Bolshevik Purge of Western Civilization and Rational Discourse (Part II)


DISCLOSURE: VT condemns the horrific tragedy committed by the NAZI Party against Jewish Citizens of Europe during Word War II known as the "Holocaust". VT condemns all racism, bigotry, hate speech, and violence. However, we are an open source uncensored journal and support the right of independent writers and commentors to express their voices; even if those voices are not mainstream as long as they do NOT openly call for violence. Please report any violations of comment policy to us immediately. Strong reader discretion is advised.

“We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force…. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.” – Israeli Military Historian Martin van Creveld[1]


        …by  Jonas E. Alexis

Ilya Ehrenburg
Ilya Ehrenburg

Without a doubt, Benjamin Netanyahu is a classic manifestation of the neo-Bolshevik ideology in action. Over the past few years, he has single-handedly and practically ruined the Middle East with his lies and fabrications.
More importantly, he has implicitly declared that no political force on earth can actually stop him from accomplishing his ideological goal. He said:
“I wasn’t afraid to clash with [U.S. President Bill] Clinton. I wasn’t afraid to clash with the United Nations. . . . I know what America is. America is something that can easily be swayed.”[2]
Where did Netanyahu learn how to “sway” America? As the saying goes, tell me what you eat, and I will tell you what you are. Netanyahu was so enthralled by Bolshevism that he was planning to build a monument to the Soviet Red Army![3]
Keep in mind that the Red Army collectively and indiscriminately raped and tortured countless German women and children and systematically plundered “all industrial equipment in the countries” they occupied.[4]
As soon as the war was over, the Red Army “raped wherever they went. They even raped Russians and Ukrainians. The worst and most aggravated rapes were perpetrated against the women of the enemy—first the Hungarians, then the Germans.”[5]
Jewish propagandist Ilya Ehrenburg for example “exhorted the Red Army not to save ‘the child in its mother’s womb.’”[6] The soldiers “were certainly egged on by Ehrenburg and other Soviet propagandists who saw rape as an expression of hatred, and therefore good for morale.”[7] Ehrenburg emphatically told the Red Army soldiers:

“Germans are not human beings. Henceforth the word German means to us the most terrible curse. From now on the word German will trigger your rifle…If you have not killed at least one German a day, you have wasted that day. If you think that instead of you, the man next to you will kill him, you have not understood the threat.
“If you do not kill the German, he will kill you. If you cannot kill your German with a bullet, kill him with your bayonet. If there is calm on your part of the front, if you are waiting for the fighting, kill a German before combat. If you leave a German alive, the German will hang a Russian and rape a Russian woman.
“If you kill one German, kill another—there is nothing more amusing for us than a heap of German corpses. Do not count days; do not count miles. Count only the number of Germans you have killed.
“Kill the German—this is your old mother’s prayer. Kill the German—this is what your children beseech you to do. Kill the German—this is the cry of your Russian earth. Do not waver. Do not let up. Kill.”[8]

Not every Red Army soldier or commander followed Ehrenburg’s command here. “When the Ukrainian Jewish intellectual Lev Kopelev tried to intervene to save a German woman from a group of rampaging soldiers, he was accused of ‘bourgeois humanism’ and imprisoned for nine years.”[9]
Yet, incredibly, in A History of the Jewish People (edited by Jewish historian H. H. Ben-Sasson), while Ehrenburg’s name appears three times, his vitriolic attacks on the Germans are never mentioned.[10]
This is a pity, since the 1200-page book spends considerable time dealing with what it perceives to be anti-Semitic activities, even asserting that “the initial objectives of the Jewish parties in Russia included the restoration of community life (the basic nucleus of national autonomy) and the establishment of an all-Russian Jewish representation.”[11]
We will come back to the Red Army when we discuss Nazi Germany at the end of fall. So who in his right mind would want to build a monument to the Red Army? By induction, Netanyahu is therefore a neo-Bolshevik and is ideologically the embodiment of Bolshevism.
In other words, decent Americans give $3 billion a year to a neo-Bolshevik state, and in return, Netanyahu reins them in to his own neo-Bolshevik Weltanschauung. And how does Netanyahu “sway” America? By propagating lies in fabrications.

