“We are approaching the brink; already a universal spiritual demise is upon us; a physical one is about to flare up and engulf us and our children, while we continue to smile sheepishly and babble.” Alexander Solzhenitsyn
…by Jonas E. Alexis
Former NSA Director Michael Hayden declared last week: “I must admit, in my darker moments over the past several months, I’d also thought of nominating Mr. Snowden, but it was for a different list.”
Hayden here is talking about putting Snowden on the U.S. assassination list. The statement was supposed to be a joke, but should anyone be joking about assassinating a U.S. citizen who happened to show that the Orwellian state and empire has no clothes?
Suppose for example the name “Mr. Snowden” is replaced with “Mr. Obama,” or “blacks,” or “Jews,” what would happen to Hayden? Wouldn’t he be hiding and running for his life like Snowden?
If Snowden is a criminal and should be assassinated, then the European Parliament is an accomplice in nominating him for the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought.
It got even more interesting when Mike Rogers, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee who was also present during Hayden’s speech, responded by saying, “I can help you with that.”
How is it possible that the Zionist machine can say some of the most disgusting things and get away with it? How is it that the neo-Bolsheviks place a heavy burden on everyone else but absolve themselves of any meaningful responsibility? Why is it that if you deviate from the Zionist premise, you will implicitly be labeled a “psychopath” by Caroline B. Glick of the Jerusalem Post?
Glick, accordingly, presents the issue in starkly binary terms: either you are onboard with Israel’s plan or you are a psychopath. Glick titles her article “America and the Good Psychopaths” largely because the vast majority of Americans and people in the Middle East aren’t interested in Netanyahu’s wild rhetoric.
When Netanyahu declared to the UN General Assembly, “I wish I could believe [President Hassan] Rouhani, but I don’t because facts are stubborn things. And the facts are that Iran’s savage record flatly contradicts Rouhani’s soothing rhetoric,” Glick seems to be surprised and declares that Netanyahu “might have saved his breath. The Americans weren’t interested.”
How did Glick come up with this false dichotomy?
The answer can be explained in theological terms with political and ideological implications. Glick and Netanyahu are the theological grandchildren of Rabbinic Judaism, which has never died out over the centuries and which has taken different ideological shapes and forms.
But the end result is always the same: to reduce the goyim into abject servitude, to send mankind into a chaotic abyss, and, in the grand scheme of things, to overthrow reason in all its manifestations.
When the political ideology of Rabbinic Judaism got reincarnated in 1917 in the Bolshevik Revolution, Winston Churchill, who was a flaming Zionist, was about to throw up. He declared then,
“Of all the tyrannies in history, the Bolshevist tyranny is the worst, the most destructive, and most degrading.”
Churchill, who had been appointed Secretary of State for War, continued to tell his audience that “it is sheer humbug to pretend that it [Bolshevism] is not far worse than German militarism.”
Lenin and other Jewish revolutionaries, declared Churchill, intended to commit crimes that were “incomparably more hideous, on a larger scale more numerous than any for which the Kaiser is responsible.” Churchill continued,
“Bolshevism is not a policy, it is a disease…civilization is being completely extinguished over gigantic areas while Bolsheviks hop and caper like troops of ferocious baboons amid the ruins of cities and the corpses of their victims.”
Churchill told his audience that the time had come for England to fight “against the foul baboonery of Bolshevism.” Some may surprise to know that Churchill intended to use one of the most deadly chemical weapons—commonly called M Device—on the Bolsheviks.
Churchill was ready to drop 50,000 of those chemical weapons on those Bolsheviks. He unambiguously declared that he would “very much like the Bolsheviks to have it [a chemical attack], if we can afford the disclosure.”
Sir Keith Price, head of chemical warfare production, declared that the M Devices were the “right medicine for the Bolsheviks” which will “drift along very nicely.”
