation and fortune. Maybe there’s a Book of Job dynamic in all this. Just like Job remained faithful to God who tormented him to no end, white goyim are expected to take all the slings and arrows from the Jews as the god-race.

Francis Fukuyama’s End-of-History thesis struck a nerve at the end of the Cold War, not so much due to its originality or depth but its succinctness in conveying what many were sensing in the moment of great change. Despite the protestations of hardline anti-communist types(like Patrick Buchanan, Newt Gingrich, and George Will) who’d insisted that the USSR was playing possum in the Gorbachev years and gearing up for another round of East-West conflict, the collapse of the Soviet Union turned out to be total and irrevocable. The West had truly prevailed in the Cold War. Some might argue that the West didn’t so much win as the Soviet Union just gave up on its failed project.
Some things die of their own accord, indeed no less true of right-wing systems. Franco’s Spain was spared by the Allies in World War II — it had remained mostly neutral and rebuffed Hitler’s entreaties during the war — lasted into the late 1970s. It was not defeated militarily but was rejected almost immediately by the Spanish people following the death of Francisco Franco. In some ways, it was even stranger than the fall of communism because, whereas communist systems struggled to stock shelves with basic consumer goods, Spain under Franco’s dictatorship had done remarkably well with steady economic growth and considerable social & cultural freedoms — though authoritarian, most Spaniards were left alone as long as they weren’t bomb throwers. Yet, more than a decade before the fall of communism, Spain underwent a quiet revolution without violence, perhaps anticipating similar transformations in the communist East. (It must be noted that Franco’s Spain wasn’t fascist but Catholic-Monarchist, a combination of traditionalism and entrepreneurialism, with the latter producing a middle class addicted to consumerism that invariably favored social liberalization.)

In the end, it didn’t matter that Spain turned away from the right while Eastern Europe turned away from the left; what mattered is they converged in the middle, the supposed consensus of the Liberal Democratic Model, or the End of History. In either case, it came down to autocracy vs democracy, dogma vs liberality, the collective vs individuality. Indeed, rightist Spain and leftist Eastern Europe were uncannily alike in many ways, not least in their shared cultural conservatism, though both camps had lively cultural undergrounds that dabbled in the Avant-garde. (To some extent, the authorities tolerated and even promoted a degree of experimental art as a safety-valve and to signal to the West that cultural freedom was alive and well, be it in Spain or Poland.) But then, with the fading of intellectual modernism in the second half of the 20th century, the real challenge came from Hollywood and American-style pop music that embodied popular taste and freedom with American characteristics.

Between the quiet revolution in Spain and quiet-enough revolutions in Eastern Europe, both toward liberal democracy, China too underwent profound(and mostly peaceful) changes, moving away from a strict command economy and ideological dogma toward economic, social, and cultural freedoms for the Chinese people to remake themselves as individuals and free agents than as unwavering soldiers of the revolution. Even though the political structures remained intact in China, it too fell within the model of the End of History narrative.

The strange aspect of the End of History is that it ended with a whimper than a bang. The ‘bang’ in this sense could have been rhetorical than militaristic. Consider. Had the Soviet side won the Cold War without firing a shot, with the West conceding that Moscow’s version of socialism is the best model for the world, there would have been a Big Bang of ideological proclamations emanating from the communist world, or endless explanations on how the Moses-Christ of communism, Karl Marx, had been right all along about history, society, economics, morality, and world affairs. Communism would have been extolled as the god-that-succeeded.

In contrast, while there was plenty of fanfare in the West(and in liberated Eastern Europe and parts of Russia as well) about the mostly peaceful collapse of communism into rubble at the feet of the Western edifice still standing tall, proud, and prosperous, there was no overarching ideological interpretation of events.
The lack owed to the West being without an official ideology or the Big All-Encompassing Idea. What ‘liberal democracy’ meant was the rule of law(impartial to ideology, e.g. a secular person has just as many protections as a religious person and vice versa), protection of rights(for all individuals regardless of one’s creed, from the far right to the far left), and a lively process whereby the future of society would be shaped by participation of all interest groups, with social and political trends constantly in a state of flux. Liberal Democracy was sort of like Mao’s brief experiment known as the Hundred Flowers Campaign, the difference being that, whereas Mao had the ultimate authority to call it off, the liberal democratic West(and its emulators) enshrined those individual-personal-human rights into the law. Thus, even if your favored party wasn’t in power, your basic rights as a citizen were assured, and your side had a chance of gaining power in the near future.