“Iran’s president said that pressure won’t work. Not true,” said Netanyahu. “The only thing that has worked in the last two decades is pressure. And the only thing that will work now is increased pressure.”[12] If pressure is removed from Iran, continued Netanyahu, “they will go all the way,”[13] which inevitably would lead to building nuclear bombs.

A few moments later, Netanyahu contradicted himself by saying that the Iran issue can be solved “solely through talks, not threats.”[14] Netanyahu forces the West to put pressure on Iran, but the issue can be solved through talks, not threats.
Once again contradiction is desirable in this neo-Bolshevik world because strict reason and rules of law are impossible in that nihilistic jungle. If you think strict rationality makes sense, and if you prefer reason and despise illogical leaps, you will be throwing in the towel as soon as you step into the neo-Bolshevik world.

Jonathan Tepperman
Jonathan Tepperman

Even Jonathan Tepperman of the New York Times is getting exhausted of Netanyahu’s repeated lies. He declared that Netanyahu’s language “and Israel’s behavior are making it harder and harder to take his warnings seriously.”[15] Tepperman laments:
“The problem starts with just how familiar Israel’s warnings on Iran have become. Netanyahu went through a similar exercise, remember, last summer. And the summer before that. In fact, Israeli leaders have been issuing such alarms for almost a decade now.
“That repetition wouldn’t necessarily be a problem if just what they’ve been warning about hadn’t also shifted so much. Consider: Back in 2004, when Prime Minister Ariel Sharon raised the issue of Iran’s nuclear program, he said the point of no return would come when Iran came close to developing the technical capacity to enrich uranium.
“Months later, however, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said no, the real danger would come when Iran started enriching fuel on its own soil. Then, in 2006, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the fatal moment would actually come when Iran started running a certain number of enrichment cascades.
“And then last year, Ehud Barak (Bibi’s defense minister at the time) said the real red line would be crossed when Iran entered the “zone of immunity” — the point at which its nuclear program would be so advanced or well defended that it couldn’t be disabled by attack.
“What’s confusing about this litany is that Iran has blown by each red line in turn, yet the supposed disaster has yet to materialize. So Bibi now has a boy-who-cried-wolf problem. ”[16]
Yet even when Netanyahu has been shown to be a pathological liar with respect to Iran’s nuclear program, he is a messianic figure for U.S. officials. In other words, when Netanyahu begins to speak, U.S. officials take their seats, pull out their pads and pens, listen carefully, take copious notes, and execute the new orders.
About three weeks ago, the New York Times published an article entitled, “Israel Increases Pressure on U.S. to Act on Iran,” which read in part:

“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ramped up pressure on the White House on Sunday to put the buildup of Iran’s nuclear program ahead of other crises in the Middle East, complaining of a lack of urgency on the issue and saying that the Obama administration must demonstrate ‘by action’ to Iran’s newly elected president that “the military option which is on the table is truly on the table.’
“Speaking via satellite on the CBS News program ‘Face the Nation,’ Mr. Netanyahu expressed concern that Iran was pursuing ‘alternate routes’ to a nuclear weapons capability, including a plutonium bomb, even while stopping just short of the specific enriched-uranium levels he had set in a speech at the United Nations last year as a ‘red line’ for military action.
“He also reiterated his familiar demands that Iran must be forced to stop all enrichment of nuclear material, ship its current stockpile out of the country and shut down a deep underground enrichment site, called Fordo, that Israeli military officials acknowledge they probably do not have the ability to destroy.
“Mr. Netanyahu said those demands ‘should be backed up with ratcheted sanctions,’ adding, ‘They have to know you’ll be prepared to take military action; that’s the only thing that will get their attention.’”[17]

While Iran has recently been trying hard to reach out to the U.S.,[18] 76 senators have already sent Obama a letter saying that placing tougher sanctions on Iran is a must.[19]
As former CIA Paul R. Pillar recently puts it, “with regard to generally applicable legal obligations that Iran shares with any other party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) or participant in the International Atomic Energy Agency, it would be difficult to make a case that Iran is in violation of anything.”[20] Pillar continues,

“Any formula that included the unique-to-Iran no-enrichment demand, which has no foundation in international law beyond the Security Council resolutions themselves, is a non-starter.
“Iran’s frustration at being singled out this way while dealing in the obligatory manner with the IAEA comes through in its formal response to the latest IAEA report on its nuclear activities.
“The Iranian document is filled with legal fastidiousness, but the Iranians’ genuine exasperation is also palpable, being expressed at one place with multiple exclamation points (!!!!!). One of the most frequent sources of exasperation arises when Iran responds to a question or meets a requirement, only to have the issue at hand re-opened as if Iran had not responded at all.”[21]

Precious American soldiers are dying for Israel
Rebecca Ruiz (Thanks to VT) of Forbes has recently and indirectly dropped political explosives in the neo-Bolshevik world by documenting that “the army is improperly discharging wounded, ill soldiers for misconduct.”

