Intellectual Honesty and Integrity Based on the Cases of Alex Krainer and Judge Napolitano.

I recently wrote a post criticizing Alex Krainer for his theory that the British and the British Crown somehow control the U.S., essentially arguing that all the bad actions of the U.S. are not its fault but rather the work of those “evil, pesky British.” Here is the post I am referring to:

The imaginary British Crown controlling the U.S., imaginary Communism in the EU, the ‘nazification’ (or Americanization) of the EU, and much more.

The absurdity of what people like Alex Krainer and Tom Luongo were saying made me think they were somehow paid off or acting as propagandists, as their claims went completely against logic, evidence, and reality.

I don’t know what has changed, but it almost feels like Alex Krainer read my post criticizing him - though I know that can't be true because I am no one. However, he has recently almost completely changed his stance, and his views now align much more closely with mine.

I am genuinely surprised by Alex Krainer's shift in position, but it demonstrates intellectual honesty and integrity, as I mentioned in the title of this post. We should never become too attached to our views; we should constantly doubt and question them. This is the Socratic way.

13:33

The Socratic method is a potent antidote against that particular form of stupidity which involves a love of holding opinions. In this case, the bad habit is the love of holding opinions. It feels good to know what you think. When people turn to philosophy, they usually want more of that pleasure, if not more of what they already think, than something else to be sure about. But in his view, our most urgent problem is that we're certain when we shouldn't be and think we know what we don't.

The Socratic method doesn't replace your current opinions with better ones; it changes your relationship to your opinions. It replaces the love of holding them with the love of testing them. The love of holding opinions is a fundamental problem plaguing our society today. We are constantly tempted into the bad habit of making quick judgments and shunning those who think freely or hold different opinions.

The practitioner of the Socratic method thinks in questions, is at home with uncertainty, and knows how to value a search that doesn't end. Finally, the reason why the Socratic method is so powerful for testing your own beliefs or those of others is because it is hard to argue when you are in contradiction with yourself. If someone shows you that your views contradict certain facts, you can doubt the evidence. If someone shows that your views are in conflict with new information, you might doubt the data. When your beliefs are in conflict with each other, it's uncomfortable in a more direct way. You can't attack the author of the study. Socrates views internal contradiction as a kind of moral contradiction.

The particular kind of illness that Socrates warned against, and that is widespread in our society, is the kind of ignorance which has a conceit of knowledge.

The Socratic method is what defines our intellectual honesty and integrity, as demonstrated by Alex Krainer's recent change of position, for which I can only praise him. I still don’t fully agree with him, but let me share a few excerpts from the main video attached to this post to illustrate how his shift in views reflects his intellectual honesty and integrity.

5:48

All of that was, I would say, to my mind, very encouraging. And then things took a sharp turn for the worst when he ordered, last weekend, the bombardment of Yemen, and when he kind of gave the green light to Benjamin Netanyahu to resume bombardments of Gaza. So, that has been a serious discouragement and a disappointment.

But now, what we see is that observers and analysts who have certain knowledge about foreign policy, about politics in the United States, about the Trump administration, its supporters, donors, and so forth, some of whom I'm hearing, are saying, "Yeah, told you so. This was all a big deception, and they were always going to do exactly what..." You know, it was going to be a continuity of the Biden administration, only in a different cellophane wrapping.

And then other people are saying, "No, he's doing much bigger things, and because of domestic political considerations, he has to still maintain this position of being unconditionally supportive of Israel. He cannot turn that part of his political base, which is Jewish Zionist and Christian evangelicals, against himself at this point." I don't know who's right about this.”

After this excerpt, he states that he still believes Trump has bigger plans and disagrees with those who think Trump will continue hegemonic oppression - an opinion I do not share. However, I have no issue with his views because he also says, “I don't know who's right about this.”

