…by Jonas E. Alexis
Michael Lofgren, a former defense budget analyst on Capitol Hill for more than thirty years, declared that the neoconservatives are “kind of like the terminator, they just don’t die. You would think they would be so discredited they would be shamed, but they have no shame.”
It is the same thing with Benjamin Netanyahu. You would think that he would be a little cautious with his political maneuvering, but he is not. He has been an interesting fellow since the time he ascended to the Zionist throne in Israel.
The man not only has no shame but he perpetuates the same Zionist lies virtually every week now. Recently, he summoned the Hanukka slogan and said that “we have come to expel the darkness,” and
“The darkness that threatens the world the most today is the darkness of a nuclear Iran. We are obligated to do everything possible to prevent that darkness. If possible, it is preferable to do this through diplomatic channels, and if not we will act as light unto the nations.”
Netanyahu continued to say on a different occasion, “Iran aspires to attain an atomic bomb. It would thus threaten not only Israel but also Italy, Europe and the entire world. There should be no illusions about this charm offensive.”
The West, according to this logic, is also in darkness because the West has made a deal with Iran and is trying to foster economic relationship with the enemy of the Jewish people.
In a similar vein, Caroline Click declares that Iran is “the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.” Signing a deal with Iran, Glick continues, “makes the world a much more dangerous place than it was before the agreement was concluded.” Neoconservative hawks such as Bill Kristol and Michael Makovsky came to similar conclusions, adding that the deal is
“an existential threat to Israel and our Arab allies, nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, a strengthening of the forces of radicalism and terrorism in the region, and a fundamental weakening of the U.S. position in the region and the world.”
I have tried to dialogue with Glick in the past, but she simply could not keep up—or refused to respond any further. At one point, I asked her whether it was anti-American to criticize the U.S. government or Americans, to which she quickly responded, “No.”
Then I asked her to explain to me how she could arbitrarily arrive at the conclusion that Jewish scholars like John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt are by definition anti-Semites because they criticize the Israeli government or policy. To this very day, I have yet to get a response to that question. And that was the end of our conversation. Why Glick stopped to respond? Simple.
In the Zionist matrix, calling people anti-Semites without a shred of evidence is more dangerous than a house filled with explosives, particularly when no serious politician wants to be called an anti-Semite.
As Scholar Christopher Simpson put it almost twenty years ago, “political, cultural, economic, and racial pressure are all effective weapons. They are effective because they produce dissension, distrust, fear and hopelessness in the minds of the enemy.”
Recent events simply show that Netanyahu has no interest in diplomatic channels, and he already declared that a deal with Iran is “a historical mistake.” So what does Netanyahu mean by the phrase that Zionists like himself should be “light unto the nations”?
It surely means that Netanyahu will have to dismiss Western values, particularly when it comes to dealing with perceived enemies such as Iran. He certainly got this idea from rabbi Manis Friedman, who postulated back in 2009:
“I don’t believe in Western morality. Living by Torah [the Talmud, of course] values will make us a light unto the nations who suffer defeat because of a disastrous morality of human invention.”
Since “Western morality” is out of the equation, then Talmudic morality has to be substituted, which is to say that death on a massive scale will continue to ensue in the Middle East. The great and wise Rabbi Manis continued:
“The only way to fight a moral war is the Jewish way: Destroy their holy sites. Kill men, women and children (and cattle).”
Holy sites and precious lives are indeed being destroyed virtually everyday in the Middle East.
What Netanyahu implicitly ended up saying was that he agreed with the Viennese Jew Solomon Ehrmann who envisioned a future in which “all of mankind will have been jewified and joined in union with the B’nai B’rith.” When that happens, “not only the B’nai B’rith but all of Judaism will have fulfilled its task.”
This Talmudic ideology has been echoed over the centuries in many different ways. For example, an unnamed Jewish man of Frankfurt noted in 1858:
“Rome, which 1800 years ago, ground the Jews under its feet, will fall, ruined. The work of the Jews will spread its light over the universe and will bring the greatest advantage to the human species.”