Rebecca Ruiz
Rebecca Ruiz

Ruiz wrote, “In May, the Colorado Springs Gazette published an exhaustive account of how wounded and mentally ill soldiers are being kicked out of the Army for minor offenses and misconduct related to their wartime injuries.
“The Gazette series, reported by Dave Philipps, looked at three separate incidents each involving a combat veteran in which units at Fort Carson in Colorado appeared to willfully ignore mental and physical health conditions that played a role in misconduct, such as traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder and chronic pain.
“Kash Alvaro, for example, was diagnosed with PTSD and TBI after enduring multiple bomb blasts in Afghanistan in 2009. When he returned to Fort Carson, he was cited and punished for violating code by missing appointments, missing work, arriving late to formation and getting in an argument.
“Instead, Alvaro said that his unit harassed him, and the situation escalated to the point where he went AWOL temporarily. He expected a harsh punishment when he returned to Fort Carson two weeks later to apologize, but was thrown in county jail without his anti-seizure medication.
“Alvaro was then asked to sign paperwork for an other-than honorable discharge known as a Chapter 10, which allows a soldier facing a court-martial to resign instead. The designation can bar a veteran from getting long-term medical and disability benefits.”[22]
The moral of the story is this. The neo-Bolshevik regime both in Israel and America perpetuates wars in the Middle East; the regime wants the best and brightest American soldiers; once those soldiers give their best, and once they are physically handicapped and crippled, the army dismisses them for “misconduct.” What is infinitely worse, once those soldiers are sent home, they found out that it is very difficult to get a job and a decent livelihood.[23]  Bruce Barns, age 30, lamented,
“I was a security guard on the military base in Baghdad during my first tour. During my second tour, I was a security escort for Iraqi interpreters. So far, I’ve only had one interview with a security guard company since I’ve been back home. The employer said they would call me back when they have a position open. You would think that veterans would be welcome with open arms, but that’s not the case.”[24]
In addition, many of those veterans find it hard to sleep.[25] If some Veterans do happen to find a job, well, they are only good for factory jobs![26]
If Western nations do not take this issue seriously, if they are still fraternizing with the neo-Bolshevik regime, the neo-Bolsheviks will slowly but surely destroy whatever cherished ideal that has kept the West strong for the past thousand years or so. More recently, the Huffington Post just released an article entitled, “Unhappy with U.S. Foreign Policy? Pentagon Says You Might Be A ‘High Threat.’”[27]
Monument to the Red Army?
Ernst Zundel
Ernst Zundel