While my perspective differs from his, I, too, acknowledge that “I don't know who's right about this.” Like Alex Krainer, I have my own views, but I do not claim to be 100% certain or to have absolute knowledge. That’s why I always invite comments on my posts, especially from those who might have information I do not. I am not looking for comments that simply state I am wrong, but if someone has new insights and wants to challenge my views with reasoned arguments, I am always open to discussion.

Like Alex Krainer, I believe in questioning my own beliefs, which is the essence of the Socratic method. I have written before that people often misunderstand debates - they see them as battles with winners and losers. But in reality, there are no losers in a debate. If I win, I strengthen my position and views. If someone presents me with facts that lead me to change my stance, I have not lost; rather, I have moved closer to the truth. And that, as Socrates taught us, is what we should all strive for.

28:42

Israel is an element of destabilization for the whole region. So, we have to kind of take a step back and understand Israel in more realistic terms. Because, you know, I grew up always being told that Israel was the aspiration of the Jewish people, that it's a homeland for them where they can be safe and secure, and that it's the end of the pogroms and Holocaust that they suffered through history and so on. But actually, that's all a cover story. That's the narrative. The reality is that Israel, even from its conceptual beginnings at the end of the 19th century, has always been an imperial project.

It was created there in order for the British Empire to maintain their hegemony in the region, which they understood is not only resource-rich, but also extremely important to global trade. It always has been. It's where the East and West come together, and even from Roman times, this area, the whole Eastern Mediterranean, has been extremely important in economic terms, and it's always been very wealthy for that reason, because it was the trade hub of the whole world. So, to maintain their hegemony over the region and control the resources of the Middle East, Israel was created. And, you know, as the alumni of Alfred Milner's Roundtable group in London said, the plan was to seed the region with a particularly patriotic stock. And that was Alfred Milner and his Roundtable Group, which is pretty much the main think tank of the British Empire.

And then we had, in 1917, the Balfour Declaration, which was issued by British Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour to Lord Walter Rothschild. Lord Walter Rothschild's son was Nathan Rothschild, who was best friends with Arthur Balfour and who hung out with him at the Foreign Office practically all the time. They were close associates. And so, the Rothschild banking family—it is always the bankers, the money-lending oligarchies who are keen on maintaining hegemony over resource-rich regions, because then those resources can become collateral of their own banking systems. And then their clients, the companies that bank with them, can get the loans to go and develop those resources. And thereby, as these resources are turned into financial flows, they ensure that those flows go towards their banking institutions in the West. This is how empires function.

So, you know, long story short, the narrative that this is a homeland for the long-suffering Jewish people is the publicly palatable, acceptable narrative over the whole enterprise. Whereas the reality is that it's an imperial project. And so, from Iran's point of view, this is always a threat, because it was created there as a beachhead to prevent Iran from rising as a regional power, gaining strength economically, militarily, and politically. And so, this is why Iran is so vitally interested in neutralizing Israel, or at the very least, forcing it to accept the two-state solution, and forcing them to allow the creation of the Palestinian state right next door to Israel. Or, better yet, to force Israel to become a one state of Jews, Christians, and Muslims. And that way, you dilute this aspect of Israel, which is that it's a beachhead for the Western Empire, first the British Empire, but then the whole agenda got simply transferred to a new headquarters in Washington D.C., or Wall Street, however you wish to define it. And the same strategy has been in place ever since.

I agree with Alex Krainer’s assessment of Israel, and I especially want to highlight this sentence from the end of his statement: “But then the whole agenda simply got transferred to a new headquarters in Washington D.C., or Wall Street, however you wish to define it.” This marks a clear shift in his perspective. It is no longer about the “pesky, evil British” controlling the U.S. and being responsible for all its wrongdoings. He has changed his stance - the very stance I previously criticized him for. Now, his position aligns more closely with mine, recognizing Washington D.C. and Wall Street as the true centers of power.

However, one key aspect that Alex overlooks is the connection between the Jewish Mafia and the creation of Israel, as seen in figures like Meyer Lansky, as well as the CIA’s role, exemplified by James Jesus Angleton. I have previously written that the Mafia has effectively served as the armed wing of the CIA since 1942, following Operation Underworld. Essentially, the Mafia functioned like the Gestapo did for the Nazis - only hidden from public view.

