Is the Trump impeachment a Jewish coup? It’s a dangerous question even to ask. The Christian news outlet  TruNews was labeled an anti-Semitic conspiracy-theory website and banned by a Jewish-dominated company—YouTube—for saying so. [2 Jewish Congress members want White House to shun news outlet that called Trump impeachment effort ‘Jew Coup,’ Jewish Telegraphic Agency, December 10, 2019] (Subsequently, TruNews has been deplatformed by PayPal for asserting that Jeffrey Epstein was running a Mossad honeypot operation designed to blackmail leading U.S. political figures).

But undeniably, Jews have taken very prominent, very public roles in impeachment. Most prominent are the two congressmen who conducted the House hearings: Adam Schiff, Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, and Jerry Nadler, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee. Both Schiff and Nadler were named as prosecutors in the Senate trial, with Schiff designated as lead prosecutor.

Both of the Democrats’ counsels at the House hearings were Jews: Norm Eisen for the Judiciary Committee and Daniel Goldman for the Intelligence Committee. Several of the most prominent witnesses called by the Democrats were also Jews, including Alexander Vindman and Gordon Sondland.

Strikingly, all three of the legal scholars called by Nadler’s committee—Noah Feldman of Harvard, Michael Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina, and Pamela Karlan of Stanford University—were Jews, with a strong Jewish identity. [The Tell: Three of the impeachment witness lawyers were Jewish, and it matters, by Ron Kampeas, Jewish Telegraphic Agency,  December 6, 2019]   Gerhardt is a Fellow at the Katz Center for Advanced Jewish Studies, University of Pennsylvania and has given several lectures on Judaism and the law (e.g., “Jewish Lives and the American Constitution: Selected Stories,” Bar Ilan University Law School). Karlan is a self-described example of "snarky, bisexual, Jewish women," and Feldman is Director of the Julis-Rabinowitz Program on Jewish and Israeli Law at Harvard.

In effect, impeachment is a project of the numerically dominant Jewish Democrat-voting Left, with the Jewish counsels for the Democrats questioning Jewish witnesses in House committees headed by Jewish representatives, and covered with breathless enthusiasm by Jewish-owned media outlets like MSNBC, CNN, and The New York Times.

The only surprise: that the Jewish role has been so public. In times past, Jews in many walks of life used WASP-sounding names to lessen public perceptions of their Jewishness, and non-Jews were often recruited to serve as window dressing in what were in fact Jewish-dominated movements, most notably the radical Left in pre-1960s America.

I believe this new blatant approach is a marker of Jewish power in 2020 America: Jews now feel confident enough that they can safely participate in such displays, knowing that their role will never be noted in public debate.

Indeed, it’s quite possible that the average white American watching the hearings genuinely sees the Jewish principals as nothing more than garden-variety white folks—they often seem to have no "Jewdar" at all.

This is no accident, since the percentage of Americans who think “the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews," in 2008 was 22%, compared to ~50% in 1964—despite Jewish dominance remaining obvious to anyone who bothers to seriously inquire. Being afraid to notice ethnic realities, or having been brainwashed into not noticing them, are major factors in the power of what has to be described as America’s new, Jewish-dominated, elite.

Donald Trump ran on a platform guaranteed to arouse the hatred of this elite. His immigration-related proposals and comments (e.g., “Paris is no longer Paris,” “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best”) and his advocacy of a non-interventionist foreign policy were red flags to an Establishment bent on massive immigration and endless wars in the Middle East to protect Israel. His victory was a hostile takeover of the Presidency, opposed by the entire spectrum of elite political opinion, from the far Left to the neoconservative “Right,” and including Conservatism, Inc. cheap-labor lobbyists like Paul Ryan.

Trump’s platform was populist to the core—it was essentially an end-run around elite opinion. And American Jewish intellectuals have long shown their hostility toward populism, as I noted in Chapter 5 of my The Culture of Critique.

But the Trump phenomenon went beyond its rational content. It was an implicitly White revolt, motivated by fears about what being a white minority in a majority black and brown America would mean for the future—entirely reasonable concerns.

However, Trump’s implicit white appeal worked both ways—it inspired both support and also opposition, above all among Jews.

In interesting contrast to their fellow Americans of similar socioeconomic status, some 70–80 percent of U.S. Jews vote Democrat. But even so their visceral animosity toward Trump during the 2016 campaign was extraordinary (see my VDARE.com five-part series titled “Jewish Fear and Loathing of Donald Trump”).

So it’s no surprise that Trump’s actual election was greeted with quite unprecedented anguish and frustration. The Washington Post headlined The Campaign to Impeach President Trump Has Begun the day of Trump’s inauguration. [By Matea Gold, January 17, 2017] (But in fact—incredibly—it dates back to even before his nomination.)