Here’s another big issue. Keep in mind that Netanyahu wanted to build a monument to the Red Army. Suppose some obscure politician declares that he is planning to build a monument to Nazi Germany. The media would immediately jump to the conclusion that he/she is a neo-Nazi and therefore must be punished for his/her unpardonable sin.
Look what happened to Ernst Zundel. He has been called “a threat to national security.”[28]  Canada has declared that “Zündel is inadmissible on security grounds for being a danger to the security of Canada.”[29] You are “a threat to national security,” but no one can judiciously pronounce the nature of your crime. Since Zundel was “a threat to national security,” his house was burned to the ground because he challenged the powers that be.
“On May 8, 1995, his Toronto residence at Carlton Street was the target of an arson attack resulting in $400,000 in damage. A group calling itself the ‘Jewish Armed Resistance Movement’ claimed responsibility for the arson attack; according to the Toronto Sun, the group had ties to the Jewish Defense League and to the extremist group Kahane Chai.
“The leader of the Toronto wing of the Jewish Defense League, Meir Weinstein, (known then as Meir Halevi) denied involvement in the attack; however, five days later, Weinstein and US JDL leader Irv Rubin were caught trying to break into the Zündel property, where he was apprehended by police.
“No charges have ever been laid in the incident. Later the same month Zündel was the recipient of a parcel bomb that was detonated by the Toronto Police bomb squad. The investigation into the parcel bomb attack led to charges being laid against David Barbarash, an animal rights activist based in British Columbia, but they were eventually stayed.”[30]
You burn someone’s house to the ground and try to kill the person, but “no charges have ever been laid in the incident.” This can only happen in The Jewish Century.
Of Zundel and R. H. S. Stolfi
hitlerThe media faulted Zundel because Samisdat Publishers, which was then owned by Zundel, released a pamphlet back in 1977 entitled, “The Hitler We Love and Why.”[31] Zundel was an anti-Semite for doing so.
Yet in 2011, noted military historian R. H. S. Stolfi of the U.S. Naval Post-graduate School published his study Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny, cogently arguing that Hitler was rational in making many of his decisions and that the Holocaust establishment has irresponsibly demonized him for ideological purpose.
Stolfi declares that he has “weighted the great biographies [of Hitler] on the scales of historical reality and found them wanting…”[32] According to Stolfi, the great biographies do not ask the deep questions and fail to address the serious issues surrounding the evolution of Hitler and Nazi Germany. He writes,
“Virtually every literary piece written about Adolf Hitler in the more than half century since 1945 has been based on antipathy. In a seemingly boundless corpus of writing, every work from the mighty to the insignificant is fundamentally similar in its common revulsion for the man and his national movement.
“In the most recent great biography, Professor Ian Kershaw begins and ends with detestation. His work is skilled and often brilliant, but he fails to inform the reader of certain characteristics indispensable for true comprehension of the man, and he underestimates the importance of the postwar conditions inflicted by the Allies on Germany, which contributed to Hitler’s rise.
“Bullock, Fest, and Kershaw ascribe criminal features to Hitler’s foreign policy from 1933 through 1939, but they fail to correlate it realistically with the Allied imposition of the Versailles Treaty—the ultimate manifestation of German defeat and Allied victory following World War I.
“In the present situation, the reading public has been served only half a portrait of the great tyrant of the twentieth century….half a portrait of Hitler tells us little about the man as a human being and presents a distorted and incredible interpretation of his actions as creator of National Socialism and leader of Germany.
R. H. S. Stolfi
R. H. S. Stolfi

“The great biographies take excessive liberties in denigrating his person, and, in doing so, they make it difficult to comprehend him…Every single one falls short of producing an adequate understanding of Hitler as a historical person. To this point in time, the biographers have lost the biographical war.”[33]
In a review of Stolfi’s work, biographer Carl Rollyson writes in the Star Tribune,
“Stolfi is no apologist for Hitler in the sense of minimizing his culpability for the Holocaust and the war, but the biographer wants to understand, even empathize, with the man.
“He portrays Hitler’s great personal courage during World War I as an intrepid combat soldier, and afterward as a man who personally waged war in the streets of Germany against Marxist street gangs. Stolfi quotes Thomas Mann’s reluctant admission that Hitler was an artist, and shows, in detail, Hitler’s consummate understanding of opera and architecture and how those arts shaped his view of history and modern Germany.
“Most important, however, Stolfi analyzes Hitler as a world leader of astonishing capability, a leader unlike any other politician of his time. Hitler was a messiah, wishing to create a new Germany unencumbered by the restrictions of the Versailles Treaty that crippled German politics and the country’s economy”[34]
I shook my head in dismay largely because David Irving has been saying almost the same thing in Hitler’s War. Yet to this very day the Holocaust establishment charges Irving of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial!
David Irving
David Irving

