National Bugle Radio with Patrick Slattery 08.25.25

When they get people to call Israelis “Nazis” and the genocide they are committing a holocaust, they get them to center jews in their morality again. Jews remain the victim, the moral arbiter and so control the conversation.

This also happens to a lesser extent when someone holds up “good” jews as an example of someone who is speaking out against it (whether they are sincere or not).

Might seem pedantic, but denying them any moral legitimacy and centering Palestinians instead is I think the best way to rhetorically counter them.

Dear David Duke, and dear Patrick.

You don’t want to compare the jews to nazis. That is one point.

As a further point to the truth.
How about this change of thinking: the palestinians are like the national socialists.

The jewish attack on the palestinians with impunity for mass murder, is like the jewish caused attack on the national socialists with impunity for mass murder in world war 2 and after, and in fact also the continued occupation of them after the war, the accusation against them as wrong doers or murderers as the offender, and the jews and their allies not considered as an offender, and outlawing the consideration of jews as the offender with laws that punish or persecute anyone who says jews have done something wrong or criminal, and who tries to stop jews doing more of the wrong behaviour.

The palestinians are occupied, they are accused of being the offenders who are doing wrong, jews want to make it outlawed to consider jews as doing wrong, and to try to stop their wrong behaviour.

David duke says and you agree, sovereignty and freedom for every people or every people who have a nation. To decide about their nation and policies and how they live etc.
For palestinians or all people.

I think this.

I would like to point out to you. And for you to think about it with an open mind. And for you to point out and ask David duke the same.
What about the Ukrainians?
What about their sovereignty and freedom.

You have made up your mind. You and some others on rbn.

But try to begin again fresh and consider things today with the present circumstances. Just because you decided russia looked like the better one if you choose a side, in years before 2022, and in 2022. It does not mean you should keep fixed in a choice already made and not consider a new view as things have changed and as russia makes certain demands now, about a settlement as you call for.
But is that settlement justice?

I do not think it is at all. So much so that I now feel defending the rights of Ukraine that you talk about of sovereignty and freedom and justice.

The behaviour of russia in the demands it is asking for, is distasteful and I am turned against their behaviour, what they ask is certainly unjust.

David duke says about how he was for racial integration, as a teenager. And the teacher encouraged developing his critical thinking by asking him to argue for the opposite point to the view he had himself. And so he researched and argued against racial integration and for segregation.

I ask that you consider and also do this method to give consideration, thinking freshly, and with an open mind. As if you have not made a choice previously about ukraine and russia. About the issue of a just outcome after this war. Or a just peace.

It doesn’t matter what you think about who is right or wrong or just, about the past, about different times like earlier times, or 1990s, or 2000s, 2014, 2022, this year, etc.

Are you familiar with just war doctrine and the points of it?

It is not only is there a just cause or just goal?
But also fighting by just methods or behaviour.
Also just proportion, and only to achieve the just cause or just goal.

Not asking or trying to benefit by war more than the just goal that makes it just to fight it.

Regardless of the other points. The most important one I am asking you to consider with fresh thinking. Is the one that has the lasting result after the war.
The just peace or the just outcome.

Russia wants everything it asks for.

For Ukrainian people to surrender their sovereignty and freedom of choosing about their nation. (denazification)

Like with national socialist germany, confederate states of america, iraq, and other nations where after a war an unjust outcome is imposed like this.

For Ukrainian people to have to surrender land.

As with germany in both world wars.

For the Ukranian people to surrender the right to sovereignty and freedom, about policies about relationships with other nations, or alliances, military interactions of other nations in Ukranian territory. (neutrality)

This sovereignty and freedom that russia and others have, they want Ukraine to not have equal rights.

Like germany after both world wars, and austria after world war 2.

Like with the hypocrisy about nuclear weapons. The nations who have them will not consider giving them up, and want to keep them. But want to not allow other nations to have equal to them by having nuclear weapons. They claim a right to attack other nations or harm them by persecution like sanctions or political alienation or isolation, to prevent them having the equal right of having nuclear weapons.

Some like jews or trump even want to extend this behaviour of hypocrisy. To have other powerful weapons themselves. Like powerful non nuclear missile arsenals. But to want other nations not to be allowed to have the equal right to have this.

Like they want to persecute iran and try to stop it having even non nuclear missiles.

And like they wanted to and did attack iraq to stop it having non nuclear weapons, whether it was missiles or a supergun or biological weapons etc.

For Ukrainians to surrender the freedom to choose about its military defence makeup and size and policies, etc.

Like germany was restricted in army makeup and size after world war 1. And maybe after world war 2 too.
Japan was restricted in some way too and has some neutrality clause imposed on them about not using their military except to defend japan.