Bolshevism, indeed, was defeated. By September 2013, Russia—with love—seems to be taking a radical turn by keeping an eye on the Zionist regime both in America and Israel. Had it not been for Vladimir Putin, the Israeli regime would have probably forced the United States to invade Syria by now.
But, like zombies who refuse to die, Bolshevism was hardly eradicated in its ideological form. It left Russia and fell under the guiding hands of Jewish revolutionaries and intellectuals in America in particular. Neoconservative scholar Francis Fukuyama, citing another noted scholar by the name of Ken Jowitt, declared that
“the neoconservative position articulated by people like Kristol and Kagan was…Leninists…Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States.”
Noted historian Ricardo Duchesne of the University of New Brunswick, citing British political philosopher John Gray, declares that the neoconservative movement is “the continuation of the Marxist-Leninist internationalist project.”
According to Fukuyama, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in particular were different versions of Bolshevism.
Fukuyama, after working for neoconservative think tanks such as the RAND Corporation, seemed to have gotten his political and intellectual awakening when he saw that Bolshevism and neoconservatism were concentric circles which inexorably lead to the same ideological rabbit whole.
As a result, Fukuyama quickly found a way out. He declared, “Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support.”
It must be noted in passing that Fukuyama was not entirely innocent and he seemed to have known what he was doing. He and other neoconservatives such as “Prince of Darkness” Richard Perle, Benjamin Barber of the City University of New York, Joseph Nye and Robert Putnam of Harvard, Bernard Lewis of Princeton, were all working for Monitor, a company that made a three-million dollar deal with the Gaddafi government between 2006 and 2008 in order to portray Gaddafi in a positive light in the West.
In England, Sir David Frost, who died last August of a heart attack, received 57,000 pounds to do the same thing; his job was to show that Gaddafi was indeed a noted statesman and innovative intellectual. Anthony Giddens, former director of the London School of Economics, received 41,500 pounds to move the idea forward.
Danielle Pletka, vice president of the neoconservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute and former editorial assistant with the Los Angeles Times and Reuters, was invited to visit Gaddafi but declined.
Those neocons did plan to write a book on Gaddafi showing that the Libyan leader was “a man of actions and a man of ideas…Gaddafi is well known but poorly understood, particularly in the west.”
Although the neocons made several trips to Tripoli, the book project never materialized. But the neocons did the next best thing.
Nye, after his trip to Libya, penned an article for the New Republic saying that Gaddafi was interested in “direct democracy” and that he
“acts differently on the world stage today than he did in decades past. And the fact that he took so much time to discuss ideas—including soft power—with a visiting professor suggests that he is actively seeking a new strategy.”
Nearly all the other neocons also portrayed Gaddafi in a positive light in leading newspapers without even mentioning that they were working for Monitor.
“One of Qaddafi’s hired guns was a former Bush administration official named Randa Fahmy Hudome, who, in an interview with Mother Jones, describes why she accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars to lobby for a government that she herself considers ‘dictatorial’ and ‘brutal.’”
Hudome, an Arab American Republican who admitted that she was “working for a terrorist government,” declared that she work for Gaddafi “with the political and legal approval of the Bush administration…[which] encouraged me to help Libya transition from their position as a rogue nation to entering back into the international community.” Hudome continued,
“We’ve dealt with Libya as if she were a secret girlfriend hidden in the closet, only dealt with when we need it, otherwise we go ‘Shh, shh.’”
Hudome declared that Libya, during Gaddafi’s reign, was “a very dictatorial and brutal regime” with an “absolutely appalling and horrible” history of violent crackdown on protestors, but Hudome’s firm was getting $300,000 quarterly from the same regime.
In short, between 2006 and 2008, the neoconservatives were promoting Gaddafi because they were pocketing from his government. But they got rid of him by the end of 2011 and dragged his corpse on the streets of Libya obviously because he was no longer of use to them.
