Origins: Soviet Antisemitism Disguised as “Anti-Zionism”

The anti-Zionist propaganda campaign was a Cold War information operation engineered by the KGB and Soviet ideological departments beginning in the late 1940s, intensifying in the 1950s–1980s.

Key motives:

•Political: To undermine Western influence in the Middle East by painting Israel (a Western-aligned state) as a colonial, racist project.

•Ideological: To reframe antisemitism as a moral stance against “Zionism,” which they redefined as imperialism.

•Strategic: To win over Arab nationalist movements (especially Egypt, Syria, the PLO) and gain access to regional allies and resources.

After 1967’s Six-Day War, when Israel’s stunning victory embarrassed Moscow’s Arab clients, the KGB and Soviet bloc intelligence began a sustained campaign to delegitimize Israel on the global stage. Construction: How the KGB Designed the Narrative

The KGB’s Department for Disinformation (Service A of the First Chief Directorate) crafted a narrative architecture that deliberately blurred Zionism, racism, and imperialism — making “Zionist” synonymous with “Western evil.”

Core propaganda lines they developed:

1.“Zionism = Racism” – culminating in UN Resolution 3379 (1975), which declared Zionism a form of racism. Soviet diplomats and intelligence officers lobbied heavily for this resolution through coordinated disinformation.

2.“Israel = Apartheid South Africa” – a linkage designed to turn the anti-colonial Third World against Israel.

3.“Jews control U.S. finance and foreign policy” – a revival of czarist antisemitic tropes from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, repackaged in Marxist anti-capitalist language.

4.“The Holocaust was exaggerated to justify imperialism” – pushed through fringe Western leftist publications and the Arab press to delegitimize Jewish suffering.

This messaging was tailored differently depending on the target audience:

•In Arab states, it was religious and nationalist: portraying Israel as a Western Crusader state.

•In Western leftist movements, it was ideological: portraying Israel as a capitalist, colonial oppressor.

•In the Global South, it was moral: framing anti-Zionism as part of the broader anti-racist, anti-colonial struggle.

🧵🧵Debunking “Blackmail, Bribes, and Fear”: How Tucker Carlson and Jeffrey Sachs Repackage Old Soviet Propaganda for the Multipolar Age

The Setup: Manufactured Outrage and Selective Facts

In his episode “Blackmail, Bribes, and Fear: Netanyahu Claims He Controls Donald Trump and America,” Tucker Carlson presents an explosive thesis: that Israel, a “tiny” and “insignificant” country, controls U.S. politics through manipulation, humiliation, and bribes.

The rhetoric is cinematic, filled with insinuations of betrayal and blackmail, but when examined against verifiable data, it collapses under the weight of exaggeration, omission, and emotional engineering.

Carlson’s framing is simple: Israel is not an ally but a master, and America is its puppet. It is the perfect formula for populist resentment, mixing partial truths with loaded emotion, but the structure of the narrative follows a far older and more cynical tradition. Step 1: Framing and Emotional Manipulation

From the outset, Carlson uses loaded adjectives such as “tiny,” “insignificant,” and “humiliating” to create an emotional distance between Americans and Israel. This is not analysis. It is psychological priming. It suggests that the very idea of supporting Israel is irrational because it violates a basic sense of national pride.

This is the first rule of propaganda: reframe alliances as servitude. In the 1970s, the Soviet Union perfected this tactic, painting Eastern European allies as “prostitutes of Washington” and “puppets of Zionist imperialism.” Tucker’s episode mirrors that approach, only inverted. Now the U.S. is cast as Israel’s colony.

By calling the relationship “humiliating,” the episode invites an instinctive reaction: shame. But shame is not proof, and emotional resonance is not evidence.

🧵🧵The Propaganda Century: How the Woke Left and Woke Right Recycled a 1920s Invention

In the 1920s, propaganda became an industry. In the 2020s, it became everyone’s side hustle.

I. The Birth of the Manipulated Mind

Propaganda did not start with Hitler or Stalin. It started with advertising executives in Manhattan boardrooms.

After World War I, Western governments discovered that mass persuasion could move entire populations. Posters, slogans, and patriotic newsreels had convinced millions to fight, ration, and sacrifice. When peace returned, those same tools migrated into civilian life.