After world war 2 germany and japan military’s as well as everything else, were under direction of the usa.

Russia is asking to dictate about Ukraine’s choices, above Ukrainian sovereignty and freedom. And so Ukraine would not have sovereignty and freedom. Like the nations occupied after world war 2, or other wars when an unjust outcome is imposed after the war.

And to remind everyone. This is also what the jews have done to the palestinians after multiple wars against them, and after taking and keeping occupation of their land and military and police or security forces power over the palestinian people.

And it is what the jews have done against the nations and people of lebanon, and syria, and in the past also egypt, where they have attacked with unjust methods and proportion in wars, besides accusing them of being offenders and of jews not being offenders, and then keeping occupying the land unjustly taken by force in war.

Please begin again. Think with an open mind and new fresh thinking.

Is it justice for the outcome after a war to be that someone benefits by having new land? And the other has to lose land?

Is it a justice outcome, for one side, the winner, (as with the allies in the world wars, or the usa war against the confederates, etc.) to get everything they want and give no fair justice. And that the loser has to surrender all their rights and freedom and have to lose everything the winner demands, and to only be allowed to have the rights and freedom the winner will choose to allow to them?

Do you believe in, or at least want, justice?

Or do you follow the americanism way (which many americans even ones who wish to think well and wish to choose justice, seem not to recognize the truth and nature of the usa foundation and behaviour, unless it is pointed out to them. This was a revolution and total change of thinking and behaviour from the existing Christian European civilization and history) which seems to have been the behaviour of the usa since the creation of the american revolution and of a separate new state.

Rupturing from the european Christian and monarchal and justice civilization of the thousand years and more before it.

The Christian European civilization which included and seriously valued just war doctrine.

The jewish and americanism way is a doctrine of force and greed and taking what they can and having no valueing of justice.

The usa, and soviet union, and the jewish state, and jews of course. And some other nations like britain and france when jews have had a lot of control. And some of europe after world war 2 which have then been really not sovereign and free, and have a lot of control by the jews, usa, communists, subservient to israel, etc,
They all seem to instead want to live by force, and having whatever they want. They want to win all, and that their opponents lose, and they do not want to give justice or fairness to their opponents.

The usa colonies, were taken first from britain or england by force.

Then the usa extended by taking land from other european nations by force.

Some was bought from the french, but this was when they were in a war and desparate (also they saw a risk of usa simply taking it and that france in a war was not able to also defend the land so far away at that time, it doesn’t mean they should have to give it up.) so it was exploitation to buy that land.

I suppose florida and some other land was taken from spain by force in or after a war, or bought but with threat of war, probably again when spain as the seller was in a war and a weak position. And so it is exploitative to buy or take land from it.

Mexico was forced to sell land to usa, or to allow usa to take it, by a war or after a war.

Is this Christian European civilization values, for the usa to gain its land by predation and taking the land from the other Christian (if you call usa Christian) European fraternal nations?

Usa behaves by force and might is right. That is one point. But then it opposes that its opponents behave the same way it does.

As russia or some others say. The usa, and jews, and some other nations that go along with them, wants to set international laws or rules of behaviour (they created many of them with the system they imposed on the world after world war 2. And which they had already planned to do during the war, and to some extent even after and before world war 1. For these nations of pure and immoral force, to rule the world just by being the strongest and who have no self restraint by justice or morality). And they do not want to or care about living by or respecting those laws or rules of behaviour they created, themselves.

They hypocritically think and want to be and act as exceptions themselves, to the limits of behaviour they want to limit other people by.

However. I am seeing more and more. Every time russia repeats their unjust demands for the outcome after this war. That russia also is behaving this way today.

Russia is behaving as asking for injustice to be imposed as the outcome. For russia to be the one who gets what it wants and that Ukraine should have to lose all that russia wants it to lose. And only have what russia accepts it to have.

Why is this injustice expected by russia? Because of force. Because russia wants to only consider its demands. And not to have Christian European civilization values of justice and just war doctrine. And to make real cooperation and fairness and peace or ability to live together as neighbours.

Russia is asking for an outcome of injustice that would be a justification for not having equality and peace, and will cause resentment and ongoing seeking for justice by Ukranians.

As life is like for Palestinians, and as it was for germans after both wars, and as it was also for the peoples under communist control.

Russia’s demands are unacceptable. And would cause a future war to correct them. And in reality it is likely they can not allow this war to end at all now, as long as these are the conditions russia is asking to impose.

In the beginning there was a coup, some people did not accept it and rebelled. That is understandable.