I believe the present political crisis should be seen as a struggle between our new, Jewish-dominated elite, stemming from the 1880–1920 First Great Wave of immigration, and the traditional white Christian majority of America, significantly derived from pre-Revolutionary colonial stock but augmented by subsequent white Christian immigration. This new elite, while influential prior to World War II, had increasing influence throughout the 1950s—typically seen as a rather placid decade of peace and prosperity, but in reality, a decade of intense Kulturkampf roiling just below the surface but bursting out periodically, most spectacularly with the controversies surrounding Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

The nascent elite defeated Sen. McCarthy, despite subsequent evidence that he was substantially right. Of course, it is simply a fact that the individuals caught up in the McCarthy accusations were disproportionately Jewish. McCarthy’s crusade may be regarded as the last gasp of traditional America. So the possible resurrection of traditional America under a populist President Trump was seen by our new elite as a catastrophe.

The new elite really came to power in the Counter-Culture Revolution of the 1960s, the decade that saw the enactment of the 1965 Immigration Act, opening up immigration to all the peoples of the world, and the Civil Rights Movement, which has now morphed into what amounts to anti-white identity politics.

I was on the Left during the 1960s. I’ve often said that if someone had asked me what America would look like in 50 years, I would have said it would be fairer, but I would not have envisioned the demographic transformation. Nor would I have anticipated the mushrooming of anti-white hate that has emerged in the elite media and academic world (see my Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition for a summary, pp. 446–448).

I have documented that this new elite is fundamentally Jewish, in the sense Jews have constituted its indispensable core. It has promoted attitudes on immigration, multiculturalism, foreign policy affecting Israel, and non-white and gender-based identity politics that have now reached unchallengeable consensus among elites in the U.S. and throughout the West. But they were prevalent in the mainstream Jewish community since well prior to the 1960s, contrasting strongly with the rest pre-1960s America.

For example, the organized Jewish community has promoted the interests of Israel since 1948, overcoming opposition of the former WASP foreign-policy Establishment that had dominated the U.S. State Department.

Even more importantly, the Jewish community has been actively involved in opposing immigration restriction since the late nineteenth century and in promoting the ideology that America is a “Proposition nation’ open to all the world’s peoples.

As Professor Otis Graham commented on the Anti-Defamation League’s getting John F. Kennedy to put his name on a pro-immigration book in 1958 ghosted by one of its operatives:

The ADL, part of a Jewish coalition whose agenda included opening wider the American gates so that increasing U.S. ethnic heterogeneity would reduce the chances of a populist mass movement embracing anti-Semitism, had made a golden alliance. A Vast Social Experiment: The Immigration Act of 1965, NPG, October 30, 2005

Thus, despite the high-flown rhetoric, increasing immigration was really all about ethnic defense—by reducing the demographic, political, and cultural power of European-Americans (see also Chapter 7 of my Culture of Critique), as reflected in the attitudes of Jewish leaders going back to the 1920s.

Jewish organizations are now deeply involved in punishing people who dissent on immigration and other favored issues, as indicated by the example of TruNews. [Inside the War to Take Away Our Free Speech, by Eric Striker, Unz.com, January 21, 2020]  This looks like a switch, but free speech is not at all a Jewish value, quite absent from traditional Jewish communities. And in the contemporary world, Jewish organizations, such as the ADL, and organizations with prominent Jewish funding and staff, such as the SPLC, have uniformly supported “Hate Crime” legislation throughout the West. Jewish groups in Europe have long advocated criminal penalties for “hate speech” and criticism of Israel, and they have succeeded in getting them enacted in the UK, Germany, France, and elsewhere.

In the U.S., these organizations have taken a lead role in getting dissidents de-platformed from social media and financial institutions, forming partnerships with Facebook, Google, Twitter and Microsoft to combat “cyberhate,” including pressuring You Tube to remove accounts associated with the Alt Right. They have also been prominently involved in doxing dissidents, often resulting in loss of livelihood. Just recently, ADL head Jonathan Greenblatt testified in Congress that the social media companies were not doing enough to combat “hate speech,” and asked that Congress step in to rectify the problem—a clear violation of the First Amendment.

Jewish lobbyists even persuaded President Trump (who contrary to their fears seems to have a policy of appeasement, for example by recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital) to sign an executive order that effectively penalizes speech critical of Israel at universities. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education commented that

While the order is couched in language intended to paper over the readily evident threat to expressive rights, its ambiguous directive and fundamental reliance on the [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance] definition of anti-Semitism and its examples will cause institutions to investigate and censor protected speech on their campuses. … [C]olleges and universities will rush to punish student and faculty speakers in an attempt to avoid federal investigation and enforcement.