The man who codified it was Edward Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud and the father of modern public relations. His central idea was breathtakingly cynical: democracy could survive only if an “invisible government of men” managed the masses. Voters were too emotional to be trusted with reality, he said; they had to be guided through symbols, stories, and desire.

Bernays built an empire on that principle. He sold soap by organizing child-friendly sculpture contests. He made women smoking in public a feminist milestone. He even persuaded Americans that breakfast should include bacon and eggs by getting doctors to sign a pre-written “study.”
He did not just sell products; he sold the illusion of choice.

By the end of the 1920s, the formula was clear: repetition plus emotion plus moral simplicity equals mass obedience. The century of persuasion had begun. II. The 1920s Playbook

Propaganda of that era operated through a set of recognizable levers:

1.Repetition and saturation – Say it often enough and it becomes true.

2.Simplification and scapegoating – Reduce complexity to “us vs. them.”

3.Emotional contagion – Anger, pride, and shame override logic.

4.Authority laundering – Wrap the message in expert validation.

5.Spectacle and symbolism – Make politics feel like belonging.

6.Manufactured events – Create “news” instead of reporting it.

Fascists and communists adopted these methods. So did advertisers and democracies. The propaganda of the 1920s did not just shape regimes; it created the psychological infrastructure for consumer capitalism and modern media alike.

🧵Information Warfare and How to Spot It:

(I am not suicidal. Is that how this emotional terrorism works, where is MTG when you need her 🤣)

I am going use a 30 second opening monologue from Tuckers show with Sachs and show you how he is using psychological warfare that combines KGB tactics as well as tactics you would see in our own military today to prime his audience. If I was good at AI or way smarter and faster I would do a whole episode so people can really be shocked but I suck. Sorry guys.

1. Create an information vacuum

“There’s a lot going on in the world … but if you’re on social media … you know there’s only one story going on, and it’s Israel.

He begins by asserting that everyone online is obsessed with Israel. That primes you to see your own feed as proof and to think the conversation is monolithic and inevitable. In reality, social media is fragmented and algorithmically driven. But by declaring a “single story,” he simplifies a complex landscape into one emotionally loaded topic.

Why it’s manipulative: It conditions the audience to treat his framing as reality. It also subtly suggests censorship or agenda (“only one story allowed”), which creates suspicion and heightens emotions. 2. The Strawman “Two Camps” Frame:

“Probably the more aggressive side are the deranged Taliban-level ethnonarcissists … Then on the other side, a group every bit as obsessed with Jews …”

He sets up two extremes a pro-Israel “deranged Taliban-level ethnonarcissists” and anti-Israel “people who hate Jews.”

This is a false binary. Most people do not occupy either extreme. But the binary allows him to:

•Discredit support for Israel by associating it with “deranged Taliban” zealotry.

•Discredit criticism of Israel by associating it with “blood hatred” of Jews.

•Position himself as the lone reasonable voice between two irrational mobs.

This is a rhetorical technique called triangulation. By caricaturing both sides, he presents himself as the only sane actor the “truth teller” in a world of fanatics.

When people look back on the Obama years, they often focus on policy. What gets less attention is method. Barack Obama did not simply move the Democratic Party leftward by persuasion or force. He and his team, led in part by Ben Rhodes, built a permissive structure or a system of experts, curated voices, and echo chambers that made it appear as if the most radical positions were the consensus view.

Most Democratic voters at the time did not actually agree with the left’s most radical positions. But because the administration’s chosen surrogates, think-tank fellows, and media allies dominated the conversation, dissenting Democrats were either drowned out or shamed into silence. The result was a slow internal takeover: the edge became the center, and the center was redefined out from under its own base.

That is the lesson I cannot shake and it’s why I am deeply concerned about what is happening now on the right. Today, the Republican Party is experiencing its own version of the same phenomenon. A small but sophisticated group of media figures, strategists, and online influencers have read the tea leaves. They know the party base is not where they want it to be, and instead of convincing voters directly, they are building their own permissive structures to create the illusion of consensus.