Baruch Levy, one of Karl Marx’s correspondents, had propounded similar views. Levy wrote:
“The Jewish people taken collectively shall be its own Messias…In this new organization of humanity, the sons of Israel now scattered over the whole surface of the globe…shall everywhere become the ruling element without opposition…
“The governments of the nations forming the Universal or World-Republic shall all thus pass, without any effort, into Jewish hands thanks to the victory of the proletariat…Thus shall the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled, that, when the Messianic epoch shall have arrived, the jews will control the wealth of all the nations of the earth.”
This again brings us to another important issue. If Levy’s essentially Talmudic thesis is followed consistently and logically, it will inexorably create conflicts in the West and the Middle East, which is to say that Jewish revolutionaries like Levy are responsible for anti-Jewish reactions. This issue has played out in the historical and existential realm over and over.
For example, when Heinrich Graetz, “the father of ethno-nationalist historiography,” unapologetically wrote a letter to Moses Hess saying that Christianity is a “religion of death” and that “I am looking forward with pleasure to flogging the Germans and their leaders—Schleirmacher, Fichte, and the whole wretched Romanic school,”  the German historian Heinrich von Treitschke of the University of Berlin, though not a Christian, was appalled. He responded:
“What zealous rage against the ‘age-old enemy,’ Christianity, what deadly hatred for purest and grandest representatives of the German nation, from Luther to Goethe and Fichte! And what everblown, hollow and on ensive pride!…Nor is this rigid hatred for the German ‘gentiles’ by any means confined to the mind of a single zealot.”
After a long struggle with Graetz, Treitschke concluded, “A full merger of Jewry with the peoples of the West will never be achieved.” Historian Shlomo Sand of Tel Aviv University writes that Treitschke
“discerned in Graetz an aspiration to have Jewry acknowledged as a nation within the German nation, an aspiration that every ‘authentic’ German had to reject out of hand. He went on to charge Graetz with nationalist Jewish conceit, and wondered at length if the latter saw himself as a Germany in any way.
“No, he concluded, Graetz was an alien in his accidental homeland, an Oriental ‘who neither understands no wants to understand our nation; he and we have nothing in common, except that he possesses our citizenship and uses our mother tongue—though only in order to curse and swear at us.’”
According to Treitschke, since the Jews have nothing in common with the Germans, the only solution was to emigrate:
“But if this racial conceit becomes public, if Jewry even demands recognition of its national status, it demolishes the legal foundation of emancipation. There is only one way to fulfill these aspirations: emigration, the creation of a Jewish state somewhere outside our country, and then it will see if it can win the recognition of other nations.”
Treitschke, writes Sand, began to view
“Jewishness and Germany as two contradictory, hence irreconcilable, identities. Treitschke’s nationalism was suffused with an ethnicist-essentialist outlook, in which the Jew remained a Jew even if his culture and language were purely German. In this he was, in fact, not very different in principle from Graetz, who in the final chapters of his book presented similar, even identical, positions.”
During that same era, many German intellectuals were eager to understand the “Jewish Question” and some quickly gravitated towards biological determinism, a school of thought which basically says that the Jew essentially has bad DNA in his system and this bad DNA causes him to embrace subversive movements.
The Jews have been implicitly saying for centuries almost the same thing, but it is not bad DNA, the Jews argue, but super DNA, and that super DNA, to use Netanyahu’s metaphor, is going to be “light unto the nations.”
Martin Buber, who for several years was the editor in chief of the Zionist magazine Die Welt (“The World”), articulated this very plainly on the eve of the Zionist movement:
“Blood is a deep-rooted nurturing force within individual man, the deepest layers of our being are determined by blood. Our innermost thinking and our will are colored by it.
“Now he finds that the world around him is the world of imprints and of influences, whereas blood is the realm of a substance capable of being imprinted and influenced, a substance absorbing and assimilating all into its own form….
“That his substance can, nevertheless, become a reality for the Jew is due to the fact that his origin means more than a mere connection with things past; it has planted something within us that does not leave us any hour of our life, that determines every tone and every hue in our life, all that we do and all that befalls us: blood, the deepest, most potent stratum of our being.”
Sand declares that this particular view “captivated young Jewish intellectuals in Eastern Europe.” This view was also articulated quite vividly in the writings of Vladimir Jabotinksy, “the leader of Zionist revisionism, which says again that “Jews have a distinctive blood that sets them apart from other people.” Jabotinsky wrote,
“It is quite clear that the source of the national sentiment cannot be found in education, but in something that precedes it. In what?—I thought about this question and answered myself: in the blood. And I persist in this view. The sense of national identity is inherent in man’s ‘blood,’ in his physical-racial type, and only in that.
