Miriam Adelson / Photo credit: Wikipedia

Na kampanię Trumpa przekazała 100 mln dolarów. Kim jest kobieta, która hojnością przebiła nawet Muska

Dominika Wantuch

Miriam Adelson z domu Farbstein jest córką żydowskich imigrantów z Polski.

“Czy byłoby zbyt wiele modlić się o dzień, w którym Biblia otrzyma »Księgę Trumpa«, tak jak ma »Księgę Estery« upamiętniającą wyzwolenie Żydów w starożytnej Persji?” – pytała w 2019 r. na łamach wydawanego przez siebie pisma “Israel Hayom” miliarderka Miriam Adelson. W tym samym artykule dziękowała Donaldowi Trumpowi, który był wówczas prezydentem USA, za uznanie Jerozolimy za stolicę Izraela, nazywała go “człowiekiem słowa”, “mężem stanu” i “patriotą”. Brak poparcia dla Trumpa ze strony amerykańskich Żydów uznała zaś za “dziwactwo” i zestawiała republikańskiego prezydenta z bohaterami, mędrcami i biblijnymi prorokami, którzy “zostali odrzuceni przez tych samych ludzi, których przyszli wychować”.

Miriam Adelson ugoszczona w ośrodku golfowym Donalda Trumpa w Doral na Florydzie. Zapala świeczki ku pamięci ofiar ataku Hamasu 7 października 2023 r. Fot. REUTERS/Brian Snyder

Wraz ze wzrostem darowizn, rosły wpływy Adelsonów. W 2016 r. przekazali ponad 38 mln dolarów na rzecz Republikanów, w tym 10 mln dolarów na rzecz protrumpowskiego komitetu politycznego Future45. Kiedy Donald Trump został wybrany na prezydenta Stanów Zjednoczonych w 2016 r., Sheldon Adelson przekazał 5 mln dolarów na sfinansowanie uroczystości inauguracyjnych, a Miriam Adelson pełniła funkcję wiceprzewodniczącej odpowiedzialnej za kwestie finansowe tego wydarzenia.

Podczas swojej prezydentury Trump zrealizował postulaty, o które zabiegało małżeństwo Adelsonów – w 2017 r. ogłosił, że Stany Zjednoczone formalnie uznają Jerozolimę za stolicę Izraela i a w 2018 r. przeniósł ambasadę USA z Tel Awiwu do Jerozolimy. Trump wycofał się również z umowy nuklearnej z Iranem z 2015 r.

W 2018 r. Donald Trump przyznał Miriam Adelson Prezydencki Medal Wolności i wzbudził kontrowersje porównując go do przyznawanego przez Kongres Medalu Honoru.

Po tych wydarzeniach, podczas kampanii prezydenckiej w 2020 r., Sheldonowie byli jeszcze bardziej hojni dla kandydata Republikanów. W 2020 r. przekazali łącznie ok. 100 mln dolarów na kampanię Donalda Trumpa. 

Gdy rok później Sheldon Adelson zmarł, nie wiadomo było, czy i w jakim stopniu jego żona będzie dalej wspierać Republikanów. U schyłku kampanii 2024 r. okazuje się jednak, że miliarderka, której majątek jest obecnie szacowany na niemal 36 mld dolarów, przekazała na kampanię Trumpa już ponad 100 mln dolarów, co sprawia, że jest najbardziej hojną kobietą wspierającą republikańskiego kandydata. 

We wrześniu tego roku, gdy w  Las Vegas odbywały się wydarzenia, podczas których podejmowano temat antysemityzmu,  Miriam Adelson wystąpiła u boku Trumpa nazywając go “prawdziwym przyjacielem narodu żydowskiego”. Trump odpowiedział na to, że “naród żydowski straci”, jeśli on przegra wybory. 

Łącznie, od 2010 r., małżeństwo Adelsonów przekazało pół miliarda dolarów na działalność Republikanów, ale jak to bywa w polityce, nic nie jest za darmo. Miriam Adelson podobno w tym roku nie ma konkretnej listy życzeń, którą miałby spełnić w przypadku wygranej Donald Trump, ale wiadomo, że miliarderka, choć oficjalnie nie jest polityczką, chce być jedną z głównych postaci decydujących o polityce USA wobec Izraela.

red. M. Karst-Adamczyk

Biden-Harris Administration Secretly Signs Up for UN World Governance, Internet Censorship

