Intro: Creation of Guilty White Oppressors: The primary goal of the Marxist Jewish Frankfurt School was to translate Marxism from economic terms into cultural terms resulting in Cultural Marxism, then Multiculturalism, DEI, Intersectionality, now Woke. The newer translations provide ideas on which to ground the political theory of revolution based on culture, harnessing the power of newly minted oppressed groups: certain blacks, angry liberal feminists, homosexuals, transgenders, illegal immigrants, and Somalians.
Additional intellectual firepower was required: a theory to pathologize everything and everyone to be destroyed. In 1950, the Frankfurt School augmented Cultural Marxism with Theodor Adorno’s idea of the ‘authoritarian personality.’ This concept is premised on the notion that Christianity, free markets, and the traditional family create a character prone to racism and fascism. Thus, anyone who upholds Jesus Christ, authority, truth, America’s traditional morality, private property, and institutions is both racist and fascist. Children raised by traditional values parents, we were told to believe, will almost certainly become racists and fascists. By extension, if fascism and racism are endemic to America’s traditional culture, then everyone raised in the traditions of God, family, patriotism, gun ownership, private property ownership and free markets is not sane, therefore in need of psychological help.
Smashing Christianity, truth, and morals, the pathologizing of mainly white people allowed for the building of a constituency among woke academics, LGBTQ community, and certain black seminarians who could build careers studying, writing about, and posturing themselves and their followers as victims of the new forms of oppression. @Linda
Read On:
The New Christian Right, Feb. 2026
On Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the 51st Annual National Leadership Mission of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations in Jerusalem. The Conference of Presidents is a coordinating body representing fifty of the largest and most influential Jewish organizations in the U.S., whose combined institutional footprint spans media, finance, law, academia, government relations, and corporate human resources departments from coast to coast. Netanyahu had just returned days earlier from Washington, where he met with President Trump to talk Trump into waging war against Iran. Netanyahu took the podium and spoke for approximately twenty-two minutes. The full transcript is available on the Israeli government’s official website here.
Netanyahu covered Iran’s nuclear program, Gaza’s tunnel infrastructure, Israel’s booming war economy, the shekel’s thirty-year high against the dollar, and other misc topics. And then, toward the end of his remarks, Benjamin Netanyahu looked out at the assembled leadership of fifty American Jewish organizations and told them to fight.
Not fight Hamas. Not fight Iran. But to fight Americans. To fight the Americans who have looked at the available evidence, consulted the data, and arrived at an unflattering opinion of Israeli military conduct.
Here is the exact quote, taken verbatim from the official Israeli government transcript:
“I say to you in front of these vilifications, do not cower. Do not bend. Do not bow your head. Fight back, because people respect those who respect themselves. And the minorities that fought back, whether it’s the blacks or the gays or women, they fought back. And what we have to do as Jews, both here in Israel and in the various Jewish communities around the world, beginning with the United States, fight back.”
He then added: “There’s going to be a media war. There’s a digital war. Yes, I know all of that, and we’re going to fight it together.”
File that away. We are coming back to all of it.
THE ORCHESTRA AND ITS CONDUCTOR
Before we get to what Netanyahu said, we should spend a moment on who was in the room when he said it, because this detail matters considerably more than the mainstream press is likely to suggest.
The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations is not a synagogue social committee. It is not a cultural heritage association that meets twice a year to eat brisket and reminisce. It is a fifty-organization coordinating body whose member groups include AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress, the Jewish Federations of North America, the Zionist Organization of America, and dozens more. These organizations collectively employ thousands of professional staff. They maintain relationships with every significant media outlet in the country. They have repeatedly and documentably demonstrated the ability to end careers, damage business relationships, mobilize corporate HR departments, and transform a private citizen’s professional life into a smoking crater, all within a news cycle or two. They are active participants with budgets, influence networks, and institutional memory stretching back decades.
When Benjamin Netanyahu stood before this assembly and issued marching orders, he was not speaking to a crowd. He was conducting an orchestra. Fifty organizations, one baton, and a very specific score.
THE DUAL LOYALTY QUESTION That NOBODY WANTS TO ASK OUT LOUD
Let us conduct a simple thought experiment: Americans have always understood complex situations better when they can see the shape of the problem.
Suppose Giorgia Meloni, the Italian prime minister, flew to Rome and convened a gathering of the fifty largest Italian-American organizations in the United States. Suppose she addressed them about the political situation in Italy, expressed displeasure that some Americans had criticized Italian foreign policy, and then told this assembled leadership to retaliate against those Americans, beginning in the United States, through coordinated media and digital warfare.
What would we call that? We would call it a foreign government organizing a domestic pressure operation against American citizens for holding opinions about that foreign government’s conduct. We would call it deeply inappropriate at minimum and potentially warranting serious legal scrutiny at maximum. We would ask, very loudly, on whose side these Italian-American organizations stood. We would be right to ask.