“The people’s mental structure reflects their physical form even more perfectly and completely than does that of the individual. That is why we do not believe in mental assimilation. It is physically impossible for a Jew descended from several generations of pure, unmixed Jewish blood to adopt the mental state of a German or a Frenchman, just as it is impossible for a Negro to cease to be a Negro.”
“The essence of a nation, the alpha and omega of its distinctive character is its special physical attribute, the formula of its racial composition. In the final analysis when all shells arising from history, the climate, natural surroundings, and outside influences, have been removed the ‘nation’ is reduced to its racial kernel.”
In short, for the biological determinist, bad DNA trumps everything else. For Jewish intellectuals like Jabotinsky, super DNA trumps everything else. Those ideas were not based on scientific evidence but on purely theoretical speculations, and those speculations got expanded over the years.
But some of those theoretical speculations got quiet for a while by the end of 2012 when Israeli-American geneticist Eran Elhaik of Johns Hopkins School of Public Health argued that the Khazarian Hypothesis is much more scientifically rigorous than previous speculations. The Jewish Daily Forward reported:
“Scientists usually don’t call each other ‘liars’ and ‘frauds.’ But that’s how Johns Hopkins University post-doctoral researcher Eran Elhaik describes a group of widely respected geneticists, including Harry Ostrer, professor of pathology and genetics at Yeshiva University’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine and author of the 2012 book ‘Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People.’
“For years now, the findings of Ostrer and several other scientists have stood virtually unchallenged on the genetics of Jews and the story they tell of the common Middle East origins shared by many Jewish populations worldwide.
“Jews — and Ashkenazim in particular — are indeed one people, Ostrer’s research finds. But now, Elhaik, an Israeli molecular geneticist, has published research that he says debunks this claim. And that has set off a predictable clash.
“Ostrer’s theory is sometimes marshaled to lend the authority of science to the Zionist narrative, which views the migration of modern-day Jews to what is now Israel, and their rule over that land, as a simple act of repossession by the descendants of the land’s original residents.
“Ostrer declined to be interviewed for this story. But in his writings, Ostrer points out the dangers of such reductionism; some of the same genetic markers common among Jews, he finds, can be found in Palestinians, as well.
Elhaik called the Rhineland Hypothesis as articulated by Ostrer and others as “nonsense.” After examining all the data, then Elhaik, as a serious scientist, asked Ostrer a simple question:
“It was a great pleasure reading your group’s recent paper, ‘Abraham’s Children in the Genome Era,’ that illuminate[s] the history of our people. Is it possible to see the data used for the study?”
Listen very carefully to Ostrer’s response, as he declared that the data he used could not be made available to Elhaik:
“It is possible to collaborate with the team by writing a brief proposal that outlines what you plan to do. Criteria for reviewing include novelty and strength of the proposal, non-overlap with current or planned activities, and non-defamatory nature toward the Jewish people.”
Keep in mind that Ostrer is a scientist, but obviously he was acting like an ideologue here. This issue reminds me of what Jewish Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin said in Biology as Ideology:
“Modern biology is characterized by a number of ideological prejudices that shape the form of its explanations and the ways its researches are carried out.”
“Allowing scientists access to data only if their research will not defame Jews is ‘peculiar,’ said Catherine DeAngelis, who edited the Journal of the American Medical Association for a decade. ‘What he does is set himself up for criticism: Wait a minute. What’s this guy trying to hide?’”
Keep also in mind that Ostrer’s book, Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People, was published by Oxford University Press, and it hastily received great reviews. 
Judging from such an unscientific behavior, Elhaik had every reason to say, “First these researchers decided what conclusions they wanted to find, and then they set off to find evidence to support it.”
These issues seem to suggest that theological metaphysics on the Jewish question, which the Church had discovered thousands of years ago, makes a lot more sense. The views as espoused by the Zionist and biological determinist are morally and metaphysically erroneous. If some of those German intellectuals would pay careful attention to what the Church was essentially saying on the Jewish question, they would have had the metaphysical ground to confront the issue head on.