The neoconservatives got him executed by the Libyan rebels/terrorists. The rebels brutally beat him until blood was gushing out of his head and other body parts and grotesquely sodomized him with a knife before they shot him. He was also “dragged off a vehicle’s bonnet and pulled to the ground by his hair.”
IDEOLOGICAL AND THEOLOGICAL ROOTS OF BOLSHEVISM
Bolshevism, as we are progressively seeing, never lost its ideological potency. it has spread like wild fire in the political ideology of Zionism and neoconservatism, which continue to send aesthetic terrorism across the Middle East and much of the West.
Noted economist John Quiggin declares in his book Zombie Economics that
“Ideas are long lived, often outliving their originators and taking new and different forms. Some ideas live on because they are useful. Others die and are forgotten.
“But even when they have proved themselves wrong and dangerous, ideas are very hard to kill. Even after the evidence seems to have killed them, they keep on coming back. These ideas are neither alive nor dead; rather…they are undead, or zombie, ideas.”
Bolshevism perfectly fits that description. Churchill feared that if Bolshevism was left unchecked and unchallenged, it would eventually overthrow the West.
One can say with all probability that if Zionism and neoconservatism are left unchecked and unchallenged, they both will overthrow the West, and this will lead to massive suffering and death on a large scale.
Both messianic ideologies are already trying to control the world bit by bit, and it starts with eliminating basic human rights such as privacy. This is one reason why not a single Jewish neoconservative has ever been able to come out and say point-blank that the NSA is wrong in spying on virtually every American and much of the West.
They all have unanimously declared that Snowden should be detained. Michael Curtis of the neoconservative magazine the American Thinker cannot fathom the fact that Snowden will be receiving the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought.
Ronn Rorossian of neoconservative magazine FrontPage gave this false dichotomy: “You can’t love America and love Edward Snowden.” Max Boot of Commentary declared that Snowden has caused serious damage to the security of the United States. And of course other neocon magazines such as Weekly Standard have nothing good to say about Edward Snowden.
Zionist puppets such as Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann may say that the NSA is incompatible with American interests, but they could never bring themselves to the fact that the Zionist world largely wants Edward Snowden’s head on a silver platter. They cannot bring themselves to this fact not because they are ignorant but because that would be the end of their political career and lucrative business.
Put simply, unreasonableness rules Western politicians at this present moment because the West is largely under the parameters of Bolshevik ideology, particularly with respect to the Middle East.
This is one reason why Netanyahu in particular cannot abide by reason because his theological progenitors were none other than the Pharisees and rabbis, who later took control over the religious and political life of the Jewish people.
Many scholars and Western politicians know very well that Netanyahu is unreasonable, but they are unwilling to say where that unreasonableness actually came from. This was quite apparent when Netanyahu was being interviewed by Charlie Rose:
Rose: “You can’t make the case that settlements, which you have continued… are essential for the security of the Jewish state. They may do damage to the security of the Jewish state… “The question is, most people want to ask… Why is it necessary… I still don’t understand why you think that building settlements in East Jerusalem is necessary… when the world believes its stand in the way…
Netanyahu: “The world believes a lot of things, but the world doesn’t get it.” Netanyahu was even asked about Israel’s nukes, but he refused to discuss that particular issue precisely because he knew very well that it will show that Netanyahu is an obvious hypocrite. What is particularly interesting here is that you do not get it if you do not go along with Netanyahu.
Last year, when the Western world was reluctant to put Netanyahu’s plan with regard to Iran in practice, Netanyahu declared,
“The world tells Israel ‘Wait, there is still time.’ And I say, ‘Wait for what? Wait until when?’ Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don’t have a moral right to place a red light before Israel.”
In other words, he is indirectly saying that the West cannot tell him what to do. They have to follow his commands. End of discussion.
This led one writer in the New Yorker to declare that Netanyahu is “cynical.” Israeli political philosopher Avishai Margalit even declared that Netanyahu is guided by a “mythomaniac” ideology.