I was even appalled by a statement made by Mimi Frank of the Jewish Book Council:
“I personally found it difficult to read Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny, because I, like the other biographers, have a hard time overlooking the evil deeds of Hitler and concentrating instead upon his supposed genius. Stolfi characterizes Hitler as a rare world historical figure, compared with the likes of Alexander the Great, Napoleon, and Julius Caesar. He clearly presents an alternate view from all the other major biographers of Adolf Hitler, but not a view that I can share.”[35]
In other words, it is not a matter of historical scholarship—for Frank, it boils down to personal opinion.  He cannot share Stolfi’s views not because he has rigorous evidence to the contrary, but because Stolfi’s analysis does not line up with Frank’s ideological premise.
In any event, Stolfi’s study, like Irving’s Hitler’s War, is an important book and it will more than likely stand the test of time. As time goes by, we are slowly seeing that courageous individuals and serious thinkers are indirectly or implicitly challenging the Holocaust establishment, which is a house built on sand.
Of Zundel and Netanyahu
Let us assume for a moment that Zundel is wrong, that his then publisher should not have written the pamphlet praising Hitler. Let us further assume that Zundel is a vicious anti-Semite for doing so. Are we going to apply the same logic to Benjamin Netanyahu, who praised the Red Army, which ended up killing more than six million innocent men, women, and children? Is Netanyahu’s palace going to be razed to the ground any time soon for praising Bolshevism?
Recently, “Jewish campaigners call for end to controversial German pulp magazine that ‘glorifies Nazi SS butches.’”[36] Yet this rule cannot be applied across the board. The Czech Republic just charged two people for publishing a book of selected speeches of Adolf Hitler!
The publisher of the book, Pavel Kamas, “previously said the book’s goal is to offer Hitler’s hitherto practically unaccessible speeches to readers as a chance for them to make their own opinion.”[37] But allowing people to make their opinion is an unpardonable sin.
In other words, if you are a historian, a scholar and a serious thinker and you want to know more about Nazi Germany, you cannot have access to some of Hitler’s speeches. You are stuck with the Holocaust establishment.
Yet organized Jewry will not ban Hollywood, despite the fact that Hollywood collaborated with Hitler![38] David Mikics of Tablet Magazine calls this a “creepy love affair.”[39] Mikics says that “some of the Hollywood studio heads, nearly all of whom were Jewish, cast their lot with Hitler almost from the moment he took power, and that they did so eagerly—not reluctantly.”[40]
Since Hollywood has largely and progressively become a Jewish town,[41] and since Irving does not ally with what he called “the traditional enemy of the truth,” Irving therefore must be punished, but Hollywood continues to enjoy the ride.
Netanyahu vs. the West
Last March, Netanyahu told the entire Western world that “If Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, this could presage catastrophic consequences, not only for my country, and not only for the Middle East, but for all mankind … the deadline for attaining this goal is getting extremely close.”[42]

Here’s my translation: If Netanyahu does not stop his fabrication and continues to perpetuate one lie after another as if it is a sort of chutzpah, this can presage catastrophic consequences, not only for America (particularly the average American who has already paid a huge price), and not only for the Middle East (particularly thousands upon thousands of precious children who have already lost their lives and thousands up mothers who have mourned for their lost children), but for all mankind. The deadline for stopping Netanyahu’s lies is crucial.

In that sense, Netanyahu is implicitly at war with Western world, and every decent individual must resist his categorical lies with respect to Iran’s nuclear program. Why is it crucial to stop him?
The intelligence community both in Israel and in the U.S. has repeatedly said that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons.[43] The IAEA itself submitted a lengthy report in November 2011 declaring that Iran was not building nuclear weapons.[44]
We are confronted with an inescapable dilemma: either Netanyahu is right, or the intelligence community is telling the truth here. Since they both propose contradictory statements, they cannot both be true at the same time. We have already seen that Netanyahu is a pathological liar with respect to Iran’s nuclear weapons.

Yuval Diskin
Yuval Diskin

This brings us to an inevitable conclusion. If the West is basically saying that evidence matters and Netanyahu is indirectly saying the opposite by substituting lies, then whether he likes it or not Netanyahu is an enemy of the Western world. He is the antithesis of what the West represents.
If this is still unbelievable, listen to former Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin:
“My major problem is that I have no faith in the current leadership, which must lead us in an event on the scale of war with Iran or a regional war. I don’t believe in either the prime minister or the defense minister. I don’t believe in a leadership that makes decisions based on messianic feelings.”[45]
These “messianic feelings” have been around for the past millennium. They have jumped from one period to another, but the end result has always turned out to be an attack on Western ideals. Both Netanyahu and Ehud Barak, according to Diskin, are two saviors, “two messianics – the one from Akirov or the Assuta project and the other from Gaza Street or Caesarea.”[46]
Diskin continues,
“Believe me, I have observed them [Netanyahu and Barak] from up close… They are not people who I, on a personal level, trust to lead Israel to an event on that scale and carry it off. These are not people who I would want to have holding the wheel in such an event. They are misleading the public on the Iran issue. They tell the public that if Israel acts, Iran won’t have a nuclear bomb. This is misleading. Actually, many experts say that an Israeli attack would accelerate the Iranian nuclear race.”[47]
Newt Gingrich wakes up from his dogmatic slumber
New Gingrich
New Gingrich