But German writers such as Wilhelm Marr had already made a historically grave error by lumping Christianity and Judaism together and declaring that they are “detestable.” For Marr, both Christianity and Judaism ask their followers “to persecute and kill one’s fellow man.”
This elementary error disarmed Marr from being a serious writer and it surely suggested that he had a skewed view of both Judaism and Christianity.
Marr continued to propound that Christianity, according to Albert S. Lindemann of the University of California, “made unrealistic, ‘inhuman’ demands on human beings, filling them with guilt, morbid anxieties, and absurd superstitions.”
It is pretty clear that Marr was not aware of basic human psychology and moral philosophy. Christianity does not fill human beings with guilt—the guilt, which is part of moral reasoning, was already there in the first place. There is a wide range of study on this. If anything, Christianity makes it possible for guilt and redemption to work together.
As Thomas Nagel himself put it some years ago, “guilt and indignation, shame and contempt, pride and admiration, are internal and external sides of the same moral attitudes…”
And too bad that Marr did not know about Oscar Wilde, who, after years of practicing pederasty, felt that guilt was taking a toll on him. That sexual trajectory got morphed into syphilis, and that too got evolved into other diseases. In his early years, Wilde convinced himself that “Wickedness is a myth invented by good people to account for the curious attractiveness of others.”
For Wilde, having sex with boys was “the quenchless flame, the worm that dieth not.” Yet during the last hour of his life, Wilde’s sexual calculus began to burn everything that he held dear, including his own life, and the quenchless poet ended up calling a priest to exorcise his guilt. He declared,
“The artistic side of the Church and the fragrance of its teachings would have cured my degeneracies.”
Both Wilde and Nietzsche died in the same year, and both contracted syphilis as a result of sexual licentiousness.
Lindemann maintains that Marr was an anti-Semite. Shlomo Sand says the same thing. But this description is too simplistic and lacks logical depth largely because the claim itself is hard to substantiate based on Marr’s own life. How could Marr really be an anti-Semite when he had “a series of Jewish wives”?
It was Princeton and Zionist Jewish historian Bernard Lewis who wrote a few years ago in the American Scholar:
“It is perfectly possible to hate and even to persecute Jews without necessarily being anti-Semitic…Unfortunately, hatred and persecution are a normal part of the human experience.
“Taking a dislike, mild or intense, to people who are different in one way or another, by ethnicity, race, color, creed, eating habits—no matter what—is part of the normal human condition.
“We find it throughout recorded history, and we find it all over the world. It can sometimes be extraordinarily vicious and sometimes even amusing.”
Lewis, as we all know, does not always tell the truth, and he was one of the leading figures in promoting the lie that Saddam had WMDs. But he continued to say,
“There is no great difference between the anti-Jewish remarks and the ethnic and religious prejudices expressed against other peoples, and on the whole the ones against Jews are not the most vicious.”
It could be argued that Marr’s response to the Jewish question was shaped by what Jewish revolutionaries themselves were propounded. Judging from the overtly rabid views of those revolutionaries, Marr’s views were quite mild and on many occasions he praised the Jews.
Keep also in mind that it was Marr who coined the term “anti-Semitism,” and he forged it “eight years after the publication of [Moses Hess’s] Rom und Jerusalem,” an overtly racist book in which, among other things, the author prided himself in “the idea that my nationality is inseparable from the DNA of my fathers…”
Jews do not have bad DNA in their systems. They are revolutionaries in the metaphysical and categorical sense because they essentially and willfully reject Logos, which we Christians say is Christ, the essence of everything reasonable, logical, and orderly.
In the first century, “the Jews” rejected Christ and metaphysically attack him. As a result, they progressively had to find a substitute, and that substitute had its metaphysical ground in the Talmud.
Once reason is abandoned, Talmudic mores and discourse take precedence. This Talmud, which is the essence of being Jewish, is also the essence of anti-Christ in its literal sense.
This is where the conflict actually lies, not in so-called super or bad DNA. Once the Talmudic shackle is rejected in its political, ideological, theological, and historical form, and once Jews embrace Logos, they become our brothers and friends.
Moreover, Jews are part of the human race and have the same problem that everyone else does. However, embracing subversive movements and then unleashing those movements upon mankind is not compatible with reason. As Civilta Cattolica put it a century after the French Revolution,
“They arrogate to themselves the conquest of the world, of reigning over all the nations by overthrowing them, of subjugating all the peoples to themselves….
