“The neo-con ideology promotes endless war, but neo-cons fight their battles with the blood of others. From the comfortable, subsidized offices of magazines like the Weekly Standard, the neo-conservatives urge the United States to engage in endless war – to be fought by the victims of the ‘poverty draft’ from states where there are few jobs. Ironically, these young people cannot find more productive work because the Federal Reserve’s endless money printing to keep the war machine turning has destroyed our economy.”—U.S. Representative Ron Paul
…by Jonas E. Alexis
The Boston bombings have taught us many things, although we have yet to unravel all the details. My heart goes out to those who have been hurt and wounded from the incident.
If there is something that decent Americans have to reflect upon throughout this year would be this: America needs to seriously and collectively reconsider its unconditional allegiance to the Zionist regime in Israel. Decent Americans need to come to grip with what the neoconservative ideology is actually doing.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev himself testified that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan “motivated him and his brother to carry out the attack…” Elmirza Khozhugov, ex-brother-in-law of Boston bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev said the same thing, declaring, “He was looking for connections between the wars in the Middle East and oppression of Muslim population around the globe.”
What Spencer did not tell us was that one of the attackers made it clear that perpetual wars in the Middle East play a major role.
Spencer also could not tell us that the suspect’s uncle was married to C.I.A. officer’s daughter and shared a home with him.
Other neoconservatives such as Bruce Bawer of FrontPage magazine were quick to use this incident to popularize the neoconservative ideology through their powerful media outlets.
Bawer himself stated,
I full agree. All jihadists are by definition America’s enemies. But why are they our enemy? What prompted them to commit evil acts?
Moreover, why does Bawer have to stop at the Boston attackers? Why doesn’t he move beyond stage one and apply the same logic to the Syrian rebels/terrorists? And why didn’t Bawer and other neoconservatives point out that Tsarnaev spent six months attending seminars run by neoconservative think tanks such as the Caucasus Fund of Georgia?
But America has been arming those terrorists since last year! What is even more appalling is that the United States has even labeled the Syrian movement a terrorist group and has seen reports that the groups have been involved in beheading people.
The situation got even worse by December 2012 when the Syrian rebels tried to storm two predominantly Christian towns and tell the communities to either rise against Assad’s forces or face attack.
History certainly repeats itself, since this is almost exactly what happened to Christians when Bar Kokhba was crowned a revolutionary leader and indeed a Jewish messiah.
Christians had to either join him in fighting against the Romans or face persecutions. Christians refused to join him and step aside, and therefore the revolutionary leader asked that Christians be murdered.
It was reported that there was between 1,000 to 3,000 jihadists among the Syrian rebels. The United States knew this for months. For example, the group al-Nusra Front has been known to commit terrorist acts by the summer of 2012, but the U.S. still did not get that memo.
At the beginning of December 2012, the rebels smashed a school in Syria which took the lives of 28 children. By the same month, the war in Syria took a different turn, as the ethnic Kurds themselves began to rise against the Syrian rebels.
The British newspaper the Telegraph came out with a report entitled, “Syria chemical weapons: finger pointed at jihadists,” meaning the Syrian rebels. The attack actually killed 25 people. In less than five days, the rebels attacked the University of Damascus, killing fifteen students.
British First Secretary of State William Hague himself said that those jihadists are a threat to the West, despite the fact that Hague has been talking on both sides of his mouth by supporting the Syrian rebels. Sir Andrew Green likewise made it clear recently that supporting the Syrian rebels is like putting gas on the fire.
Once again the neoconservatives were on the front line advocating U.S. intervention because Assad was going to use chemical weapons, an idea that has germinated in the minds of the neoconservatives and the Zionist regime in Israel. This idea in turned created a psychological war on the West.
But the same neoconservative said next to nothing about the rebels using chemical weapons. And where did they get the information that the Syrian government used chemical weapons? From solid evidence?
No. They got it from the Zionist regime in Israel. Caroline B. Glick of the Jerusalem Post herself declared that the source came directly from the IDF, the same Zionist military regime that wants to oust Assad! Israel declared that they got the “proof,” but they never told us what the proof was.
On the contrary, senior analysts tell us that it is extremely difficult to prove that the Syrian government has used such weapons largely because
The BBC declared that although there have been claims that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons, the “facts” are “unclear.” As noted Journalist Robert Fisk implicitly, it seems that we have learn nothing from history.
The chemical weapons argument was used against Iraq and it was a bold lie, but not it is being used against Syria. One of the first persons that Secretary of State John Kerry called to get some of his information was none other than Benjamin Netanyahu.
But as soon as Israel began to circulate the lie, the neoconservatives once again were mobilized to spread it. And when it was obvious to all that the West, most specifically America and Great Britain, was supporting Al Qaeda associates, the New York Times declares that “Syria blunts on fears to Blunt American Support of Rebels.”
At the beginning of this month, Israel’s Defense Ministry Amos Gilad made it clear that there was a growing presence of al-Qaeda elements among the rebels, and those jihadists are “waiting for the opportunity to take over the state.”