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who has made a great impact in my life, said that “I have grown used to the fact that, throughout the world, public repentance is the most unacceptable option for the modern politician.”[48]
Newt Gingrich may be an exception. I say maybe. Gingrich has been a Zionist shill throughout his political life—and there is no doubt that he is still one. Yet recently, he has started to psychoanalyze himself and realize that neoconservatism—I call it neo-Bolshevism—did not seem to be the savior as he had hoped it would be.
“I am a neoconservative,” the former presidential candidate declares. “But at some point, even if you are a neoconservative, you need to take a deep breath to ask if our strategies in the Middle East have succeeded. It may be that our capacity to export democracy is a lot more limited than we thought.”[49]
Gingrich continues, “My worry about all this is not new. But my willingness to reach a conclusion is new.”[50]
It is too early to say that Gingrich is serious here. But if he continues to take that position, he is going to be labeled an anti-Semite. In fact, Gingrich is getting closer and closer to Ron Paul’s views:
“I think it would be healthy to go back and war-game what alternative strategies would have been better, and I like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul because they are talking about this.”[51]
Ron Paul, who also was labeled “a vicious anti-Semite” by thought police David Horowitz,[52] argued that the neocons have lied to America and perpetual wars and continue to create terrorist cells. Paul declared,
“Well, guess what, after 12 years, trillions of dollars, more than 2,200 Americans killed, and perhaps more than 50,000 dead Afghan civilians and fighters, the Taliban is coming back anyway!”[53]
Gingrich says, “It’s hard to argue the chaos in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Lebanon make for a better future.”[54]
Let us hope that Gingrich continues to psychoanalyze himself. And let us hope that he will do something about it.