This does not give the right to secede from the nation permanently. It is only a right to rebel temporarily for autonomy or independent freedom for as long as the government they reject as illegitimate is in place. After a resolution of the situation about government was solved maybe in a few years or a lifetime, and maybe with a frozen conflict in between and local rule for that time (as has happened in other situations like that in the world), then the local rebelling people should end the rebellion and be as before and as people in the same country.

If in the rebellion people are killed, which we would expect to happen in a conflict. But that people consider some excess of behaviour like unjust methods or proportion of war. And so another nation decides to declare about it. Or to militarily intervene as russia eventually did. That still is not a right for land to secede.

David duke and you say 14,000 people were killed in the donetsk and lugansk regions by Ukrainian coup government forces against the rebellion. If you considered rebellions in general, it is not an unusual excess I think. And it is not a right to separate from a country.

Russia has intervened under a justification or pretext of “right to protect” a weaker force of people from a stronger force.

As the usa and various not good forces have done in many wars, which I consider bad wars and unjust wars, and many of which you may also consider bad or unjust wars overall, whether or not something can be justified or not it doesn’t mean everything of it is justified or just.

And even russia opposed or has been critical of the “right to protect” as a justification or pretext for wars and of many of the wars it was used for.

And yet russia is using it here. And also used it about the regions of ossetia and abkhazia, about georgia.

Russia is behaving hypocritically. Even if there can be some justification for protecting the rebel people who were weaker than the Ukrainian government.

But denying Ukranian sovereignty and freedom and separating land, which russia is asking for, that is not justice.

Justice would be: an end to the war, and to have peace. Somehow to resolve the actual cause of rebellion, which is not accepting the legitimacy of a coup government.

Russia’s concerns about how Ukrainian sovereign choices affect russia, separate from the concerns about “right to protect” Ukrainians, are not any justification for Russia to interfere in Ukraine by force or war. Just as no country has a justification to go to war or overrule any other country’s sovereignty for the reason they don’t like what it is doing, or they want it to do what they want it to do.

Russia claimed the moral justification of the war as being really to protect the russian speakers in Ukraine.

Additional grievances russia said it has about Ukraine as a threat to russia, could not be a legitimate justification for war.

Russia’s concerns about not liking the Ukranian government thinking or policies (so called nazism), or about military threat of another country, or nuclear weapons. That is life that countries have to live with, you can’t just behave like jews or usa and attack or demilitarize other nations. And say they have no right to sovereignty or freedom or to be a military or economic or political or other kind of competitor or challenge or a threat.

So new elections assured of as being fair and true, this would be the correct and just resolution. And to prevent unjust discrimination against rights of the rebellious people, presumably the normal laws and rights of a nation that are for all the people equally, would already be enough protection for these people.

Of course some extra discrimination laws have been made about identity or language, so well they have to fight that out in discussion and debate in parliament, and fight in the national courts, and if necessary appeal to international outside courts or powers for influence on the Ukranian government for justice, not influence from outside powers that is for injustice against sovereignty.

A nation does have the right to make laws favouring one language or culture, and discriminating against others.
People can fight it legally. But favouring or taking actions to preserve or strengthen the national identity in order to secure it if competitors are strong competition against it, is a right of a nation.

And forbidding being able to take measures to preserve identity is unjust. Perhaps the russian speakers or russian culture identity can say the same, but then perhaps to have a just resolution between the two people identities they would have to consider a sphere of where each are the majority, but also russia should not expect to expand its cultural identity further than it already is in other countries.

Nations should be able to protect their people and identity from being colonized and replaced by russians. Like is happening with the White genocide immigration replacement in White nations. Well as you know the baltic countries and some others have some russian people in their populations. Many of these probably increased the share of russians in the population after world war 2 and maybe in more recent times too. The native populations may be being gradually replaced or outnumbered. They have a right to not be colonized or replaced. They have a right to preserve their existence, and even to reverse russian colonization by deporting the russian people if they wanted to. They may have to do that if some of these nations want to survive.

I ask you to consider this. Like you consider the rest of our White nations. And about immigration. And being colonized by other groups.

Don’t keep with the thinking you decided some time ago. Just because you decided it.

But take a break from that pre decided view. And try to think again newly. How should the actual conditions be judged for justice. And imagine it is just nameless countries and identities. Not the ones you know and have feelings or judgements already determined about.
How would you judge justice today as a fair judge. And judging everyone by the same and equal standards and values of justice. And to do justice to both sides equally justly.

Please share this with David Duke too. Or communicate the sense of it.

Thank you. I hope you read this, and give time for thinking and considering with a new and fair view of justice as I am requesting.

Thank you for your time. God bless you and God bless us all.