I have also pointed out that, while I criticize both Communists and Nazis, one distinction between them and the U.S. is that both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, as well as Communist Russia, actively fought against organized crime. In those regimes, organized crime was nearly eradicated, though one could argue that the state itself took on that role. The Nazis had the Gestapo, Italy had OVRA, and the Communists had the Cheka and NKVD. While these organizations terrorized the population and committed atrocities in the name of the state—similar to how the Mafia operates in the U.S.—the key difference is that they were officially part of the government, whereas the Mafia in the U.S. was not.

This distinction allowed the U.S. to maintain plausible deniability regarding its oppressive actions. If the U.S. wanted to eliminate someone or terrorize a population, the Mafia, acting as a contractor for the CIA, would carry out the operation - just as the Gestapo did in Nazi Germany. However, unlike the Nazis, the U.S. could claim that these were merely the actions of criminals, not the state itself. This allowed the U.S. to present itself as morally superior to other oppressive governments while, in reality, functioning in much the same way.

The CIA, using the Mafia as its enforcer, played a significant role in the creation of the Israeli state. In reality, Israel is an American Deep State and CIA project, designed to project power and control over the region, just as Alex Krainer has argued. While Alex correctly acknowledges the British connection, he either missed or was unaware of the CIA and Mafia’s involvement - represented by figures like Meyer Lansky and James Jesus Angleton - demonstrating the deeper American connection to Israel’s formation.

34:30

You know, you have to keep the people motivated. And you can't generally motivate people by monetary rewards. It dissipates and causes internal strife. There has to be, in all these, let's call them, radical or revolutionary or Messianic movements, a unifying ideology.

And so, among the Zionist Jews, there's definitely a Messianic agenda at play. And they are completely at odds with a whole huge segment of Orthodox Jews who say, "No, Israel is completely antithetical to our religion. We are dead against this. God did promise us a return to the promised land, but it has to be given to us by God, not created by man."

I also agree with this statement, as it was reflected in Nazi ideology as well. It was not solely about Lebensraum, which provided material rewards; there also had to be an ideological battle against the so-called evil, satanic Jews and the cleansing of the nation.

In reality, however, it was entirely about material gain - plundering and enslaving other people. But this had to be masked by ideology, framed as a fight against evil and the purification of the nation. This ideological narrative served as a cover for the true motivation: financial and territorial rewards obtained through the conquest of other nations and the enslavement of their people.

Just like Israel today, the Nazis understood that monetary incentives alone were not enough to motivate people. They had to conceal their true objective - material gain - behind an ideological cause that could inspire and mobilize the masses.

38:14

It's not possible to explain this entirely in rational terms, you know, quest for resources, quest for security, defeating our enemies. There's also a very deeply irrational dimension to it, based in faith, based in religion.

Just as it was for the Nazis, their actions were not solely explainable in rational terms - it was also a holy war for them, framed as a battle between good Christianity and evil satanic Judaism. However, this was merely an ideological cover for their true motivation: material and financial gain.

Now, this part of the interview blew my mind.

40:30

Right now, it's difficult for people to imagine this happening because, you know, the passions are running so hot. But, you know, in history, these kinds of things have happened. You had, for example - I'm from Croatia - during World War II, you had horrible atrocities inflicted by Croatians against the Serbs, and to a lesser extent, vice versa as well. Nevertheless, when new political leadership took over in 1945, then the ideology of unity and brotherhood was promoted, and people came to live together again. And, you know, until the early 90s, everything was going reasonably well. Actually, it was going really well.

Wait, what? In this evil socialist Yugoslavia, things were “going really well”? So Yugoslavia was not a socialist hellhole, and things were actually “going really well”? But I thought socialism was horrible, and Yugoslavia was supposed to be a terrible socialist hellhole!