Robert Williams

• On September 22, unnoticed by most Americans, the Biden-Harris administration adopted the United Nations Pact for the Future to transform global governance, which introduces the foundations of a world government. There was no debate, no media coverage, no press releases, and no interviews about the Biden-Harris administration’s surrender of United States sovereignty to the UN.                                                                                                   
• Americans were apparently not supposed to find out.                                                                                                                                 
• These agreements usher in a dystopian future, where the UN — an active supporter of terrorism and arguably the world’s most corrupt international entity… in partnership with the unelected and unaccountable World Economic Forum, led by Klaus Schwab… is given unprecedented power over the peoples of sovereign countries, who have had no say whatsoever on the contents of this pact, because it has been kept hidden from them.                                                                                                                                                                           
• Buried near the end of the Digital Global Compact, in paragraph 30, is the only thing you need to know about it: “We must urgently counter and address… all forms of hate speech and discrimination, misinformation and disinformation….”                                                                                                                                                                     
• The UN, its member states and the Biden-Harris administration evidently want to establish world-wide censorship that will make any future criticism of their power grab impossible.                                                                                                           
• In 2021-22, the UN entered into a partnership with Google to ensure that the search engine only display information reflecting UN perspectives. Dissenting views would have to be erased. The UN did not even hide their totalitarian move, and issued a press release about it.                                                                                                                                                                  
• Google is clearly doing the UN’s bidding. If you try to google the words “climate change” today, every single dissenting view has been suppressed by the search engine. In the first twenty-plus pages of results that come up on Google, not a single of them deviates from the UN/WEF narrative, with most results only containing links to UN bodies or other institutions that partner with the UN, such as the EU, the World Bank, government websites and a few climate-alarmist articles from the Guardian, the New York Times, AP and Reuters.                                                                                                                                                                       
• This is what UN censorship looks like now. Can you imagine what it will be in a few years, if countries do not immediately move to stop it?                                                                                                                                                                                   

In September, unnoticed by most Americans, the Biden-Harris administration adopted the United Nations Pact for the Future to transform global governance, which introduces the foundations of a world government. These agreements usher in a dystopian future, where the UN — in partnership with the unelected and unaccountable World Economic Forum (WEF), led by Klaus Schwab — is given unprecedented power over the peoples of sovereign countries. Pictured: Then Vice President Joe Biden at the WEF in Davos, Switzerland on January 18, 2017. (Photo by Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Images)

On September 22, unnoticed by most Americans, the Biden-Harris administration adopted the United Nations Pact for the Future to transform global governance, which introduces the foundations of a world government. There was no debate, no media coverage, no press releases, and no interviews about the Biden-Harris administration’s surrender of United States sovereignty to the UN.

Americans were apparently not supposed to find out.

The UN bragged that the pact is the “most comprehensive agreement in many years” describing it as “covering entirely new areas and addressing issues where no consensus has been reached for decades.” This is concerning.

At the Summit of the Future in September 2024, world leaders passed the UN’s Pact for the Future to transform global governance, the Digital Compact and the Declaration on Future Generations. These agreements usher in a dystopian future, where the UN — an active supporter of terrorism and arguably the world’s most corrupt international entity, led by socialists, communists and dictatorships — in partnership with the unelected and unaccountable World Economic Forum, led by Klaus Schwab and his covey of billionaire business leaders, is given unprecedented power over the peoples of sovereign countries, who have had no say whatsoever on the contents of this pact, because it has been kept hidden from them.

The Pact for the Future seeks to strengthen, empower and “transform” UN global governance — a fancy way of saying world government — to seize more power for the UN and its partner globalist elites in the WEF.

“We will transform global governance and strengthen the multilateral system to help us to achieve a world that is safe, peaceful, just, equal, inclusive, sustainable and prosperous,” the Pact for the Future proclaims in section V, named “Transforming global governance.”

The Pact is full of the familiar and meaningless UN fluff about “eradicating poverty” and “strengthening human rights” that the UN has falsely been promising and peddling for decades, goals that nobody believes the UN even wants to achieve. All the UN seems to be doing is demonizing the Middle East’s only democracy, Israel, to the exclusion of all other conflicts on the planet, and sanctifying “climate change,” seemingly code for a prospective “transfer of wealth.”

A large part of the Pact is dedicated to “turbocharging” the UN’s Agenda 2030. Much of this consists of fighting the fake crisis of “climate change” by achieving “net-zero” carbon dioxide emissions. Hidden at the very bottom of the 56-page document — action point 54 — is actually one of the most important items: the power-grab of the UN’s secretary-general: strengthening “the international response to complex global shocks”:

“We will uphold the Secretary-General’s role to, inter alia, convene Member States, promote the coordination of the whole multilateral system and engage with relevant stakeholders in response to crises. We request the Secretary-General to: (a) Consider approaches to strengthen the United Nations system response to complex global shocks, within existing authorities and in consultation with Member States…We recognize the need for a more coherent, cooperative, coordinated and multidimensional international response to complex global shocks and the central role of the United Nations in this regard.”

The UN secretary-general, in other words, is to control responses to “global shocks”, which the UN describes as:

“Complex global shocks are events that have severely disruptive and adverse consequences for a significant proportion of countries and the global population, and that lead to impacts across multiple sectors, requiring a multidimensional and whole-of-government, whole-of-society response.”