Now run the same experiment with Iran. Suppose the Iranian president convened the leadership of fifty Iranian-American organizations and instructed them to fight Americans who hold negative views of Iranian military activity, using media warfare and digital warfare, beginning in the United States. The Department of Justice would have its shoes on before the speech was finished.
No one seems to notice that this is precisely what happened on Sunday, in Jerusalem. A foreign head of state assembled the leadership of fifty American organizations, told them that Americans who hold negative views of his government’s military conduct are engaged in vilification, and instructed them to fight those Americans through coordinated media and digital warfare. This is not interpretation or extrapolation. It is a direct quote from a primary source document that anyone with an internet connection can read in approximately twenty-two minutes.
The dual loyalty question is not a conspiracy theory. It is the obvious and necessary question that arises when a foreign leader openly issues operational directives to domestic American organizations and instructs them to wage information warfare against their own fellow citizens. The question is: whose side are they on? When the answer is supposed to be self-evident and beyond challenge, that tells you something important about the nature of the power being exercised.
FIGHT BACK AGAINST WHAT EXACTLY?
Netanyahu’s framing positions Americans who hold negative views of Israeli military conduct as perpetrators of antisemitism, comparable to pogroms and the Holocaust. He invoked well-poisoning accusations. He invoked blood libels. And then he instructed fifty American organizations to fight back against this “antisemitism” (criticism of Israel) beginning in the United States.
So let us be precise about what these Americans are being instructed to fight, because it matters enormously. What is the actual position held by the Americans who have attracted Netanyahu’s ire and the organized fighting capacity of his domestic orchestra? The position is roughly this: what Israel has done in Gaza constitutes genocide, and an American ally should not be doing it.
This position is not fringe. It is not the exclusive property of college protesters and Rashida Tlaib. The United Nations has said it. The International Court of Justice has said it. Numerous international human rights bodies have said it. Scholars of genocide who have spent careers developing the legal and evidentiary standards for the term have applied it to Gaza. If someone was doing this to Jews, they would 1000% be calling it a genocide.
It was only two weeks ago that Israeli sources themselves acknowledged casualty figures that push the death toll past seventy thousand, including more than twenty thousand children. Israel has violated the ceasefire agreement over sixteen hundred times since October 2025, killing more than six hundred Palestinians during what was supposed to be a cessation of hostilities. The UN’s own deputy special coordinator for the Middle East noted that “hundreds of Palestinians have been killed since the ceasefire began, including many women and children.” Scholars have estimated that eighty-three percent of Palestinians killed were civilians. The territory meets technical definitions of famine. Israel has conducted forced relocations that meet definitional criteria for ethnic cleansing under international law.
In fact, in this very speech, Netanyahu said his forces killed thirteen terrorists on February 14th and 15th. Being curious and also skeptical, I wondered if he also killed civilians, so I did the research. Unsurprisingly, Israel targeted tents sheltering displaced Palestinians and killed civilians – not terrorists – and gunned them down with heavy artillery and mortar shells. If he’s talking, he’s lying.
If you are an American who has looked at this data and arrived at a negative assessment of Israeli military conduct, Benjamin Netanyahu just told fifty powerful American organizations to fight you. Not to debate you. Not to publish counter-arguments. To fight you. Through media warfare. Through digital warfare.
Tucker Carlson has expressed these views. Thomas Massie has expressed these views. Your humble Substack author has expressed these views at considerable length and with what I am told is a certain unmistakable flair. The coordinated apparatus that Netanyahu addressed on Sunday has demonstrated the ability to pursue all of the above. This is not paranoia. It is pattern recognition applied to documented institutional behavior.
IS THIS WHAT AN ALLY LOOKS LIKE?
Benjamin Netanyahu also described Israel as the United States’ “model ally,” and one wonders if a model ally would huddle up citizens from that country and tell them to wage war against it. He also charged the American Jews to have “consistent, unqualified, unfettered support” for Israel.
Unqualified. Unfettered. Those are his words. That means, not conditional on American interests. That means, not contingent on shared values or mutual benefit. Unqualified and unfettered. In other words, Jews must have loyalty to Israel regardless of whether or not it’s in the best interests of their country.
Allies do not do this. Allies do not convene the domestic organizational leadership of their partner nation and instruct those organizations to wage information warfare against their partner nation’s citizens. Allies do not position American citizens’ free opinions about a foreign military operation as vilification requiring organized combat. Allies reciprocate loyalty. Allies do not demand unqualified, unfettered support while simultaneously directing a domestic pressure apparatus against the people of the nation providing that support.
JUDEO-CHRISTIAN VALUES?
We have been told, with great regularity and considerable volume, that the United States and Israel share Judeo-Christian values. This phrase does a lot of heavy lifting in conservative media and it deserves a moment of honest examination in light of what Netanyahu actually said on February 15th.