This part really shocked me. What made me even more curious was that Alex Krainer, who came from socialist Yugoslavia, was so strongly against socialism. Yet now, his views have shifted and are much more aligned with mine.

42:34

There's a great deal of deception going on with that. You know, when the war erupted in former Yugoslavia, it was easy for anyone in the West to believe what was being published in the mainstream media: that these were centuries-old hatreds between Serbs and Croats and Muslims. You know, Croatians are Catholics, and Serbs are Orthodox, and so they hate each other, and these hatreds just erupt uncontrollably. Complete and total nonsense.

This is almost exactly like that metaphor about putting 100 red ants and 100 black ants into a glass jar. Yeah, well, this has been done as an experiment. They put 100 black ants and 100 red ants into a jar, they closed the jar, and now they're forced to live together. What happens? Nothing happens at all. But if you shake up the jar violently, then the ants start killing each other because they're alarmed. Something is terribly wrong. They don't understand, but they see the other - it must be them. So, the adrenaline rushes, and the killing begins.

And so, you know, the people of former Yugoslavia have been able to live in peace side by side for decades. In fact, most of the time throughout our history. But every so often, for reasons of global geopolitics dictated by London or other imperial colonial centers, these people would be pitted against each other to trigger a war, to destabilize the region, to maybe destabilize. You know, like World War I, the idea was to destroy Germany, and the agenda was to use Serbians to antagonize the Austrian Empire, because then the Austrian Empire would lash back, and then the Russians would be forced to come to the aid of the Serbs, and the Germans would be forced to come to the aid of Austria. And that's what they've done, and that's exactly how. And then they would say, like, "Oh, these Serbs," you know, "like the centuries-old hatreds," whatever. It's always like that.

And then we also see that in the Middle East. Jews and Christians and Muslims are perfectly capable of living together in peace as brotherly communities. And you can see that in the Middle East. You know, if you travel around the Middle East, you'll see a church, and then half a block away, a mosque, and these people know each other personally, they're friends, they harbor no hatred towards each other.

The second-largest Jewish community in the Middle East is in Iran, and they've lived there for 2,000 years. And the fact that they still exist should tell you something. There's no hatred towards them. They haven't been exterminated, as, you know, we're trying to say, like, "Oh, the Iranians, they want to exterminate the Jews. They hate the Jews. Why do they hate the Jews? Because they're Muslims." It's all complete nonsense. It's all deception to make us acquiesce to these forever wars. And always say, like, "Oh gosh, you know, these people are so incredibly irrational and backwards. They just lash out and kill each other." No. Ultimately, it's all about resources and the banking interests that are driving this. And then they also own the media that are spinning these nonsense stories for us to then go, like, "Oh, you know, the centuries-old hatreds. These people just, you know, they need us there to mediate and intervene to hold them from lashing at each other and slitting each other's throats." It's an almost exact inversion of the truth.

Yet another statement I couldn’t agree with more. Funny how the war in Yugoslavia and its collapse are no longer blamed on evil socialism or the idea that it was a socialist hellhole but rather on imperial intervention.

Considering my last post, where I criticized Alex Krainer heavily, I now need to give him the praise he deserves for his intellectual honesty and integrity. He has demonstrated a rare quality - changing his views when presented with information that contradicts his previous beliefs. Now, his views are very similar to mine, and I couldn’t be happier. His willingness to adapt and seek the truth shows that he is both intelligent and principled.

We need more people like that.

Now, the Case of Judge Napolitano

I disagree with many of Judge Napolitano’s views since he is a libertarian, while, as people who follow my posts know, I am a socialist. However, I do share some libertarian perspectives, and I consider myself a real socialist - a material socialist rather than an ideological one.

You could even say that I hold some traditional ideological views, supporting faith and traditional values. I support multiculturalism and believe that different cultures can coexist. At the same time, I also support faith in Jesus Christ, as it instills certain values in our culture. However, I do not believe in the supremacy of Christianity over other religions.