These could presumably be regional conflicts; a pandemic — or whatever the UN deems a pandemic; a real or invented “climate crisis;” wars, or whatever other pretext the UN secretary-general comes up with to take control and impose measures on the world that the UN sees fit. The corrupt, unelected and unaccountable UN would now like to be the world’s policeman — presumably leaving defendants with no recourse.

The UN proclaimed in a press release last year:

“Our global interconnectedness means that shocks that occur in one country or sector can quickly have cascading consequences elsewhere, often in unforeseen ways. Those shocks are coming at us with greater strength and frequency, with serious implications for peace and security, economic stability, and environmental sustainability. And they can have a disproportionate impact in some areas. Both the COVID-19 pandemic and the global cost-of-living crisis hit the poorest and most vulnerable hardest, throwing SDG progress and Agenda 2030 further off-track. The global response to such shocks is often ad hoc, fragmented, and improvised. We need a mechanism to tackle multidimensional threats with a multidimensional response. This policy brief calls for a more formal, predictable, and structured approach. An emergency platform would leverage the UN’s convening power and capacities in a timely and predictable way… Crucially, it would promote a global response based on solidarity and equity and the key principle of leaving no one behind. All people and countries hit by a shock must have access to the support they need,“ [bold added]”

This would not be optional. The UN makes clear that the new system “is leaving no one behind.”

To ensure that all present and future UN and WEF agendas can pass without bothering with pesky dissenting opinions, the UN member states also passed the Digital Global Compact as an annex to the Pact. The Compact is a new totalitarian tool of censorship meant to silence anyone who disagrees with the globalist agenda. Buried near the end of the Digital Global Compact, in paragraph 30, is the only thing you need to know about it:

“We must urgently counter and address… all forms of hate speech and discrimination, misinformation and disinformation… We will establish and maintain robust risk mitigation and redress measures… We commit by, 2030 to: (a) Create a safe and secure online space for all users that ensures their mental health and well-being by defining and adopting common standards, guidelines and industry actions that are in compliance with international law, promote safe civic spaces and address content on digital platforms that causes harm to individuals, taking into account work under way by United Nations entities, regional organizations and multi-stakeholder initiatives… Establish regular collaboration between national online safety institutions to exchange best practices and develop shared understandings of actions… Develop, in consultation with all relevant stakeholders, effective methodologies to measure, monitor and counter all forms of violence and abuse in the digital space… call on social media platforms to establish safe, secure and accessible reporting mechanisms for users and their advocates to report potential policy violations.”

The UN, its member states and the Biden-Harris administration evidently want to establish world-wide censorship that will make any future criticism of their power grab impossible.

The foundations of the censorship are already in place and activated to a worrying degree: In 2021-22, the UN entered into a partnership with Google to ensure that the search engine only display information reflecting UN perspectives. Dissenting views would have to be erased. The UN did not even hide their totalitarian move, and issued a press release about it.

Melissa Fleming, United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications, said:

“We are happy to team with Google to ensure that factual, trustworthy content about climate is available to as wide a global audience as possible, Misinformation is so widespread these days that it threatens progress and understanding on many critical issues, including climate. The need for accurate, science-based information on a subject like climate change has therefore never been greater.”

At the 2022 World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Fleming innocently revealed the UN agenda behind censoring the internet, making it clear that censoring the internet is for the good of the great unwashed masses, whom the UN deems too dangerous to make up their own minds:

“As long as the social media platforms had become so dominant, there was already a proliferation of mis- and disinformation that was making achieving what we were trying to achieve, a better world and a more inclusive, a more peaceful and harmonious world — it was making it more difficult. But with Covid-19 we realized very quickly we were in a communication crisis… WHO called it an infodemic… which meant if you were a [internet] user… you were just confused because there was so much information… some of it good… some of it really, really, bad…

“You know, we partnered with Google, for example, if you Google climate change, you will, at the top of your search, get all kinds of UN resources. We started this partnership when we were shocked to see that when we Googled climate change, we were getting incredibly distorted information right at the top. So we’re becoming much more proactive, you know we own the science and we think that the world should know it and the [social media] platforms also do. It’s a huge challenge that all sectors of society need to be very active in.”

The partnership has paid off tremendously for the UN and the globalists: Google is clearly doing the UN’s bidding. If you try to google the words “climate change” today, every single dissenting view has been suppressed by the search engine. In the first twenty-plus pages of results that come up on Google, not a single of them deviates from the UN/WEF narrative, with most results only containing links to UN bodies or other institutions that partner with the UN, such as the EU, the World Bank, government websites and a few climate-alarmist articles from the Guardian, the New York Times, AP and Reuters.

This is what UN censorship looks like now. Can you imagine what it will be in a few years, if countries do not immediately move to stop it?