The minorities that fought back, whether it’s the blacks or the gays or women. Those are Netanyahu’s exact words, delivered to the leadership of fifty American organizations as a model for how Jews should conduct themselves in the current political environment. Let us be precise about the ideological framework being deployed here. Netanyahu invoked three groups: black Americans, gay Americans, and women as a feminist category. He positioned Jews alongside these groups as an oppressed minority class that must fight back against systems of oppression operating in Western culture. He called for the adoption of a combative minority-group posture against the surrounding culture, beginning in the United States.
This – of course – is the Cultural Marxist ideology of Intersectionality being employed. This is the oppressor-oppressed dialectic. This is the ideological framework that has been used, with enormous success and catastrophic cultural consequences, to dismantle traditional Western institutions, attack Christian sexual ethics, undermine parental authority, and redefine every category of social life through the lens of power, oppression, and marginalized identity. This is the framework that conservatives have spent thirty years fighting. And the Prime Minister of Israel just invoked it as the appropriate model for Jewish behavior in America.
This is not Judeo-Christian values. This is not a shared civilizational commitment to the God of Abraham, the moral order of Scripture, and the dignity of the Western tradition. This is the political language of the academic left deployed by a foreign leader to mobilize American organizations against American citizens. If this is the values package, conservatives were sold something that was not in the box.
THE FRANKFURT SCHOOL
The intersectional framework Netanyahu reached for has a genealogy, and that genealogy is relevant here, not as a conspiracy theory, but as documented institutional history that you must understand.
The Frankfurt School was a group of predominantly Jewish intellectuals, most of them refugees from Nazi Germany, who relocated to Columbia University in the 1930s and 1940s. Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm, and their colleagues developed what they called critical theory, a synthesis of Marxist economic analysis and Freudian psychology applied to culture rather than economics. They took Antonio Gramsci’s insight that cultural hegemony, not just economic control, was the real mechanism of power, and they built an intellectual framework around dismantling that hegemony. It’s the oppressor-oppressed dialectic.
This is the intellectual genealogy of what eventually became intersectionality, critical race theory, gender ideology, and the broader grievance-based identity politics that has reshaped American institutions over the past several decades.
The American Zionist Committee, which later became AIPAC, was established and developed during the same period, in the same city, with significant overlapping support from the American Jewish Committee, the AJC, which also provided funding and institutional infrastructure to Frankfurt School projects. The Israeli intelligence and lobbying infrastructure and the architects of American cultural Marxism were, in a very literal institutio in support with the American Jewish Committee (AJC)nal sense, colleagues operating in the same network, supported by the same organizational apparatus, during the same years. And it’s surreal to see the Israeli Prime Minister standing before fifty American organizations and reaching, instinctively and apparently without irony, for the intersectional framework as his preferred model for Jewish behavior in America. The Israel Lobby and Cultural Marxists share a playbook (mostly because they’re the same people).
PROPAGANDAKRIEG
Netanyahu was notably candid about what he was asking these fifty organizations to do. His remark, “There’s going to be a media war. There’s a digital war. Yes, I know all of that, and we’re going to fight it together,” is essentially = a foreign head of state openly declaring coordinated information warfare operations targeting American domestic opinion, in front of the assembled leadership of fifty American organizations. But, does that sound familiar to you? Haven’t you heard this before?
Students of history will note that the concept of “the information war,” or the “media war,” is officially called the “Propagandakrieg” and has been used before by Adolf Hitler. He actually invented the metaphor.
WHAT THIS MEANS FOR THE AMERICAN
The question is whether a foreign government may organize domestic pressure campaigns against American citizens for holding certain opinions. The question is whether fifty American organizations, assembled by a foreign head of state and instructed to wage media warfare and digital warfare against their fellow Americans, are operating primarily as American organizations or as instruments of a foreign government’s information strategy. The question is what we call it when a foreign leader demands dual loyalty while simultaneously directing those organizations to fight Americans who decline to provide it.
We have a word for organizations that act primarily on behalf of a foreign government’s interests within the United States. The Foreign Agents Registration Act uses that word. It requires registration, transparency, and public disclosure. It’s called foreign lobbying.
Every group represented in that room, given what he explicitly asked them to do on that date, should be required to register under FARA immediately. President Trump has the executive authority to demand it, the political capital to survive the backlash, and the constitutional obligation to protect American citizens from organized foreign influence operations conducted on American soil. He needs to strip every tax exemption, revoke every special status, and require full disclosure of funding sources, operational directives, and coordination with foreign governments.
If these fifty organizations want to continue operating in the United States while taking their marching orders from Jerusalem, they can do it under the same legal framework that governs every other foreign lobby. Transparency is not persecution. Registration is not oppression. It is the bare minimum standard of accountability that a sovereign nation owes its own citizens when foreign governments organize domestic pressure campaigns against them.
https://nxrstudios.substack.com/p/netanyahu-tells-american-jews-to