UPDATED: FIRE statement regarding executive order on campus anti-Semitism, December 10, 2019

Of course, university administrators are highly experienced in suppressing free speech even from mainstream conservatives, having acquiesced repeatedly to hecklers’ vetoes and physical harassment by campus leftists.

In fact, Trump’s EO includes language that might be construed as targeting an article such as this one, because it might be said to contain “stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as a collective—such as, especially but not exclusively … Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions” as set forth in the IHRA definition.  

As always, truth would not be a defense.

This new elite saw itself on the verge of complete victory in 2016.  If Hillary had won, it would have been business as usual on all fronts, from foreign policy in the Middle East and toward Russia, to an immigration surge (as attempted during the Obama presidency), Amnesty for illegals, removing penalties for illegal entry and promoting multiculturalism, to knock out the white majority.

There would have been increased pressure for European-style legislation penalizing speech related to immigration and diversity, which would have been upheld by a Supreme Court refashioned with more justices like Elena Kagan, who has already signaled willingness to rein in the First Amendment on speech related to diversity issues.

As Angelo Codevilla has written (without acknowledging the Jewish dimension):

Were any Democrat to win [in 2020], we can be certain that the demands on us [Deplorables] would escalate, and the government’s choke hold on education, speech, religion, medicine, law, and all manner of administration would tighten further.

A Deplorable Strategy Beyond 2020, American Greatness, December 2, 2019

To be sure, Trump’s election has not resulted in his promised policies being enacted. Middle Eastern wars continue, reflecting the priorities of major Jewish donors Sheldon Adelson, Bernard Marcus, and Paul Singer, who have collectively contributed north of $250M to Trump's re-election. On immigration, there have been some improvements at the southern border and on enforcement, but promises to end Birthright Citizenship via executive order (of course it will be litigated, but so what?) and lower legal immigration (which should have been attempted when the GOP had control of both houses of Congress) have not been fulfilled. The U.S. is still on schedule to have a white minority in the near future.

So, given Trump’s lack of success in effecting fundamental change, why are Schiff et al. expending so much energy in an impeachment scenario that has, by all accounts, no chance of actually removing Trump?

Because they can’t help themselves. I suggest that that the “visceral animosity” that I noted above is motivated by the parallels between Trump’s white working-class base and working-class support for National Socialism in 1930s Germany. This phenomenon was traumatic for Jewish intellectuals, who at the time were deeply immersed in classical class-struggle Marxism. It was of critical importance in motivating the shift pioneered by Frankfurt School toward conceptualizing Jewish interests in terms of race—that the real problem Jews faced was white ethnocentrism, the latter solvable only by propaganda efforts aimed at vilifying white racial identity (which soon became mainstream in the educational efforts of the Jewish activist community) and by importing non-whites in order to diminish white political power.

And, as always, this Jewish effort to nip Trump-style populism in the bud has been carried out with the great psychological intensity that is a general trait of Jewish activism. My observation is that among Jews there is a critical mass that is intensely committed to Jewish causes—a sort of 24/7, “pull out all the stops” commitment that produces instant, massive responses on Jewish issues. Jewish activism has a relentless, never-say-die quality. This intensity goes hand in hand with the “slippery slope” style of arguing: Even the most trivial manifestation of anti-Jewish attitudes or behavior is seen as inevitably leading to mass murder of Jews if allowed to continue. (I discuss this at greater length in Understanding Jewish Influence I: Background Traits For Jewish Activism, The Occidental Quarterly, Summer 2003, pp 24-26.)

As Peter Novick described this attitude in  The Holocaust in American Life

There is no such thing as overreaction to an anti-Semitic incident, no such thing as exaggerating the omnipresent danger. Anyone who scoffed at the idea that there were dangerous portents in American society hadn’t learned ‘the lesson of the Holocaust.’

In the case of impeachment, this psychological intensity is motivated by the fear that Trump could be reelected and be in a much better position to effect fundamental change. Indeed, Adam Schiff made exactly that point during his remarks during the Senate trial. [ Schiff Tells Senators They Must Not Allow Trump to Run for Re-Election , CNSNEWS, January 24, 2020]

So is this a Jewish coup? Of course, such a claim needs qualification. The Democratic Party may have “tipped” demographically, but it still contains plenty of white gentiles. And there are Jews who are vigorously defending Trump, such as Jay Sekulow, who is on Trump’s personal legal team, and Stephen Miller, who remains a shining star in the administration’s efforts on immigration. Plus there are Jewish Trump donors noted above, although their driving interest in creating bipartisan support for Israel is typically combined with moving the GOP to the left on social issues, including immigration.

But yes, it is a Jewish coup. Indeed, the entire post-1965 regime should be regarded as a Jewish coup motivated by fear and loathing of the people and culture of pre-1965 white America.