“It is amazing to read and hear about this terrible challenge by a fistful of men, about 8 million of them, who course among five hundred million others, and who seriously wish to enslave them, and dream of doing so!”
More importantly, Civilta Cattolica made it clear that any country or government which rejects Logos will fall prey to Jewish subversive movements. In the Talmud, Civilta Cattolica declares, Christians and indeed much of the Gentile world “are reduced to a kind of nothingness, which contradicts the basic principles of natural law.”
Since the Talmud has over the centuries become the nuts and bolts of the Jewish people in general, Jews
“view their hosts as enemies, and they greedily prey upon them, even as they sit at their tables. Thus it is that the great Israelite family, dispersed among the gentile people of the world, form a foreign nation within the nations in which they reside, and are their sworn enemy, since the cardinal point of Talmudism is the oppression and spoliation of the very people who extend hospitality to their disciples.
“About which St. Paul, at the end of his days, said that the Jews were God’s displeasure and repulsive to all men, Deo non placent, et omnibus hominibus adversantur. [“who please not God and are adversaries to all men”] (I Thess. ii. 14).
“The rules of the secretive codex of the Talmud prescribes an execrable morality, one that demands hatred of all men who don’t have Jewish blood, and especially Christians. The Talmud makes it licit to deprecate and beat them as noxious brutes. These are only some of the doctrinal points that can’t be denied. ”
Civilta Cattolica continued to say that under the banner of “civil liberty,” the Talmudic or Judaic “dam” was
“opened, and so, a devastating torrent let loose; in a short time they penetrated everything, took over everything: gold, business, the public purse [or stock market], the highest appointments in political administrations, the army and the diplomatic corps; public education, the press, everything fell into their hands, so that everything came to depend upon them.”
If you think that Civilta Cattolica was being conspiratorial here, it cites P. Ratisbonne, a Jew who became a Christian, saying:
“Because of their dexterity and ingenuity, and because of their desire to dominate, step by step, the Jews have occupied all of the areas that lead to wealth, to dignity, to power. Modern society is imbued with their spirit.
“They regulate the stock exchange, the press, the theater, literature, the upper rungs of commerce, on land and sea; and through the possession of the capitals, and through shrewdness, they have at present taken, as in a hidden snare, all of Christian society.”
Keep in mind that Civilta Cattolica was published more than a century before Yuri Slezkine’s new study The Jewish Century, in which the Jewish scholar historically argues that
“The Modern Age is the Jewish Age, and the twentieth century, in particular, is the Jewish Century….Modernization, in other words, is about everyone becoming Jewish.”
Civilta Cattolica was also published more than a century before David Horowitz’s following admission:
“For nearly two hundred years, Jews have played a disproportionate role as leaders of the modern revolutionary movements in Europe and the West….
“By carrying the revolution to its conclusion, socialists would usher in a millennium and fulfill the messianic prophecies of the pre-Enlightenment religions that modern ideas had discredited.
“Through this revolution, the lost unity of mankind would be restored, social harmony would be reestablished, paradise regained. It would be a tikkun olam, a repair of the world.”
When the Modern Age essentially becomes Jewish, America got a six-trillion dollar bill from Iraq and Afghanistan alone.
When the Modern Age essentially becomes Jewish, ethnic cleansing becomes not only plausible but acceptable in the West.
When the Modern Age essentially becomes Jewish, double standard becomes the norm. Here’s a classic example. Senator Chuck Schumer is a support of abortion rights in America. In fact, “89% of American Jews support abortion rights.” Schumer in particular has been called “a hero” by Planned Parenthood. But when it comes to Israel, Schumer and the vast majority of American Jews promote anti-abortion.
By following subversive movements, Civilta Cattolica declared that Jewish revolutionaries have constructed
“an abyss, as wide as it is deep, into which all will go. And at the first burst of the engine that they, with their arrogance, provoke, the nations that have foolishly exalted them, will hurl them over it so completely, that through this means the Jews will also prosecute those nations who have exalted them, to an extent unprecedented in those nations’ histories and unprecedented in the annals of modern audacity.”