So, whereas the communist bloc stood for the one Big Idea that claimed to have figured it all out and knew full well how the future would advance toward a socialist scientific-materialist utopia, the Liberal West stood for allowing all sides to contend and breathe freely, contributing their voices, perspectives, and advices for consideration. From this constant lively and vibrant democratic interplay, the system would, over time, favor better ideas over inferior ones, inexorably reforming and building toward a better society.
In contrast to the communist bloc, the rejection of the one-size-fits-all ideology in the West allowed for more freedom for problems to be aired and for different policies to be proposed. The West wasn’t only about supply-and-demand in economics but name-and-fix in politics. All orders have problems, but nothing can be done about them unless they can be named. The monopoly of information in the communist bloc propped up over-optimism to justify the system, thereby suppressing honest discussion of real problems. Also, as every problem was approached from the Marxist-Leninist or Maoist angle, the proposals and supposed solutions were often irrelevant or useless(or made the problems even worse).

Video Link

The survey begins with Richard Spencer for his key role in the newly emergent Right, which ran parallel with MAGA, each reflecting the limitations and betrayals of the other. Spencer came to prominence as the first noteworthy right-wing figure of the internet age that profoundly altered the nature of political discourse. While other and older right-wing and/or pro-white figures had utilized the internet, especially given their absence in the official or ‘mainstream’ discourse, Spencer came of age just when the internet was revolutionizing all manners of business, information, and communication.
Therefore, unlike his precedents whose formative years were either restricted to ‘disreputable’ subcultures or focused on diluting one’s views to gain access to respectable spheres of debate(such as the National Review), Spencer and his fellow pioneers got their start with the world-wide-web as the new frontier in information space. An added benefit was that Spencer entered the fray when the internet was undergoing a new revolution with social platforms/networks and the much improved Youtube allowing for faster uploads, superior video quality, and even live-streaming.

In the first phase of the internet, anyone could put up a website(and soon something called a ‘blog’), and it might be found through search engines, discussions on forums, mentions in the mainstream media, or word-of-mouth. Myspace innovated cyber-social interaction but looked amateurish, inelegant, and clunky. It was Facebook and Twitter that streamlined the ‘social’ experience, rendering it smooth and easy for millions, then billions, of people all over the world to ‘friend’ and ‘tweet’ one another.
In those ‘wild west’ days, the platforms operated virtually on the principles of Free Speech. Consider that even David Duke was once a minor star on Youtube, his videos gaining millions of viewers worldwide. And Brother Nathanael and others like him soon followed. Back then, Mark Zuckerberg even made a case for allowing Holocaust Denial on Facebook as a matter of Free Speech.
Open discussions of controversial topics were so common in those days that most of us were lulled into believing that free speech was one of the cornerstones of the internet, i.e. neither Big Tech corporations nor the government would dare interfere with the revolutionary and democratizing freedoms of the Internet Age. After all, the West defined itself as a liberal democracy where free speech was sacrosanct(as opposed to in places like China or Iran).

Also, many assumed that most young Big Tech entrepreneurs and programmers were sufficiently libertarian in their outlooks to resist the temptations or pressures for censorship. Jack Dorsey of Twitter presented himself as a libertarian. Google began with the slogan, “Don’t Be Evil”, presumed to imply the company’s commitment to neutrality and fairness.
And the full spectrum representation of ideological views on Youtube, from the far right to the far left, pulsed with libertarian ethos, as if the internet couldn’t be anything but free-and-fair. Apparently, it was too vast, complex, decentralized, and radically democratic for any set of players to rig it in favor of their own monopolistic agendas. Even though a handful of Big Tech players were increasingly attracting and manipulating the vast bulk of internet traffic, the ease and universality of access made it feel as though everyone had a stake in the experience, i.e. though private companies, they seemed to function like public squares and domains.
Indeed, corporations like Google and Facebook became mega-monopolies precisely because they drew in everyone regardless of their political views and affiliations. If those enterprises had been initiated with the kinds of policies implemented in the aftermath of Donald Trump’s victory in 2016, many people would have rejected them in favor of other options.
If Facebook had come on the scene with the forthright statement that it would favor the Democrats and hamstring American Conservatives, shield the ‘Woke’ while suppressing the Right, and/or boost the likes of Ben Shapiro(and other Zionist-centric ‘conservatives’) while demoting(or ‘canceling’) the anti-Zionist Right, half the country would have thought twice about signing on. Instead, Facebook was sold as an open forum where all were welcome to ‘friend’ others and share ideas.