At the front of that project is Tucker Carlson.

Carlson’s real power is not that he commands an audience. It’s that he curates which stories matter, which guests are elevated as “serious thinkers,” and which dissenters are branded as traitors, grifters, or irrelevant. He and his allies are constructing an informal but powerful “expert class” of Substack writers, podcast guests, and social-media influencers who reinforce each other’s takes, giving the impression that their vision for the party is inevitable.

🧵🚨The single biggest force behind the lawsuits against the Trump administration come from Norm Eisen and his web of dark money NGOs.

Based on their 990s, an investigation is warranted into how these have been set up to violate the the letter the spirit of the law. Receipts below 👇 Democracy Forward and the Eisens Network: The Dark-Money Engine

Democracy Forward Foundation and its allies in Norm Eisens’s orbit (States United, State Democracy Defenders, Democracy Defenders Fund, and CREW) all share the same hallmark: they live entirely on contributions routed through donor-advised funds (DAFs) and wealthy foundations.

•Democracy Forward pulled in $17.7M in 2024, almost all from DAFs.

•States United posted $17.5M in 2023, again 99% contributions.

•Defenders Action, the (c)(4), raised $3.9M in its first visible year.

•Defenders Fund, a new (c)(3), is a shell with $0 activity but a board in place.

There is no program-service revenue. No membership dues. No transparency. This is money funneled in behind a veil, then deployed for litigation and advocacy.

🧵The Point of PSYOP

In military doctrine, psychological operations are not about “mind control.” They’re about shaping perceptions so that your opponent, neutral parties, or even your own side choose the behavior you want without being forced by direct violence.

Goals can include:

•Breaking enemy morale so they surrender or retreat.

•Convincing neutral populations to cooperate.

•Protecting your own force’s narrative so you maintain legitimacy.

•Steering the overall “information environment” so your side’s actions appear justified and inevitable.

In short: PSYOP turns the battlefield of ideas, identity, and emotion into a weapon system. “Woke Right” PSYOP-style Tactics

Movements that see themselves as insurgent, especially those rejecting mainstream institutions, can’t easily win through traditional power. They have to win by narrative control. For the integralist “woke right,” this means:

•Delegitimizing liberal democracy so people stop trusting it.

•Creating an alternative moral order that feels more authentic and righteous than pluralism.

•Recruiting and radicalizing disillusioned people by giving them an identity (“true Christians,” “anti-globalists”) and an enemy (“Zionists,” “liberal elites”).

•Making authoritarian or theocratic rule feel inevitable rather than fringe.

This is exactly how PSYOP functions in a military context: undermine trust in the old system, build trust in the alternative, and make the “inevitable” outcome look like the smart choice.

🧵Ammar Campa-Najjar is running for Congress in CA-48.
He brands himself as a Navy officer and moderate Democrat, and he was just endorsed by Barak Obama.

Here is what no one is telling you though: His grandfather was Muhammad Youssef al-Najjar, better known as Abu Youssef and he wasn’t just a senior figure in Fatah.

He was one of the founding architects of modern Palestinian terrorism. His legacy isn’t just in history books it’s alive today through his family and their influence.

🧵🧵Ican’t belive I have to make this thread but I do because people are click baiting grifters so I had to spend two hours researching idiotic lies so I can debunk them.

I had so many people asking me questions about this that I went down this dark hole of clickbait.

The moment Erika Kirk stepped into the spotlight as the widow of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, the internet swarmed. Overnight, rumor mills cranked out sensational headlines: she was banned from Romania, her nonprofit trafficked children, she hid a secret marriage. None of it stood up to scrutinybut in an economy where clicks equal cash, truth is the first casualty. The Lie: “Banned from Romania for Trafficking”

The Truth: Independent fact-checkers including PolitiFact and Lead Stories who hate conservatives scoured Romanian government records, Nexis databases, and media archives. They found zero evidence that Erika was ever banned from Romania or investigated for trafficking. The only documented mentions of her work in Romanian outlets were positive stories about donations to orphanages.

So where did the “ban” narrative come from? Thin air. It’s a textbook case of inventing scandal for virality.

Not one of the people pushing this can find one article, court filing or witness account of any of these allegations.