A drastic action was once again proposed by Civilta Cattolica:
“Given the reality of their presence in various countries; and given the immutable nature of their being strangers in every country, and of their being enemies of the people in every country that supports their presence; given that they always are a separate society within the nations; given the Talmudic morality that they follow; given the fundamental tenet of their religion which impels them to seize, by any means, the goods of all, because they believe that the possessions and the power of the world belong to them: given the experience of many centuries; and given what they have done today and in the past, the equal rights conceded to them by Christians in Christian countries has resulted in the oppression of the Christians.
“From this emerges the point that the only way of allowing Jews to stay among Christians is to regulate them with such laws that at once impede the Hebrews from offending the rights of Christians, and by the same laws, impede the Christians from offending the rights of the Hebrews. This is then what, by perfect or imperfect means, ought to happen because of what the Hebrews have, over many hundreds of years, been known to do.”
Going back to Netanyahu, he keeps shooting himself in the toes by following Talmudic mores. How is he going to be “light unto nations” by trying to destroy nations such as Iran and Iraq and Afghanistan? As Simon Jenkins of the Guardian writes,
“Iraqis today repeat that, whatever the ills of Saddam Hussein, under his rule most ordinary citizens and their families could walk the streets at night without fear of murder or kidnap. Religious differences were tolerated. Iraq should have been an oil-rich modern state. Even the Kurds, scourged by Saddam in the past, enjoyed autonomy and relative peace.
“In each of these cases Britain and its allies, chiefly America, intervened to overthrow the army, disband government, dismantle the judiciary and leave militias to run riot. Little or no attempt was made to replace anarchy with a new order.
“‘Nation building’ was a fiasco. The British bombs that flattened government buildings in Kabul, Baghdad and Tripoli did not replace them, or those who worked in them. Those who dropped them congratulated themselves on their work and went home.
“It is hard to exaggerate the misery and chaos created by so-called ‘liberal interventionism.’ It is hard to think of a more immoral foreign policy, roaming the (chiefly Muslim) world, killing people and sowing anarchy. That is why the blood-stained consequence should be splashed across headlines. Those who seek political kudos by visiting violence on foreign peoples should never be allowed to forget their deeds.”
If you think that Iraq resembles democracy, last week the New York Times itself entitled one of their articles, “Execution-Style Killings in Iraq Raise Fear of Return to Sectarian Violence.” But for neo-Bolshevik David Horowitz, the “United States and the British forces had liberated Iraq”!
In case you did not get his point, Horowitz continues to say in his new book that the U.S. and the British had “dismantled the torture chambers” in Iraq,
“shipped vast quantities of food and medicine to the Iraqi population and had begun to assemble the first Iraqi regime in history that would not be a monarchy, military junta, fascist dictatorship or chamber horrors…”
In that sense, Abu Ghraib was a fictional character in a Jewish comic book, since Horowitz never mentions it in his 416-page book; sexual abuse in the military was just a relic of the past; the death of thousands upon thousands of precious Muslims and American soldiers are just figments of the imagination.
It gets even better. Horowitz implicitly argues that if you are a critic of the Iraq War, then you are siding with radical terrorists. He quips,
“Opposition to the Iraq War forged a defacto partnership between left-wing critics of Saddam and Islamic radicals who supported him.”
This is the kind of neo-Bolshevik madness we are dealing with, and this madness must be deracinated precisely because it will literally reduce the Middle East and much of the West into ashes.
IS IRAN A MAJOR THREAT IN THE WORLD?
Netanyahu said that Iran threatens the entire world. Yet the evidence shows that it is Israel that should be considered the major threat in the world.
And how does Iran threaten the entire world when it is the NSA, which was forged by two forces (the Israeli regime and the Zionist mafia in America), that is monitoring virtually the entire world?
Does Iran spend billions of dollars watching its perceived enemies having sex in order to discredit them like the NSA does? Does Iran target news outlets such as the Guardian for revealing the wicked deeds of the NSA? Has Iran even attempted to eliminate all privacy globally, like the NSA is still currently doing?
Has Iran sent precious Americans to die in Iraq and Afghanistan, two neo-Bolshevik/Zionist wars which resulted in the sexual assault of at least 26,000 members of the United States military in 2012 alone and which resulted in the extinction of Christian minorities in the Middle East?