[1] Quoted in “The War Game,” Guardian, September 21, 2003.
[2] Quoted in Akiva Eldar, “Netanyahu Goes for Broke,” National Interest, September 17, 2012.
[3] Herb Keinon, “PM: Israel to Erect Red Army Memorial,” Jerusalem Post, February 16, 2013; Herb Keinon, “PM Announces Memorial for Red Army’s Victory Over Nazis,” Jerusalem Post, October 15, 2010.
[4] Jean-Louis Panne et al, The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999), 6; see also Norman M. Naimark, The Russians in Germany: A History of the Soviet Zone of Occupation, 1945-1949 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995).
[5] Giles MacDonogh, After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation (New York: Basic Books, 2007), 25.
[6] Ibid.,  xiii.
[7] Ibid., 26.
[8] See Alfred Maurice de Zayas, A Terrible Revenge: The Ethnic Cleansing of the East European Germans (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), 40; Norman M. Naimark, The Russians in Germany: A History of the Soviet Zone of Occupation (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), 72; Antony Beevor, Berlin: The Downfall 1945 (New York: Penguin, 2002), 169; Richard Bessel, Germany 1945: From War to Peace (New York: Harper Perennial, 2009), 150; Joachim Hoffman, Stalin’s War of Extermination (Chicago: Theses and Dissertations Presses, 2001), 235-236). Wikipedia used to have the entire quote, but they removed it obviously for political and ideological purpose. Hopefully they will put it back.
[9] MacDonogh, After the Reich, 26.
[10] H. H. Ben-Sasson, ed., A History of the Jewish People (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976), 977, 1070, 1072.
[11] Ibid., 965.
[12] Quoted in Herb Keinon, “US Awaits ‘Credible Steps’ on Iran as Netanyahu Calls for Increased Pressure,” Jerusalem Post, August 6, 2013.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Jonathan Tepperman, “Israel vs. Iran, Again,” NY Times, July 26, 2013.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Jodi Rudoren and David E. Sanger, “Israel Increases Pressure on U.S. to Act on Iran,” NY Times, July 15, 2013.
[18] Marcus George and Yeganeh Torbati, “Iran’s Leader Reaches Out to U.S., Vows to Resolve Nuclear Row,”, August 7, 2013; Monavar Khalaj, Geoff Dyer, and Joshua Chaffin, “Iran’s New President Calls for ‘Serious’ Nuclear Talks,” Financial Times, August 6, 2013; Thomas Erdbrink, “Iran’s New President Calls for Nuclear Talks Without Rejecting Direct U.S. Role,” NY Times, August 6, 2013.
[19] Greg Thielmann, “Senators’ Iran Letter Complicates Solution,” National Interest, August 6, 2013; see also Rick Gladstone, “Sending Message to Iran, House Approves Tougher Sanctions,” NY Times, July 31, 2013.
[20] Paul R. Pillar, “Iran’s Nuclear Legal Obligations,” National Interest, August 5, 2013.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Rebecca Ruiz, “Is the Army Improperly Discharging Wounded, Ill Soldiers for Misconduct?,” Forbes, August 2, 2013.
[23] “Veterans Can’t Find Work,” Huffington Post, April 5, 2008.
[25] Rebecca Ruiz, “Survey: Veterans Often Sleep Poorly, Don’t Seek Treatment,” Forbes, August 1, 2013.
[27] Matt Sledge, “Unhappy With U.S. Foreign Policy? Pentagon Says You Might Be A ‘High Threat,’” Huffington Post, August 7, 2013.
[29] Ibid.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Ibid.
[32] R. H. S. Stolfi, Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny (New York: Prometheus Books, 2011), 11.
[33] Ibid., 11, 12, 17.
[34] Carl Rollyson, “Biography Review: ‘Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny,’” Star Tribune, January 14, 2012.
[35] Mimi Frank, “Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny,” Jewish Book Council,
[36] Allan Hall, “Jewish Campaigners Call for End to Controversial German Pulp Magazine That ‘Glorifies Nazi SS Butchers,’” Daily Mail, July 30, 2013.
[37] “Two People Charged over Book of Hitler’s Speeches,” Prague Daily Monitor, July 29, 2013.
[38] See for example Thomas Doherty, Hollywood and Hitler, 1933-1939 (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013).
[39] David Mikics, “Hollywood’s Creepy Love Affair With Adolf Hitler, in Explosive New Detail,” Tablet Magazine, June 10, 2013.
[40] Ibid.
[41] See for example Neal Gabler, Empire of their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood (New York: Anchor Books, 1988). A new book is coming out in September by Jewish scholar Ben Urwand will more than likely create some stir. Ben Urwand, The Collaboration: Hollywood’s Pact with Hitler (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2013).
[42] Quoted in “Why We Must Resist Netanyahu and the Hawks’ Reckless Push for War on Iran,” Guardian, March 4, 2013.
[43] Ken Dilanian, “U.S. Does Not Believe Iran is Trying to Build Nuclear Bomb,” LA Times, February 23, 2012; “IDF Chief to Haaretz: I Do Not Believe Iran Will Decide to Develop Nuclear Weapons,” Haaretz, April 25, 2012;
[45] Quoted in Barak Ravid, “Israel’s Former Shin Bet Chief: I Have No Confidence in Netanyahu, Barak,” Haaretz, April 28, 2012.
[46] Ibid.
[47] Ibid.
[48] “Spiegel Interview with Alexander Solzhenitsyn: ‘I Am Not Afraid of Death,’” Spiegel International, July 23, 2007.
[49] Quoted in Ralph Z. Hallow, “Newt Gingrich Sees Major Mideast Mistakes, Rethinks His Neocon Views on Intervention,” Washington Times, August 4, 2013.
[50] Ibid.
[51] Ibid.
[53] Hallow, “Newt Gingrich Sees Major Mideast Mistakes, Rethinks His Neocon Views on Intervention,” Washington Times, August 4, 2013.
[54] Ibid.


We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully Informed
In fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion.

About VT - Policies & Disclosures - Comment Policy
Due to the nature of uncensored content posted by VT's fully independent international writers, VT cannot guarantee absolute validity. All content is owned by the author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images are the full responsibility of the article author and NOT VT.
Previous articleAfghanistan – the Shadow of Evil
Next articleFry-Up
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.