But Gilad absolved himself from any moral responsibility by saying that this element is a very small price to pay “with the menace posed by the Iran-Syrian-Hezbollah axis before the Syrian civil war…”
When Assad is out of the equation, Gilad continued to say, “You can look now and see al-Qaida in Syria, economic lows, instability, the lack of one address, huge refugee problems. His all presents new types of challenges that are not similar to the military challenge [Syria posed to Israel before the civil war]. In reality this is a blow to Iran and Hezbollah together.”
What was more interesting was that the Syrian rebels defied the U.S. and pledged allegiance to other radical jihadists. In addition, some of those same people were largely responsible for the deaths of many Americans in the Middle East, including the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi. Al Qaeda for example offered almost thousands of dollars for the death of U.S. ambassador in Sanaa, Gerald Feierstein.
The Syrian rebels/terrorists have been meeting with other Islamist terrorists since 2011. The terrorist group al-Nusra for example had attacked at least 600 major cities which resulted in the death of Syrian civilians during the war against Assad.
The Obama administration labeled them terrorists, but the rebels resisted the label. Despite all of that, Obama declared that we Americans still had to support this proxy war against the Syrian government, even though Hilary Clinton herself admitted that Jihadists were behind the Syrian rebels.
Christopher A. Preble himself wrote in the New Republic that Assad posed no threat to the security of the United States and it was foolish for the U.S. to get involved in this war, and at least 81 percent of the American people did not approve sending troops to Syria. Joseph Klein of FrontPage magazine finally came out and declared that a regime change would not be a good thing for Syria.
Once again, when the war is in favor of Israel and the Zionist regime, it creates havoc for Christians and civilians. For example, Christian communities have existed in Iraq for almost two thousand years. The war in Iraq has destroyed the vast majority of those communities. It is the same thing we see in Syria and other places.
Why all this Zionist madness? Former Mossad agent Efraim Halevy and the neoconservative crowd have declared that the war is in favor of Israel because in the end it will politically and ideologically help destabilize Iran.
Ehud Eilman of the National Interest and Israel Defense magazine declares that in Israel’s view, if Assad falls, there would be no serious threat for the country. Other Israel double agents have indirectly admitted the same thing.
Just two days after the attack, American-born Israeli diplomatic advisor to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Ron Dermer pronounced that the attack will in the end be good for Israel.
He declared, “If you can look, historically, there was a big change after 9/11, and I am sure that after the tragic bombing in Boston, people will identify more with Israel and its struggle against terrorism and we can maintain that support.”
Right after 9/11, Netanyahu said almost the same thing.
“We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq.”He continues to say that those acts of terrorism “swung American public opinion in our favor.”
Israel will continue to benefit from those incidents, and the neoconservative hawks will continue to push us all into perpetual wars in the Middle East. More recently, military historian and neoconservative hawk Victor Davis Hanson has written that Obama is a neo-isolationist! In other words, Obama should have been much more aggressive in launching perpetual wars.
The Struggle for the Soul of the West
In 1920 Winston Churchill, who was a flaming Zionist, ignited a firestorm of controversy with his article in the Illustrated Sunday Herald entitled “Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People.”
Having witnessed the struggle between Christianity’s implications and the Bolshevik revolution—which Churchill saw as a “Jewish movement”—Churchill postulated that,
“It would almost seem as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of Antichrist were destined to originate among the same people.”
Churchill was indeed a visionary who saw far beyond his time. Churchill moved on to say:
“From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing.
It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century.
And now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire…
There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews.
It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin [Churchill did not know that Lenin was also Jewish], the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders.
Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek—all Jews.
In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses.
The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people.
Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.
Let us say again here that our disagreement should not be against people who can be redeemed by the truth. Churchill declared in the same article that in every culture people are good, bad, and indifferent.Our disagreement is against a potent ideology which has kept Jewish revolutionaries in spiritual and intellectual bondage for centuries.
This potent ideology has dragged and will continue to drag the West into perpetual wars, perpetual deaths, and perpetual misery.
More recently, courageous Jewish journalist Carl Berntein frankly told MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough that the Iraq war was a combination of Bush, Cheney, and “the Jewish neo-cons who wanted to remake the world.” Bernstein continues, “maybe I can say that because I’m Jewish.”
This ideology will continue to incite hatred toward America in the Middle East, and unless decent Americans rise up to the challenge and say no more to the Zionist mafia, the Zionist regime will trample every cherished belief that had kept America strong for more than two centuries.
We have seen over and over how the Founding Fathers repudiated U.S. involvement in perpetual wars, but the neoconservatives are telling us that this is the way to go.
The actual truth has been buried beneath an avalanche of neoconservative/Zionist lies. Yet there is no need to despair. Truth, in the end, will triumph. Zionism cannot triumph forever.