NOT ONE.

🧵I don’t know about everybody else, but the number one thing that I absolutely loathe about the Democratic Party is that they cannot keep their hypocrisy under control if their life depended on it.

Here is a thread of almost every prominent Democrat telling you that the first amendment doesn’t mean anything when they were in power.

Now I don’t hear one republican saying that the first amendment doesn’t mean anything.

All we have seen are private companies who have decided that continuing to employ demons who gleefully celebrate the assassination of a young father and husband is a bad look for their company.

1.Barack Obama — Apr 21, 2022
“Regulation has to be part of the answer” to online disinformation; rethink Section 230.

2.Joe Biden — Apr 8, 2021
“No amendment…is absolute. You can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater…” (context: guns, limits to rights). A lie by the way that court case was overturned. 3.Joe Biden — May 26, 2022
“The Second Amendment…was never absolute.”

4.Jen Psaki (WH) — Jul 15, 2021
White House said it was “flagging problematic posts”; urged platforms to curb COVID mis/disinfo.

5.Surgeon General Vivek Murthy — Jul 14–15, 2021
“Limiting the spread of health misinformation is a moral and civic imperative,” and urged platforms to act.

6.Amy Klobuchar — Jul 22, 2021
Introduced Health Misinformation Act to narrow liability protections when platforms promote health misinformation during emergencies.

7.Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — Jan 2021
“We’ve got to rein in our media environment so you can’t just spew disinformation.”

The judge who Amir Ali, who became a citizen in 2019 and appointed by Biden is one of the most radical judges on the bench. Biden appointed him so he could be the first Arab American to be a district court judge.

Today this judge said Trump must pay out 4 billion in foreign aide.

He was handpicked and promoted heavily by American Justice Alliance.

🧵Let’s take a little look at this dark money group that put over 40 judges on the bench. 1/ Introducing the Alliance for Justice (AFJ)
Founded in 1979, AFJ is a progressive legal advocacy group based in Washington, D.C. It unites over 140 civil rights, environmental, and social justice organizations, aiming to influence judicial nominations and bolster democratic values.

2/ How AFJ Is Funded
AFJ receives support from major liberal philanthropies, including:

•Ford Foundation – ~$3.36 million

•Atlantic Foundation – ~$2.45 million

•Open Society Foundations (Soros) – ~$1.6 million

Additionally, they’ve received general operating grants from the MacArthur Foundation totaling around $2.77 million over 40 years, where he was the Director.

Plus, recent grant awards included $1M from Ford, $750K from California Wellness, and $500K from JPB Foundation.

🧵🧵Let’s expose the Working Families Party that is propping up Mumdani in New York and how they are anything but a grass roots organization for working families.

They are anything but grassroots for the people. Working Families Party, ACORN, Obama, and the Dark‑Money “Grassroots” Narrative

1. ACORN’s Major Scandals & Controversies

•Embezzlement (1999–2000): ACORN’s co-founder Wade Rathke concealed embezzlement by his brother Dale—nearly $950,000—from the organization. The theft wasn’t disclosed to board members or law enforcement and was quietly resolved via restitution. (Wade and Dale Rathke later stepped down.)

•Voter Registration Fraud (2007–2009): Multiple chapters of ACORN were embroiled in voter registration fraud—such as fake submissions—and legal charges ensued. In Washington State, ACORN paid $25,000 and acknowledged criminal liability if fraud was proven. In Pittsburgh, six employees pled guilty to forgery and other violations.

•Undercover Videos (2009): Conservative activists James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles secretly filmed ACORN staff appearing to give advice on criminal ventures (e.g., tax evasion, human smuggling). Though videos circulated widely, many employees had been misled or were joking, and independent investigations concluded that the tapes were heavily edited and did not show criminal wrongdoing. Still, political backlash was swift—federal contracts ended, funding evaporated, and ACORN declared bankruptcy by 2010.

🧵Why the United States Must Leave the United Nations

The United Nations was established in 1945 as a response to the horrors of World War II. It was built on the ashes of war and genocide, intended as a global forum to prevent future conflict, champion human rights, and safeguard the dignity of nations.

