Paid subscribers to Michael Hoffman’s Revelation of the Method have full access to each study as it is published, and to an archive of more than 180 studies.
We have more than 8,000 free subscribers on Substack, and on average 600-625 paid subscribers (the number varies weekly). Please give consideration to assisting me in reaching our goal of 1,000 paid subscribers which, if achieved, would allow this writer to work full-time reporting and writing for you and all truth-seekers; with more research opportunities and resources available. Thank you.
Reid J. Epstein: “Dr. Abdul El-Sayed’s primary success in Michigan was arguably the most remarkable victory yet for the pro-Palestinian movement in the United States — and maybe the biggest setback for pro-Israel Democrats.
“Dr. El-Sayed, the Michigan-born son of Egyptian immigrants, won by putting Israel squarely at the center of the campaign. He labeled Israel’s actions in Gaza a genocide. He said he would cut U.S. military aid. And he said he did not believe Israel should exist as an explicitly Jewish state.
“Throughout the race, Dr. El-Sayed hammered Ms. Stevens over her pro-Israel stance. Her defensiveness on the issue was clear to all: She consistently dodged questions about her support from AIPAC.
“Dr. El-Sayed has said for months that if he becomes a senator, he would hope to influence U.S. policy on Israel — particularly among Democrats seeking his party’s 2028 presidential nomination. Last month, the Democratic National Committee announced that Michigan was likely to be one of the early nominating states in 2028.
“The American Israel Public Affairs Committee used its super PAC to invest more money, at least $30 million, to help her than any other outside group spent on any primary candidate in any race this year. It was almost, but not quite, enough for her to win. The defeat, even by a narrow margin, serves as a rebuke to AIPAC. Dr. El-Sayed, like other Democrats who have toppled AIPAC-backed candidates this year, leaned into the group’s antipathy for him and used it as a selling point.”
El-Sayed’s primary victory is indeed as Mr. Epstein observes, remarkable. For decades the Democrats have put on a pro-Palestinian face while duplicitously delivering the votes in Congress for the Israeli war machine. I call it the Hillary Clinton faction of smooth talking anti-Palestinian haters and killers on the Left. They are Neocons in all but name.
Zionist racism and ethnic cleansing have exasperated broad swathes of the American people whose taxes support the mass murder of children in Gaza and the dispossession of Palestinians on the West Bank.
Listening to Trump in Las Vegas attacking El-Sayed as a Jew-hater, while Fox News’ buffoons make him the butt of crude jokes which assume their audience consists wholly of Israel-First supremacists, is nauseating.
The Palestinian struggle for their land is viewed through a racist prism which doesn’t remotely consider their right to sovereign nationhood and self-defense; what we mainly hear about is “Israel’s right to self-defense.” This bigoted double standard is not an issue for the media dorks who disseminate it.
On August 3, I e-mailed the aforementioned reporter Reid J. Epstein: “Twice in your New York Times article today, you and your co-author referred to El-Sayed’s opponent, Haley Stevens, as a “moderate.”
Here is one example: “…an establishment-backed moderate.”
How can her Middle East position be considered moderate when you yourself note:
“Ms. Stevens says she does not believe that Israel and its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, have committed genocide in Gaza. She voted to continue funding Israel’s military without conditions.”
What is “moderate” about backing the Israeli war machine unconditionally?
(Mr. Epstein did not reply).
After all the slaughter directed by Netanyahu and his virulently racist, openly Arab-hating cabinet members Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, a Democratic candidate who supports the bloodshed unconditionally is termed a moderate. This warping of language is possible only in our current milieu of absolute negation of Palestinian humanity.
The Egyptian-American physician who won the Michigan primary highlights the contradiction between human rights palaver on the one hand and the demonization of Arabs on the other. (Russian people are the legacy media’s other whipping boy).
I wish I could say I support him. If Dr. El-Sayed were a family values conservative as many Muslims are, I would do so exuberantly. Israeli mass slaughter of non-combatant men, women and 25,000 children in our name with our taxpayer dollars is a genocidal crime crying for recompense.
Unfortunately, in order to win the support of the “centrist” wing of the Democrat Party, El-Sayed must be seen as a true believer in the biological absurdity that men with XY chromosomes are actually women, and that surgical and chemical “gender transition” for children must be permitted. (Leading Muslim clerics who should issue a fatwa deploring El-Sayed’s position on this matter appear to be missing in action).
I wish I could divine the minds of Thomas Massie and Tucker Carlson as those patriots consider forming a Third Party allegedly uniting Democrats and Republicans alienated by their party’s respective leadership. Abortion and the LGBTQ+ movement, however, are red lines for both sides, which neither are likely to cross. I doubt that ending taxpayer-funded massacres of mothers and kids in Palestine, as urgent as it is, will be enough to unite abortion proponents and Right to Life activists.
Along with the Left’s campaign for “the right to choose” infanticide (abortion up to moments before birth) and “gay marriage,” any movement for a healthy future which insists that a guy with XY chromosomes is a gal with XX chromosomes (a “trans woman”), with a “right” to enter heretofore women-only spaces such as bathrooms and locker areas, has erected an insuperable barrier to Christian support.
Ours is a civilizational struggle which transcends the issues of the hour. Our heritage has always rejected the grave disorders here enumerated. To the extent that we have embraced any of them we are rapidly decaying in ethics, dress and decorum.
For instance, on her podcast heard by millions of impressionable youth, conservative Megyn Kelly sometimes swears like a sailor on shore leave, including the “F” word. Conservatism becomes meaningless when an obscenity which not so long ago was considered something only men spoke among themselves when ladies were not present, enters the lingua franca of a woman’s daily national broadcast.
If concern over dress and deportment is trivial, then how do we define a civilized person nowadays? What are the identifiers that separate us from the barbarians when we increasingly abandon the traditional ones?
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.