Individuals from all backgrounds should continue to proclaim the truth, wherever the truth may be found. Only then will we be able to defeat Zionism’s potency in all of its manifestations. To cite again Alexander Solzhenitsyn,
“And therein we find, neglected by us, the simplest, the most accessible key to our liberation: a personal noparticipation in lies! Even if all is covered by lies, even if all is under their rule, let us resist in the smallest way: Let their rule hold not through me!”
The most potent weapons against the Zionist regime are truth and reason. Individuals must make truth their friends if they are going to defeat the Zionist dream. If you are going to talk to your friends about this issue, make sure you have truth on your side.
I once discussed some of these issues with a friend of mine who is a historian and he kept saying that Palestine largely belongs to the Jewish people and that the Palestinians simply have no business being there.
I realized that I could not get anywhere with him so I decided to take a different route. I also knew that he is a passionate patriot as well as I am. I asked him,
“The Indians used to live in America, right?” “Yes,” he responded, without batting an eye. I proceeded to say, “Suppose they want their land back. Suppose they say, ‘Hey, this is our land and you guys have to move.’ Do you think we should give it to them?”
I could see that there was an emotional reaction in his face and I was just waiting to see his next move. He obviously saw that he was trapped in his own geopolitical deadness.
He thought for a while and then said, “If they have the power enough to do it, then they should try.”
I was simply dumbfounded for a few minutes because I was in the presence of a historian who seriously believes that slavery was wrong. Yet ideologically he was advocating survival of the fittest!
I then said, “So, survival of the fittest?” Once again he seemed to be terrified at the thought and reluctantly said, “Yes.”
The issue of slavery will be resumed in the next article. The issues surrounding the Boston bombings had to be discussed first, since media outlets have not been able to ask the deeper questions that will eventually affect us all.
 Ruth Sherlock, “US to Ban Islamists Leading Rebel Fight in Syria,” The Telegraph, December 5, 2012; Hilary Leila Krieger, “US Syria Envoy: Extremists Gaining in Opposition,” Jerusalem Post, December 7, 2012.
 Alex Thompson, “Syria Chemical Weapons: Finger Pointed at Jihadists,” The Telegraph, March 23, 2013; see also Ruth Sherlock, “Inside Jabhat al Nusra—The Most Extreme Wing of Syria’s Struggle,” The Telegraph, December 2, 2012.
 “British Jihadists in Syria Are ‘A Threat to the West’ Says Hague,” Huffington Post, February 14, 2013; Damien McElroy, “William Hague Warns of Threat to Britain from Syria Fighters,” The Telegraph, April 24, 2013; Matt Chorley, “UK Under Threat from Terror Attack Launched by ‘Substantial Numbers’ of Brits Fighting with Syrian Rebels, William Hague Warns,” Daily Mail, April 24, 2013.
 Gregg Morgan, “William Hague: Britain and France ‘On Same Page’ Over Arms to Syrian Rebels,” The Telegraph, March 14, 2013; Bruno Waterfield and Tim Ross, “Syria: Arm Rebels or We Will, Cameron to Tell EU,” The Telegraph, March 14, 2013; “Hague: ‘Options Open’ on Military Support for Syrian Rebels,” BBC, January 10, 2013.
 “‘No Confirmed Reports’ Syrian Government Preparing to Use Chemical Weapons—UN Chief,” Russia Today, December 7, 2012; “U.S. Ramps up Threats in ‘Psychological’ War on Assad,” Russia Today, December 7, 2012.
 See for example Ariel David, “Israel: Syria’s Assad Used Chemical Weapons,” Huffington Post, April 23, 2013; David E. Sanger and Jodi Rudoren, “Israel Says It Has Proof That Syria Used Chemical Weapons,” NY Times, April 23, 2013; “Syria Has Used Chemical Weapons, Israeli Military Says,” BBC, April 23, 2013.
 David E. Sanger and Jodi Rudoren, “Israel Says It Has Proof That Syria Used Chemical Weapons,” NY Times, April 23, 2013; “Syria Has Used Chemical Weapons, Israeli Military Says,” BBC, April 23, 2013;
 Walter Hickey, “Al Qaeda Offers $160,000 in Gold to Anyone Who Kills U.S. Ambassador,” Business Insider, December 31, 2012; “Al Qaeda in Yemen Offers Bounty for U.S. Ambassador,” Reuters.com, December 31, 2012.
 Mark Lander and Michael R. Gordon, “Obama Says U.S. Will Recognize Syrian Rebels,” NY Times, December 11, 2012; Nour Malas and Jay Solomon, “U.S. Formally Recognizes Syria’s Main Rebel Group,” Wall Street Journal, December 12, 2012.
 “Fearing Change, Many Christians in Syria Back Assad,” NY Times, September 27, 2011; Patrick Cockburn, “Persecution of the Christians: Syrian Minority Fear the End of Fighting More than War Itself,” The Independent, December 17, 2012; for further details, see also the second volume.
Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the new book Zionism vs. the West: How Talmudic Ideology is Undermining Western Culture. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.