That was the ideal. But nearly eight decades later, the reality is starkly different. The institution that once held the promise of peace has become a sprawling, unaccountable bureaucracy that empowers dictators, undermines democracies, and actively erodes the sovereignty of the very nations that fund it. No country has been more instrumental in creating and sustaining the United Nations than the United States. From its financial contributions to its military support to the symbolic gesture of hosting its headquarters in New York City, America has been the backbone of the UN for nearly 80 years. And yet, the United Nations has not only failed to serve U.S. interests—it has repeatedly and brazenly worked against them.

In 2023, the United States contributed more than $12.5 billion to the UN system. This included hundreds of millions to its regular budget, over a billion to peacekeeping operations, and billions more in voluntary contributions to agencies like the WHO, UNICEF, and UNDP. These payments represent nearly one-quarter of the UN’s total funding. No other nation comes close. And yet, the return on this massive investment is insult, obstruction, and ideological warfare against American values.

🧵Thread: How the “Teach Palestine” Curriculum Promotes Terrorism by Framing Violence as Resistance

Let’s be clear: this isn’t about education it’s about indoctrination. The Teach Palestine Project, pushed by the Middle East Children’s Alliance (MECA), is injecting classrooms with a narrative that romanticizes terrorism and reframes violent attacks as “resistance.” Their curriculum doesn’t teach critical thinking it teaches a one-sided propaganda model where Hamas is resistance, Israel is colonialism, and terrorism is justified as liberation. These materials are being presented to U.S. teachers as “social justice education.”

They explicitly glorify the intifadas, violent uprisings that targeted civilians. One resource praises the First Intifada for laying the groundwork for the Second, with the slogan:

“Free Palestine from the river to the sea.”

🧵 THREAD: The NGOs Behind the “Israel Genocide” Accusation — Who They Are, Who Funds Them, and How Deep the Bias Runs
In August 2025, the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) declared Israel’s actions in Gaza “genocide.” But the evidence? It comes from a small network of heavily biased NGOs. Let’s unpack them one by one. 🔽 1️⃣ Who did IAGS cite as proof?
In its resolution, IAGS cited these 7 organizations:

•Amnesty International
•Human Rights Watch (HRW)
•Forensic Architecture (FA)
•DAWN (Democracy for the Arab World Now)
•B’Tselem (Israeli)
•Physicians for Human Rights–Israel (PHRI)
•UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese

Each claims to be independent.

Each has serious credibility issues.

🧵The Democratic Socialists of America and their explicit ties to Cuba actually pose a national security threat to America.

It is more than just a radical organization that promotes far left and insane ideology. Their extensive ties to Cuba facilitate potential foreign influence operations and espionage by not only them but by the CCP inside the United States.

Read this thread and ask yourself if perhaps this is the reason communism seems to be spreading amongst the younger generations in America. What DSA is doing by its own documents:

Platform & program

- The DSA’s adopted platform commits the group to “support normalization of relations with Cuba”, to “stop using economic and financial sanctions to punish other countries, such as Cuba”, to “immediately withdraw from NATO”, and to “abolish USAID, NED, [and] Voice of America.”

- Those planks are not stray tweets; they are the organization’s governing platform.

Named Cuba campaign

- The DSA International Committee runs a live campaign—“Diplomacy, Not FORCE”—explicitly aimed at defeating the FORCE Act (H.R. 450), removing Cuba from the SSOT list, and lifting embargo/travel restrictions.

- The campaign provides letter‑writing tools and talking points to pressure Congress.

Delegations & electeds

- DSA advertises that it “helps organize and promote delegations to Cuba, where activists, organizers, and elected officials” can observe and return to advocate for policy change.

- In September 2022, DSA sent its first official healthcare delegation to Cuba, meeting hospital staff and BioCubaFarma while observing the “Families Code” referendum.

🧵🧵An extensive thread about the subversive hold Qatar has on K-12 education in America and what we can do under this administration to change that.

Mind you the available data isn’t up to date. That means the actual effects as of today are much worse.

I don’t want ANY foreign governments to spend 30 million dollars in the American public school system. This is not even addressing what’s happening in colleges, this is K-12. Much less a theocracy that is opposed to the west, supports terrorism and is guilty of human rights violations.