Video Link

Then, it’s no wonder that Spencer, among others, jumped at the opportunity of forming a new kind of right-wing culture that was younger, fresher, bolder, and more free-spirited, unburdened by associations with the spineless Neocon-captured Right(as mainstay of Conservatism Inc.), thick-skulled Neo-Nazi Right(as the favored caricature of Jewish Media Power), and geriatric Paleo-Conservative Right. While Spencer shared ideological roots and had cultivated ties with key Paleo-Conservative figures, he understood that figures like Patrick Buchanan and Paul Gottfried had become ghostly figures of a bygone era. The Paleo-Cons earned a certain respect in dissident circles for their stalwart opposition to the Neo-Conning of the GOP and American Conservatism, but they were ideologically inadequate in gauging new challenges, overly relying on old formulations generated in the battles of the Sixties(and earlier).

It’s rather telling that many boomer(or older) dissident and/or controversial figures on the Right either ignored the possibilities of social networking or treated it as a curiosity than a game-changer. Many ignored Twitter or joined considerably later. In a way, this was to their credit as they’d honed their skills in ‘monastically’ thinking things through and presenting well-rounded arguments, in the manner of a newspaper columnist or magazine essayist. Given their formative influences, they tended to disdain the ‘arguments’ on social networks as simpleminded, gossipy, cartoonish, ad hominem, catty(or snarky), and of course trollish, especially among the anonymous accounts popping up everywhere.
Even the ones who engaged on social platforms used them in the most rudimentary ways, posting links to articles on their websites. The networks were seen as conveyors of material made-and-based elsewhere(their own websites) than as the main forum where ideas are tossed-and-turned, whipped into shape. Their thought processes were more along the railway model where the product is made and packaged in one place before being shipped to other destinations. Thus, one’s own website was like a factory or railroad station.
However, social networking turned the information highway itself into a constant hubbub of opinions, rumors, and likes/dislikes, especially true of Twitter with its ease of contact and exchange of views(as one didn’t have to ‘friend’ anyone or join a group or fan site).
The game-changing novelty certainly didn’t do much for depth or gravitas in political analysis or ideological theorizing, but then, given most political figures are bogus and most political views trite, the rapidity of communication did wonders for calling BS on the official dogma and mainstream narratives, e.g. the bullshitters would be mercilessly ‘ratioed’. Besides, why go to any length to explain something when a mere ‘meme’ could bring down the house-of-cards on what would come to be known as the ‘fake news’ media? Some things deserve to be thought about; others merely exposed and disposed.

What really happened on 9/11? The internet space has been abuzz with Tucker Carlson’s reassessment of what might be deemed the foundational event of the 21st century. Speculations about 9/11 have matched or even surpassed those about the John F. Kenney assassination, and one may argue as to which one was more consequential. Whereas only one person was killed in the 1963 event(though two if we include the assassination of Oswald and many more if we include the alleged killings of witnesses and investigators), it altered the nature of leadership at the core of the US government, with Lyndon B. Johnson taking over the helm with a more pro-Israel policy and pro-war(in Vietnam) agenda.
In contrast, whereas many more died in the 9/11 tragedy, they were ordinary folks(or ‘nobodies’)while the core of national governance remained intact and was, furthermore, emboldened to pursue its pre-established agenda concerning the Middle East. In this sense, the JFK assassination might have had a more profound impact in fundamentally altering the trajectory of US foreign policy, whereas 9/11 mainly provided wind behind the back of administration insiders already hellbent on a ‘transformative’ US foreign policy.

According to the official narrative, the event has been broadly described thus: The US, in its support of ‘freedom fighters’ in Afghanistan and attempts to maintain stability in the Middle East, especially in the aftermath of the Gulf War that left Iraq in tatters, unwittingly created conditions for a blowback. As things turned out, the so-called ‘freedom fighters’ were religious zealots who were as hostile to the liberal democratic West as to the Soviet Union. So, once the Soviets were gone, their guns were turned on Western powers. Also, the US military presence in Saudi Arabia(as a check on potentially resurgent regime of Saddam Hussein) enraged Muslim fundamentalists like Osama Bin Laden who just about had enough and, along with likeminded Muslim fanatics around the world, hatched a grand plan to teach Babylon America the mother of all lessons.
Furthermore, Osama Bin Laden and his ilk were emboldened by Bill Clinton’s indecisions regarding Islamic terrorism. Apparently, Clinton employed the US military to maintain order in the region but minus the iron resolve to destroy the root causes of the troubles. He chose not to oust Hussein and install a new regime, nor did he wage total war on the terrorists. Given such half-measures on the part of the Lone Superpower, the Muslim fanatics carried out a series of terrorist attacks on US military targets and embassies in Africa. Neocon critics argued that Clinton should have known better since there was an attack on the World Trade Center in the first year of his administration in 1993. Perhaps, the Waco fiasco and the Oklahoma bombing directed excessive attention on domestic violence than foreign-bred terrorism.