Robert Williams is based in the United States.

What Would Matt Baldacci Do? The Collaborator Mentality Returns

Ben Cohen / JNS.org

French philosopher, writer and director Bernard-Henri Levy. Photo: Reuters / Benoit Tessier.

Like many Jews of my generation, born during a period when antisemitism was largely depicted as a historical phenomenon and any manifestations were seen as an unfortunate aberration, I would occasionally wonder how the non-Jews in my midst would have behaved during the Holocaust. Would they have stood up to the Nazis, acquiesced to them or even supported them? Would they have expressed disgust at Nazi propaganda or dutifully nodded in agreement? Would they have protected me and my family from deportation, or would they have betrayed us?

Those were, I mused, speculative thought experiments that, thankfully, I would never have to test in the real world. But in 2024, one year after the bestial pogrom wreaked by Hamas terrorists in southern Israel, those same questions belong firmly in the real world. And my suspicion is that many, indeed most, non-Jews would fail these tests of moral and physical courage.

Earlier this month, Melanie Notkin, an author and communications consultant, had the foresight to record a conversation she held with Matt Baldacci, the publisher of Shelf Awareness, a trade title for the bookstore and publishing industry that reaches more than 600,000 readers weekly. Notkin had been helping to promote Israel Alone, the latest book by the French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy, which I recently reviewed for this column, and duly purchased an ad in Baldacci’s newsletter for $2,300. But then Baldacci sent her an email informing her that he was canceling the ad, so Notkin scheduled a phone call with him to find out more.

Their conversation was endlessly fascinating and incredibly disturbing. As he told Notkin that the ad had been pulled because the book contains the word “Israel” in the title—potentially triggering bookstore staff or customers with what he would call “pro-Palestinian” but what we properly call pro-Hamas sympathies—Baldacci traversed the spectrum of vocal tones with aplomb, sounding by turns friendly, then unctuous, then impatient, then irritated. At one point, he even indulged in a bit of “mansplaining,” telling Notkin “that’s not actually true or relevant” when she noted that the CEO of his company is Jewish. “Listen, Melanie, Melanie, I hear you,” he interjected, sounding determined to end the conversation as quickly as possible. “I respect everything you’re saying. And as you say, I think that’s all there is to say.”

I don’t know Notkin, but I admired her dignity in carefully listening to Baldacci and eloquently pushing back against his cloying, disingenuous arguments. I don’t know Baldacci either, at least not personally, but I know his type very well.

It’s probably true that most of those who collaborated with the Nazis in Germany and occupied Europe did not do so primarily for ideological reasons but because resistance would have made their daily lives much tougher. I was always taught not to judge these people for not doing the right thing because they feared imprisonment or death, after all. And in the postwar period, there was a discreet acknowledgement among the occupied populations that this had been the case and that history had been kinder to them than was perhaps warranted; in the Netherlands, for example, people would joke that “most Dutch were in the resistance—they just joined after the war.” But that explanation doesn’t serve for someone like Baldacci, who exhibits the telltale traits of a collaborator without the specter of a totalitarian state operating concentration camps hanging over him.

Baldacci is a coward: Someone who, when faced with injustice or rank hypocrisy, rationalizes it and plays its worst aspects down. Someone who doesn’t like to rock the boat. In other words, he is the perfect fit for a collaborator. And so we are forced to ask: If America was suddenly in the grip of totalitarianism, if we had a government that was rounding up Jews in a bid to stop the Jewish conspiracy, if we had a government that criminalized the word “Israel”—a word that is always in the consciousness of Jews and their aspirations and prayers—what would Baldacci do? I know the answer, and I expect readers do, too.

It is the Matt Baldaccis of this world—women and men who are followers and not leaders, who consent to antisemitic agitation without explicitly endorsing it, who stay silent when they need to speak up—who have enabled the current wave of eliminationist antisemitism gripping our country and much of the Western world. Their simpering silence and pathetic fear of angering the mob are precisely what empowers the thugs who shoot at Jews going to synagogue in Chicago or at a Jewish school in Toronto, who gather outside a London conference where the Arab head of the anti-Zionist Communist Party of Israel is speaking to verbally abuse the peace activist Jews in attendance, who push petitions seeking to banish Jews from the worlds of literature, art and music—fields of endeavor that would be indelibly poorer without our contribution!

It is the Matt Baldaccis who have forced Jews, myself among them, to ask whether we grew up in some kind of an illusion, given the routine normalcy with which we historically interacted with non-Jewish friends and colleagues. Because if such people can’t stand up for a Jewish writer like Lévy in a democracy where free speech is part of our national ethos, how should we expect them to behave if the stakes and the costs are much graver? If their fear of the disapproval of the pro-Hamas media and street chorus is so great now, how much greater would it be if this chorus exercised direct political control of our republic?

I hope we never have to find out.