This should concern every single person. It is not a partisan issue.

We need to change the reporting requirements so that foreign countries cannot subvert our children’s future with anti-American and anti-western propoganda. From 2009–2017 the Qatar Foundation’s U.S. arm, Qatar Foundation International (QFI), disbursed at least $30.6 million to American public schools and supporting initiatives, largely to stand up or expand Arabic language and “culture” programs.

These grants commonly fund teacher salaries/benefits, curricular materials, assessments, professional development, travel, and local cultural programming, and they require ongoing monitoring and data reporting to QFI.

A representative primary source…the Tucson Unified School District (TUSD) grant contract documents the operational model in detail, including classroom observation rights for QFI staff, use of specific progress‑monitoring tools, and a mandate to stage 6–8 cultural activities per term.

While QFI markets itself as an independent education philanthropy, Qatar’s government has simultaneously pursued an overt soft‑power strategy (media, sports diplomacy, cultural diplomacy) and hosted the political office of Hamas in Doha during key periods facts that color the perceived intent behind K‑12 engagement.

1. The K‑12 model maximizes curricular adjacency and teacher dependency on QFI resources and networks;

2. QFI‑connected content channels have included material with explicit loyalty messaging to Qatar and lessons that legitimize terrorism;

3. The overall environment correlates with spikes in K‑12 antisemitic and anti-American sentiments even where direct causation cannot be proven.

Unpopular opinion, but it’s true.

🧵🧵The Middle East Mirage: How Both Parties Got It Wrong on Qatar, Turkey, and Syria

For over two decades, American foreign policy in the Middle East has been defined by a dangerous mix of wishful thinking, strategic hypocrisy, and bipartisan neglect. The result? The United States props up authoritarian regimes that bankroll extremism, betrays its most loyal allies, and loses credibility in a region that remains as volatile as ever.

At the heart of this dysfunction lies a stubborn refusal by both Republicans and Democrats to confront two key facts: Qatar and Turkey are not reliable partners, and Syria is not a war that can be ignored into resolution. Qatar: Our Billion-Dollar “Frenemy”

Qatar hosts the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East—Al Udeid—and serves as a diplomatic backchannel to Hamas, the Taliban, and Iran. But it’s also the world’s most successful double-dealer. Behind the curtain of shiny PR campaigns and think-tank donations lies a regime that:

•Harbors Hamas leadership in Doha.

•Bankrolled Al-Nusra, Al-Qaeda’s Syrian franchise, during the height of the civil war.

•Spends hundreds of millions influencing U.S. universities and think tanks, from Georgetown to Brookings, to shape American foreign policy from within.

And both parties let it happen.

The Obama and Biden administrations embraced Qatar as a “progressive” Gulf state and gave it a diplomatic free pass. The Trump administration, for all its tough talk on terrorism, allowed Qatari lobbyists to wine and dine officials and even floated arms deals with minimal oversight. Pam Bondi, a former Florida Attorney General and Trump ally, reportedly earned six figures per month lobbying for Qatar while the regime funded Hamas.

Why? Because Qatar pays handsomely. And Washington, left and right, has a price.

🧵🧵How did Epstein get all of his money...maybe it was Mossad, the CIA and the tooth fairy all in one.

Or he might have just been the original Bernie Madof before he was the original Bill Cosby.

I always bring the receipts (sources and citations at the end of the thread). In the late 1980s, Jeffrey Epstein wasn't a billionaire.
He was a "consultant" working with Steven Hoffenberg, the CEO of Towers Financial — a firm that would soon run one of the largest Ponzi schemes in U.S. history.

And Epstein? He allegedly designed it.

From 1987–1993, Towers Financial sold over $460 million in fraudulent promissory notes to investors.
Steven Hoffenberg later testified that Epstein was the architect of the fraud.

“He was the brains. He created the Ponzi scheme.”
— Hoffenberg (via Washington Post, 2019)

Steven Hoffenberg, Epstein’s partner at Towers Financial, directly stated that Epstein “took north of $50 million”, financing his opulent lifestyle through Towers funds.