While King Bibi was going around likening Iran to that of a “suicide bomber,” Obama finally got to say something reasonable. With respect to Iran, he told Netanyahu,
“We have to see if in fact they are serious about their willingness to abide by international norm and international law and international requirements and resolutions.”
Netanyahu’s unreasonableness did not start overnight. It particularly was vivid during the Bolshevik Revolution, when Stalin himself was using “mass terror” and “armed insurrection” to get things done. Philo-Semitic historian Robert Gellately of Florida State University admits that for Lenin, “the only answer to utter bankruptcy of the tsarist regime was to use every means available, including terrorism.”
The parallel between Lenin’s Bolshevism and the neoconservative/Zionist ideology is quite striking: Lenin use terrorism so long that terrorism is compatible with Bolshevism; the neoconservatives/Zionists support terrorism so long that terrorism is compatible with the Zionist plan. This is one reason why those same neocons have been supporting the Syrian rebels/terrorists.
There also seems to be a parallel between Lenin and Netanyahu. For example, Lenin “despised all opponents, including even left-wingers who merely disagreed with him. He wanted an elite party committed to him and the cause as he saw it.”
America has been given Israel $3 billion every year, and you would think that Netanyahu would at least sympathize for the average American who is struggle to put food on the table in this wreak economy. Yet he wants to produce more lies so that we can pursue his messianic heaven on earth.
FIRST-CENTURY JEWISH MALEDICTION
What does that all mean? It means that we have an elephant in the room. This elephant seeks to shake the very foundation of the West. But the elephant has been staring at us for centuries.
In order to understand what that elephant is up to, one only needs to look at the the Jewish Encyclopedia and other Rabbinic literatures, which portray a hostile tension between Jews and non-Jews.
Once again we have to keep in mind that this is not primarily an ethnic issue, but a theological issue with political and ideological consequences.
It was in the first century that a prayer was forged to ontologically condemn all Jews who converted to Christianity and to even place a curse on Christians. The Babylonian version of the prayer says in part,
And for informers let there be no hope; and let all who do wickedness quickly perish; and let them all be speedily destroyed; and uproot and crush and hurl down and humble the insolent, speedily in our days.”
The Palestinian version reads,
“And for apostates let there be no hope; and may the insolent kingdom be quickly uprooted, in our days. And may the Nazarenes [Christians of Jewish ethnicity] and the heretics perish quickly; and may they be erased from the Book of Life; and may they not be inscribed with the righteous.”
One Protestant scholar declares that “The inclusion of this wording in the daily prayer uttered in the synagogues of Israel became the instrument of excluding Jewish Christians from continued participation in the service—their enthusiasm for joining in corporate prayer would be severely undercut by the petition asking for their own damnation.”
In short, whenever Jewish revolutionaries ascend to political thrones, they will metaphysically send the West into a Jewish bloodbath. To “uproot and crush and hurl down and humble the insolent” is one of the goals. For example, for Lenin, “That millions would die in the conflagration [Bolshevik Revolution] did not matter to him in the least.”
Netanyahu is no different: he knows for example the war in Iraq, which he and other Zionists forged on massive fabrications, will eventually cost America at least $6 trillion; he knows for example that supporting terrorist cells such as the Syrian rebels is not a good sign for Zionism; he knows that he is lying to the West with respect to Iran; he knows that he has been in the lying business for more than a decade; he knows that you cannot fool everyone all the time. But he continues to do this because he is implicitly waging wars against the central ideals that hold the West together.
If you think that the past decade has not sent many into abject servitude, Georgetown University has recently declared that our young people have earned the title of “the new lost generation,” a phraseology that was foreign to America prior to the war in Iraq. The Wall Street Journal itself declares,
“James Roy, 26, has spent the past six years paying off $14,000 in student loans for two years of college by skating from job to job.” Roy lamented,
“It seems to me that if you went to college and took on student debt, there used to be greater assurance that you could pay it off with a good job. But now, for people living in this economy and in our age group, it’s a rough deal.”