I advocate for personal freedom, including choices such as being gay or following different lifestyles. However, what I do not support is the promotion of these choices in the way it has been done in the West, which I believe has had negative consequences. While I believe that we should not condemn people for being gay, I also believe that actively promoting such lifestyles is harmful.

So, while I disagree with Judge Napolitano’s views on the state and economy, we share many similar ideological perspectives.

Now, here is one of his recent videos, which touches on a subject that, in my opinion, The Duran has neglected. I understand that The Duran is a European program, primarily focused on Europe and the war in Ukraine. However, I believe that overlooking what is currently happening in the U.S. is a mistake.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

2:00

Welcome, my dear friends. A sad subject that we have to talk about, particularly for someone like you who's devoted his entire professional life to defending the values underlying the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. How bad are things, from your perspective, for freedom of speech today? We know about the Khalil case. You can address that. That's the graduate student at Columbia. We know about the physician, the nephrologist on the Brown University Medical School faculty. And we know what the administration's trying to do to our dear friend, good friend of the show, longtime friend of mine, and I think yours, Congressman Thomas Massie. What's behind all this?

Well, as Mr. Mearsheimer has pointed out, all of this comes out of basically the Israel lobby and the Israel lobby's efforts to silence any criticism and do whatever it takes to silence any criticism of Israel. And this is what they've been working at for many years, and they are at the verge of success right now with Donald Trump. Donald Trump has made it very clear that one of his targets, his particular target, is to wipe out what he refers to as anti-Semitism and anti-Semites in the United States. And he's taken major steps to arrest people that he accuses of committing the crime of being anti-Semites. And Khalil, of course, is the big case that's made the news recently because it's just so bizarre. A guy who's got a green card, is a legal resident of the United States, married to an American woman, and all he did was participate and also direct and lead some of the pro-Palestinian demonstrations that took place at Columbia University earlier this year. And that's his crime. And you and I and many other people would probably refer to that as an exercise of free speech, and we'd like to be able to do that ourselves in cases where we feel the government is acting illegally or out of line. But this is basically what's happening, and Donald Trump is right on board with all of this. There, in addition to the names you cited, there have been a number of other arrests and a number of cases where the universities, acting out of fear, have taken away diplomas from students who earned them, have kicked them off campus, have brought in campus police and homeland security authorities to question them, and look into their social writings on the internet and everything to see if they're saying anything that could be construed in a way as to deport them or put them in jail.

In the case of the young man Khalil, he was arrested and whisked away, first to New Jersey for an overnight stay, and then to Louisiana, there to be charged. The charging papers, which I read, and I suspect you have as well, did not state any crime that he violated, did not state any statute that he violated, did not state any harm that he caused, did not state any allegation of supporting terrorism, which is a vague and expansive crime, but one that the feds do use. All it offered no evidence of anything. All it stated was, and this is almost laughable, the conclusion of Marco Rubio, who probably never even heard of this kid, that his presence, the young man's presence on the Columbia campus, is an impediment to the execution of American foreign policy. Now, I can't imagine any judge, whether an Article 3 judge, lifetime appointed by the president confirmed by the Senate, or an immigration court judge who basically works for the prosecutor, works for the secretary of homeland security, whose lawyers prosecute these cases, I can't imagine either type of judge ordering the deportation on the basis of just that.

No, nor can I. And the odd thing is, of course, that this whole argument about how this college student could have negatively impacted U.S. foreign policy in some kind of way that's not spelled out is ridiculous. But now, the real dangerous thing about all of this is this: this is being pushed nevertheless by the administration, and it clearly is the intention of the president of the United States to ignore what the judges are telling him and to go ahead and do what he wants to do anyway. So, once we get in that kind of hole, how do we ever get out of it? We have a person who is in charge who believes that everything that he believes is the truth and is right, and what he believes has to be applied to any citizen whenever he deems it possible to do so. I mean, this is the kind of door that's opening that could lead to people like me and you being deported. I mean, if Donald Trump decides that what we say on this show and what we write and what we are, and the viewpoints that we hold, are viewpoints that are not compatible with what he believes and what the clowns that he surrounded himself believe, then the sky's the limit. There is no Constitution. There is no Bill of Rights. We have no rights.