Hoffenberg admitted giving Epstein a $2 million no-repay loan in 1988, well before the collapse.

Towers had purchased $400 million+ in fraudulent promissory notes between 1988–1993 suggesting substantial misuse of investor money.

Hoffenberg was arrested in 1993. He spent 20 years in jail for defrauding investors. He was found dead in 2022 at 77 years old.

Despire testifying that Epstein was the mastermind of the Ponzi scheme, Epstein was never charged. According to Hoffenberg, Epstein walked away with $50 million dollars.

🧵🧵How much do you think people like Obama, Clinton and other leftist aligned global interests would hide for the opportunity to access $1 trillion dollars worth of foreign investment in oil, aviation, banking, shipping and telecom contracts?

Do you think they would look the other way when they realized one of the key shady power players had a team of women plus all of his staff procure and fly out underage girls that he abused in his depraved world? Marc Rich: The Original Sanctions Profiteer

Marc Rich pioneered the art of profiting from sanctioned regimes, most infamously by buying Iranian oil during the U.S. embargo and selling it through secret routes. He built vast wealth through opaque offshore companies, setting a model for navigating around sanctions, manipulating commodities markets, and leveraging global connections.

In the 1970s and 80s, he pioneered the spot oil market, buying crude on short notice and flipping it for profit.

He continued trading with Iran after the 1979 Islamic Revolution and during the U.S. hostage crisis, blatantly violating U.S. sanctions.

He was indicted for tax evasion and illegal trading but never stood trial living in Swiss exile until he was controversially pardoned by President Bill Clinton in 2001, after significant donations to Clinton-linked foundations by his ex-wife Denise Rich.

🧵🧵Why was our FBI protecting Clinton for 30 years but somehow allowed an asset of a foreign government to get blackmail material?

That makes no sense.

What does make sense is that they looked the other way this whole time because of Clinton.

Receipts below: 1. Travelgate and Whitewater

In 1993, shortly after taking office, the Clinton White House abruptly fired seven nonpartisan employees from the White House Travel Office. These staffers had served under multiple administrations and were responsible for managing press and presidential travel logistics. The Clintons replaced them with close Arkansas allies, including a cousin of Hillary Clinton. Hillary initially denied involvement, but a 2000 report by Independent Counsel Robert Ray concluded she had played a “significant role” in the firings and provided “factually inaccurate” statements during the investigation. Nothing happened to her.

To justify the firings, the White House referred the matter to the FBI, which launched an investigation into alleged financial mismanagement by the Travel Office. Critics including members of Congress and press associations viewed this as a politically motivated purge. The FBI’s decision to involve itself in what was essentially a personnel dispute enabled the Clintons to frame the firings as criminally necessary, rather than politically convenient. In the only criminal prosecution, longtime Travel Office director Billy Dale was accused of embezzling $68,000. However, the jury acquitted him in under two hours after no personal enrichment could be proven. The case highlighted the use of federal law enforcement to legitimize a politically charged action—and the FBI’s role in facilitating it without pushback.

Whitewater, meanwhile, began as a real estate investment in the 1970s between the Clintons and their friends Jim and Susan McDougal. The venture failed, but when Bill Clinton became president, the collapse of Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan—run by Jim McDougal—drew federal scrutiny. Dozens of Clinton associates, including both McDougals and former Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker, were indicted and convicted of fraud, conspiracy, and obstruction. However, despite emerging evidence and the discovery of previously missing Rose Law Firm billing records implicating Hillary Clinton, the Clintons themselves escaped prosecution.

According to FBI field agents involved in the Whitewater probe, promising leads were often ignored or sidelined by upper-level DOJ and Independent Counsel staff. Kenneth Starr, initially tasked with pursuing the Whitewater investigation, eventually redirected the focus of his probe to President Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky—a scandal that led to impeachment, but not accountability for the original financial misconduct.

Pattern Established: The FBI allowed itself to be instrumentalized—first by providing cover for Travelgate, and later by failing to insist on rigorous follow-through during the Whitewater investigation. This marked the beginning of a long institutional pattern of deferral, soft enforcement, and political calculus when dealing with the Clintons.