Has Iran been able to snoop on major communications companies without even breaking into the data centers of those companies?
Has Iran insulted the Fourth Amendment of the United States by snooping on virtually every single American? Has Iran arrested at least 179 Palestinian children since last September?
The answers to all of those questions are no.
ISRAEL, THE NUCLEAR BOMB, AND POPE FRANCIS
Let us emphasize once again that Israel—not Iran or Syria—is the major threat in the Middle East, and this was found to be true decades ago.
As U.S. officials admitted when they first saw some of Israel’s nuclear warheads in the 70s,
“Our thought was ‘Holy shit!’ How could we have been so wrong? We always said, ‘So the Israelis got ten warheads? Okay. So what? Anybody can build those.’ All of a sudden we learned they’d become sophisticated. It blew everybody’s mind.’”
Others in the Reagan administration were “paranoid.” One official declared, “You bet your shit it was kept away from the people at Z Division [a special group that provides the United States Intelligence Community information of foreign nuclear programs].”
At the same time, the Israel regime has been propounded lies about Iran’s intention to acquire nuclear bombs since 1979. Here is the timeline as described by the astute journalist Scott Peterson:
1) Earliest warnings: 1979-84; 2) Israel paints Iran as Enemy no. 1: 1992; 3) U.S. joins the warnings: 1992-1997; 4 ) Rhetoric escalates against ‘axis of evil’: 1998-2002; 5) Relations from inside Iran: 2002-2005; 6 ) Dialing back the estimate: 2006-2009 (the intelligence community did not buy into the Israeli narrative that Iran was building nuclear weapons); 7) Israel’s one-year timeframe disproved: 2010-2011.
As it turns out, virtually everyone is getting tired of Netanyahu’s perpetual lies. Shaul Mofaz, an Israeli opposition leader, unequivocally declares that “the world is not sick of Israel, the world is sick of Netanyahu.”
And it seems that even Obama, though a Zionist puppet, has been exhausted as well. When Netanyahu was acting like a fire-breathing dragon that takes no prisoners, Obama told the Netanyahu, “take a breather.” In the same vein, Israeli Finance Minister Air Lapid declared, “I think we have to lower the flames with the Americans.”
But because Obama still has the Zionist shackle on his mind, he “phoned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday, promising to consult with him on ongoing efforts to curb Iran’s nuclear program.”
A few days later, John Kerry declared that there is a “scourge of global anti-Semitism” in the air, but Kerry doesn’t know how that happened.
Recently, Netanyahu has been doing his best to remind Pope Francis that the Catholic Church is perhaps the wickedest institution on the face of the earth. He gave Pope Francis a book about “Spanish Catholics questioning, torturing, and punishing Jewish converts to Catholicism…”
Questioning, torturing and punishing Jewish converts to Catholicism? That’s worse than stupid. It is again interesting to see that in the Jewish Century, history itself has to be falsified in order to fit the patterns of Jewish ideology. No doubt that the book was written by Netanyahu’s father, Benzion Netanyahu.
For those who want to know the other side of the story, I would highly recommend Henry Kamen’s The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision (New Haven: Yale University, 1998).
Even before Netanyahu met the Pope, he told the entire world,
“I tell you and promise in the spirit of the Maccabees, we will not allow Iran to receive a military nuclear capability.”
If Netanyahu is that bombastic, it is because weak and coward men like Pope Francis do not want to embrace what the Church actually believes about the Jews. If the Church returns to its traditional teachings, vast changes will take place in the political realm.
Instead of dealing with serious issues, Pope Francis “attacked unfettered capitalism as ‘a new tyranny” without even mentioning the forces behind “unfettered capitalism.” It is like talking about King Kong without the monkey.
Perhaps Pope Francis needs to start reading Werner Sombart’s book The Jews and Modern Capitalism to start thinking straight.
If Zionist war is to be fought and won, we all need to stop living in fear and deal with reality. We must stop, as Malcolm Muggeridge once put it, educate ourselves into imbecility and drug ourselves into stupefaction.
Perhaps it is time for Pope Francis to tell Netanyahu the truth—in love. Perhaps it is time for him to give Netanyahu a copy of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together, or a copy of Erich Haberer’s Jews and Revolution in Nineteenth Century Russia.