Unfortunately, this is a topic that, in my opinion, is completely overlooked on The Duran programs. Judge Napolitano, like me, despises this woke nonsense, but his opposition to it hasn’t blinded him to what is happening right now. Just because people were once silenced for speaking out against woke ideology does not mean we should now accept silencing from the other side. Where is the Republican Party’s supposed love of free speech now?

Many people, including myself, dismissed claims that Trump’s next term could threaten democracy or lead to dictatorship. We saw such warnings as nothing more than political fear-mongering by Trump’s opponents. Based on his first term, there seemed to be no real indication of such a threat. However, now, I and many others are beginning to worry that Trump could, in fact, pose a serious risk to democracy.

I recently heard Lawrence Wilkerson speak about this, but at the time, I didn’t take it seriously. He warned about Trump interfering with the internal functions of government and appointing people who could enable authoritarian tendencies. I was surprised to hear this from Wilkerson, and I initially dismissed it. However, recent events have made me question my previous assessment. In my view, there is now a real possibility of something deeply concerning happening in the U.S.

People like Judge Napolitano are demonstrating intellectual honesty and integrity by not allowing their hatred of woke ideology to blind them to broader threats. He is willing to adjust his views when new information contradicts their previous assessments. Like I said before, I initially thought all this talk of Trump being a threat to democracy was nonsense. That’s why Wilkerson’s comments surprised me. But as new information emerges about what is happening in the U.S., I have reconsidered my position - and I now believe there is a genuine threat to democracy from Trump.

I really wish The Duran would cover this issue. I know it is primarily a European program, with a focus on Ukraine, but what is happening to free speech and the rule of law in the U.S. should also be discussed - even for a European audience.

I have written before that while Europe presents a little of economic democracy - a legacy of socialist economic policies - the U.S. has always represented ideological democracy, with its strong legal protections for free speech. Free speech laws are one of the few major advantages the U.S. has over Europe, but now, even those protections are under attack - threatened by what Trump is doing.

Some may argue that calling Trump a dictator is an overstatement, that I am exaggerating. But if we now have people in the U.S. claiming that judges and courts should not be allowed to overrule the president’s decisions, what else can we call it? The U.S. government is built on the separation of powers between three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. This separation exists for a reason.

Now, if people are saying that judges and courts should not undermine or oppose Trump’s decisions, they are essentially advocating for the dismantling of this system. They want the judicial branch to become subservient to the executive branch - led by the president. And if the president and the executive branch take control over the judicial system, what do we call that, if not dictatorship?

In the end, I will leave you with this recent video from the Jimmy Dore Show, which highlights the transformation of Trump after he was elected - something that is also not addressed in The Duran programs.

Where is Trump shown in the videos that Jimmy presents? Where is Tulsi Gabbard from the videos Jimmy is showing? Why hasn’t their sudden change been discussed more in The Duran programs? Trump is going completely against the ideas on which he was elected, just like Tulsi Gabbard, who gave some of us hope for the Trump administration, but is now turning her back on the very things that inspired that hope.

We have the "Annalena 360," so how about we talk about the "Trump 360" or "Tulsi 360"?

I’ll end here and thank everyone who stuck with my post until the end.

And, as always…

“Knowledge will make you be free.”

― Socrates

+

“Knowledge isn’t free. You have to pay attention.”

― Richard P. Feynman

=

“Freedom is not free, you need to pay attention.”

― Grzegorz Ochman

Please pay enough attention, or we will all be screwed. God bless you all.

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear"

― Orwell

“You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you mad.”

― Aldous Huxley

“The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence."

"Science is simply common sense at its best - that is, rigidly accurate in observation,

and merciless to fallacy in logic.”

― Thomas Huxley

"An intellectual is someone whose mind watches itself"

― Albert Camus