Roy is not an isolated case. Business Insider reported that 7 out of 10 students wish they “had prepared more for the real world during school.” Back in 2010, Richard Vedder of the Chronicle of Higher Education reported:
“Over 317,000 waiters and waitresses have college degrees (over 8,000 of them have doctoral or professional degrees), along with over 80,000 bartenders, and over 18,000 parking lot attendants. All told, some 17,000,000 Americans with college degrees are doing jobs that the BLS says require less than the skill levels associated with a bachelor’s degree.”
Jesus said that the Pharisees of his day “bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers” (Matthew 23:4).
Placing “heavy burdens” on others once again did not die out over the centuries. Fast forward to October 2013. Benjamin Netanyahu has just forged a new mantra with respect to Iran’s nuclear program: “distrust, dismantle, and verify.” He continued to say that he wants “a full dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program.”
In other to put that burden on a sovereign country, Netanyahu must know that the same country would ask Netanyahu to play by the same rule. In other words, he knows very well that Iran would logically ask, “Are you willing to live by that standard”?
Netanyahu, of course, has done his best to recoil from the ramifications of his own standard. What is even more outrageous is that he wants the entire Western world to abide by his obviously Talmudic ideology. Secretary of State John Kerry has already answered Netanyahu’s Talmudic call:
“Secretary of State John Kerry, in his first remarks about Iran since Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel warned the United States to be wary of talks with the country, said on Thursday that the United States would negotiate with Tehran only if it provided proof that it would not pursue nuclear defense programs.”
What kind of proof do they actually want? As Stephen M. Walt of Harvard has argued, there is no doubt Iran wants a fair deal with the United States, but Netanyahu has and will do his best to stop any reasonable agreement.
Netanyahu has been saying for years that Iran would acquire nuclear weapons, but none of those predictions has come to past.
As a matter of fact, the Israeli regime has been saying since 1979—the year I was born!—that Iran was on the brink of acquiring nuclear weapons. All of those predictions turned out to be blatant hoaxes and colossal lies.
Yet after all those years, Obama and his accolades still do not have enough guts to completely tell Netanyahu,
“Sorry, Bro. We ain’t gonna take it no more. We’re tired of your colossal lies and fabrications. We need a new focus based on American interests, not on Israeli interests. After more than thirty years of misdirection, America needs to reconsider its relationship with Israel. You are either onboard or you’re not.”
Back in 1992, Netanyahu and Shimon Peres said that Iran was close to having nuclear bombs, and soon enough Zionist puppets such as Donald Rumsfeld marshaled the same arguments in 1998.
The international community may have had some reservations as to where Netanyahu was going, but they too had to face the wrath of Netanyahu. Once that happened, the president of the United States had to call Netanyahu and beg for mercy, saying that he is in accord with Netanyahu with respect to Iran, despite the fact that a war with Iran without the license of self-defense would be considered an international crime.
Even when countries such as India, Pakistan, and North Korea were gaining nuclear warheads, the United States and the neoconservative machine said nothing.
These double standards certainly get on people’s nerves after awhile, precisely because they do not correspond to the real and rational world as we know it. It is also somewhat irritating because those who should be following reason are getting sucked into this political madness.
If a car dealer lies to you just once and you know pretty well that he did it intentionally, more than likely you will never go back to that dealer anymore.
But suppose that a person keeps coming back to the car dealer for more than ten years even though the car dealer perpetuates the same lie. Would you not be entitled to say that the person is a fool?
It just doesn’t make sense for people to continue to support Netanyahu when he has not changed his political lies over the years, most particularly with respect to Iran’s nuclear weapons.
Our job here is basically to open a twelve-step program for those people where they will be able to kick their Zionist addiction very quickly and effectively.
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.