Video Link

Going back further, one might argue that the fatal mistake was the Gulf War, especially as it ended in unfinished business. Ultimately, the US allowed Hussein’s Sunni regime to remain in power as a check on Shia Iran, but that meant a fearful Kuwait(and supposedly Saudi Arabia as well). As such, there was a need for US military presence in the Middle East, which however inflamed many Muslims who regarded the American Military as infidel occupiers.
The Muslim fanatics or Jihadis were, furthermore, in high spirits in light of their victory over the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and full of fighting spirit(rather like Japanese militarists following the ‘victory’ over Russia in 1905). And despite being outraged by US sanctions that caused great harm to the Iraqis, a much weakened secular Hussein(who’d been no friend to the Jihadis) was to their advantage.
As for the Saudi government and other monarchies in the region, their continued funding of the fanatical, puritanical, or radical Muslim elements made sense as a continuation of policy from the beginning. Having been installed by the West as puppets & pawns, they sought legitimacy as custodians of True Islam. Ironically, the more they whored out to the secular ‘decadent’ West, the more they felt a need to burnish their image as devout heirs of the Prophet. The more money they made by dealing with the US, Europe, and Israel, the more money they funneled to purist religious elements(though it wasn’t long before the purists would go ‘punk’ with a nihilistic edge). The Saudis simultaneously hosting the ‘heathen’ US military and pumping money to Jihadi elements was surely too big a contradiction. The Saudi elites, hardly the brightest bulbs in town, probably failed to see where it may all lead.

The official narrative on 9/11 is true enough to the extent that there were plenty of angry Muslims filled with both rage and confidence. In their eyes, it wasn’t so much the US that defeated the Soviet Union but the Jihadi warriors in Afghanistan with the blessing of Allah. After all, the Americans never directly engaged the Soviets whereas the Muslims fought the Soviets on the ground and forced their retreat from Afghanistan. If Muslims could defeat one empire, then why not another? Maybe the US was a paper tiger, just like the USSR, which was soon swept into the dustbin of history.
True, the US demonstrated awesome might against Iraq in the Gulf War, but Hussein wasn’t a favored of Allah but a secular tyrant who engaged in a conventional war than a holy war. Besides, the end of the Soviet Union meant that secular Arab governments could no longer look to the godless communist empire for support. The hope was that the theocrats would take over, like in Iran(though despised by Sunnis for its Shia dominance). Another advantage for the Muslims was the transformation of the West into open societies, thereby allowing increasing numbers of Arabs and/or Muslims to enter and set up global networks, which, if anything, had been aided and abetted by the CIA and MI6 during the Afghanistan War and other Muslim-centered aggressions on the USSR, which would continue post-Cold War with the West’s backing of Muslim elements in Bosnia, Albania, and Chechnya. Thus, the Muslims could mount an attack on the West not only from the Middle East, a rather difficult task, but from within the West itself.

But, what is meant by ‘Muslims’? Surely, most of the Muslim world wanted nothing to do with something like 9/11, even if they held anti-American, anti-Western, and/or anti-Zionist sentiments. And no Arab and/or Muslim government, however angry at the US or the West, wanted a war with the Lone Superpower.

For his ‘historic’ meeting with Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin stated his intention of laying all the cards out on the table and addressing the root causes of the ongoing crisis in Ukraine, which, unless addressed, won’t resolve tensions between Russia and the West. In other words, a ceasefire, or ‘Minsk III’, would be just another fool’s errand given that the terms of I and II were reneged by Ukraine(with the encouragement of the West that used them as ploys against Russia). Putin supposedly explicated the events within a larger context, and it entailed the Western’s hostile attitude and strategy toward Russia. It all sounded reasonable enough(and sufficiently firm), but it didn’t go far enough, and why?
Because if Putin is really serious about getting to the core of the issue, he would acknowledge the fact that the Ukraine War has essentially been a Judeo-Russian War. The ‘leadership’ of the West, as currently configured, consists mainly of puppets and pawns whose overlying purpose is to appease the Empire of Judea. Even the US, the so-called Lone Superpower, is run by Jewish hegemonists(whose main identification is with the Empire of Judea) and their hapless goy cucks. The US military is to the Jews what the Sikhs were to the British who once ruled India.

Furthermore, if Putin really means business looking forward, he would have to spell out what is clear as day: The US isn’t some neutral player or impartial observer in this conflict but has been the primary enabler of the Kiev regime and its virulent anti-Russian policies. And even though Donald Trump may be something of an outlier in seeking working relations with Russia, the fact remains that his first term worsened matters by arming Ukraine for a war of aggression(while civilians in Donbass came under constant shelling) and tearing up long-existing missile treaties with Russia.
Some may argue that Trump was hampered by the Russian Collusion Hoax — the Deep State derailing his diplomatic gestures to Russia, at least half the country seeing him as “Putin’s Puppet”, and even the GOP doing the bidding of anti-Russian Jewish Neocon elements in sabotaging any rapprochement with Russia — , and as such, his options were limited to handing US-Russian policies over to establishment figures close to the military-industrial complex, New-Cold-Warriors, and the ‘Russophobes’. Focused on surviving the Russian-Collusion-Hoax scandal, Trump hadn’t much of a leeway in resetting relations with the Kremlin. But, such an explanation is too generous to Trump who, as events concerning Iran have shown, is a two-faced weasel and a lowlife punk with the mentality of a gangster.

If Putin is willing to indulge the charade that there never would have been a Ukraine War if Trump had retained the presidency in 2020, he can forget about getting to the root(s) of the problem because, all said and done, Trump has been and will always be just another arm of Jewish Supremacist power.
The recent turn of events, however uncertain, has little to do with what Trump wants. It’s the result of his Jewish puppet-masters having sensed that things are getting desperate and hopeless in Ukraine, therefore they may lose everything; and so, they’re simultaneously using Trump as a ‘man of peace’ to butter up Putin(so as to salvage as much as they can in Ukraine) and using their European puppets to hammer away at a more aggressive policy against Russia. In other words, Jews use their EU puppets to keep growling at Russia while using Trump to convince Putin that ‘peace’ is possible, therefore Russia should come to the table for a negotiated settlement where most of Ukraine remains under the control of the Jewish oligarchs who run Kiev.

The US spent a lot of money on the war, but it hasn’t sacrificed manpower. In contrast, it’s widely assumed that Russia has lost up to 130,000 men, which is more than twice the number the US lost in Vietnam over eight years. If we add up all the wounded and mentally damaged soldiers, it could reach up to a million. The main culprit that enabled this horror has been the US controlled by Jewish supremacists who covet Russia as their rightful whorehouse. And Trump, for all his verbiage about making nice with Russia in the 2016 campaign, has mostly been a hapless tool of the very Jewish Supremacists who derailed his wishful conciliatory policy.
The idea of Putin in good faith coming to any agreement with the US government would be a betrayal of what Russia has gone through. The US did everything to cripple and destroy the Russian economy. The US used its media power to spread the most deranged anti-Russian propaganda all across the West(and its satellites). The US-controlled West stole over $350 billion of its assets and may used the interests to fund and arm Ukraine.

The key countries that have remained supportive of Russia during the conflict have been China and Iran(and India in trade). Trump outed his true nature in relation to Iran, gloating about Israel’s surprise attack and dastardly murder of politicians and military commanders, an act that makes Pearl Harbor look like a pageant of honor. We know the entire Jewish-controlled West defended Israel’s attack as a ‘right to defend itself’ even though it was Iran that was attacked(in the middle of negotiations no less). And if we consider that Israel has hundreds of nukes aimed at Iran while Iran never possessed nuclear weapons, the scenario gets crazier. We know where Trump stood in the middle of this fiasco. (He also had General Soleimani murdered earlier.) Vileness knows no bounds with Trump who, one minute, cheered on Israel’s shock attack on Iran, and then the next minute, hogged credit as an ‘impartial’ peacemaker between Israel and Iran, supposedly ancient foes who can’t stop hating one another.

Now, it’s no secret that the reason as to why the Trump faction wants to make nice(r) with Putin is to drive a wedge between Russia and China, if only to ramp up the next big cold war(and maybe a hot war) with the latter.
Given that Iran and China have stood alongside Russia through the entire West’s war on Russia in Ukraine, it would be foolish for Putin to ease ties with Trump’s US that yet seeks more confrontations around the world, not least in Venezuela against which the current US administration is cooking up fantastic accusations, not least because of that country’s good relations with Iran and sympathy for the Palestinians.
Even if Trump is personally well-intentioned in regards to Russia, it doesn’t matter because he’ll be gone in three years. The real power in the US and the West will be in the hands of Jewish Supremacists whose long-term anti-Russian strategy will remain intact.