“For more than twenty-five years, starting in 1980, neoconservatives stood at the intellectual forefront of a conservative coalition that reigned over the national government.
“Neocons earned this prominent position by leading an assault on the hegemonic pluralist democratic regime that had taken hold of the nation in the 1930s.” Stephen M. Feldman, Jewish scholar
…by Jonas E. Alexis
Since the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions, the neoconservatives have talked and bragged about their so-called victory and how America did the right thing in those countries.
Jewish neocons like Bernard Lewis of Princeton even bragged that people like him were instrumental in bringing Saddam down.
For neoconservative noisemaker Ann Coulter, the war in Iraq was “magnificently successful,” and Coulter’s recent book—Never Trust a Liberal—seeks to “set the record straight.” Coulter writes unapologetically,
“Contrary to liberals’ bizarro-world alternative history, Americans didn’t turn against Bush over the Iraq War. We had won, executed a dictator, presided over democratic elections, and killed loads of al Qaeda fighters.”
To the typical neocon, America has basically liberated people in the Middle East and we will continue to do so.
It has also been repeated ad absurdum in neoconservative circles that if there are disasters and chaos in Iraq and Afghanistan, they have nothing to do with the U.S. sabotaging those places; they have a lot to do with global terrorism which ought to be eradicated.
Back in 2009, neoconservative shill Thomas Sowell of the Hoover Institution wrote in Intellectuals and Society,
“Despite the swift military defeat of the Iraqi armed forces, peace was not restored because of a reign of terror directed in part against American troops, but primarily against Iraq civilians, by both domestic and foreign terrorists, determined to prevent a very different kind of government from being established in the Middle East under American auspices.”
Neoconservatives have been invoking terrorism as one of the sources of the conflict in the Middle East from time immemorial, but they can never get the moral and intellectual courage to tell us that the war on terror is a smokescreen.
This “war on terror” has been spearheaded by the neoconservatives themselves to marshal their own ideological agenda.
If we were truly fighting terrorism, America would go to war against Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other Zionist and quasi-Zionist states. Israel in particular has been involved in terrorism from its inception.
The same country has massive nuclear bombs in their basements—and those bombs have the potential to wipe out an entire country. Let us not forget what Israeli military historian Martin Van Cleveld of the Hebrew University said back in 2003:
“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.
“Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: ‘Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.’
“I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third.
“We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.”
When U.S. officials finally learned about Israel’s nuclear weapons—more than one hundred of them—they were completely shocked because they had underestimated Israel. The officials admitted when they first saw some of those warheads,
“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,
“It was kept away from the people at Z Division [a special group that provides the United States Intelligence Community with information about foreign nuclear programs].”
So which country should America really fears the most? Is it really Iran or Syria or Russia or China or even North Korea?
As Gareth Porter has recently argued in his book Manufactured Crisis, the one country that America ought to fear is Israel—a country that has deliberately manufactured hoaxes and frauds in order to attack Iran.
It wasn’t Syria or Iran that spied on former President Bill Clinton. It wasn’t Assad who plotted and killed Iranian scientists back in 2010. It was Israel. As Grant F. Smith has continued to point out, Israel has been involved in espionage operation against the United States from time immemorial.
Nearly all the Zionist media knew about the plot and assassination of Iranian scientists. What was the typical response?
Well, last March—after four years!—Obama asked Israel to just stop assassinating Iranian scientists! Does that make any sense?
If Ted Kaczynski kills people by placing bombs in their mail boxes, cars and academic institutions, we hunt him down and arrest him.
But if our “allies” does the same thing, we simply say, “Don’t do it again.” No sanction, no serious reprimand and repercussion, and no responsibility.
(It is almost the same thing with former Egyptian president Osni Mubarak. The man was found guilty of stealing millions upon millions of dollars, but his only punishment was that he gets to be behind bars for just three years!)
Jewish philosopher and political scientist Avner Cohen, who worked in Gaze for more than twenty years, makes the point that “Hamas, to my regret, is Israel’s creation.”
In other words, had Israel not been involved in covert operation and deceptive activity, Hamas would have been a relic of the past. Israel is not involved in fighting terrorism—Israel is involved in creating it and allying with other terrorist regimes.
As we have seen in the past, Saudi Arabia has been implicated in the 9/11 attack, but not a single neoconservative has said that we need to bomb them.
The New York Times for example keeps positing that Jihadis in Syria pose a threat to the West, but which country has supported those terrorists? Iran? China? North Korea?
If we were seriously fighting against terrorism, nearly all the Jewish neoconservatives would be placed behind bars. Once again, it is pertinent to cite Daniel Pipes here, the Jewish neoconservative who can never get enough blood from the Middle East:
“Western governments should respond by helping the rebels to prevent Assad from crushing them. The West should prevent either side in the civil war from emerging victorious by helping whichever side is losing, so as to prolong their conflict.’
“This policy recommendation of ‘helping whichever side is losing’ sounds odd, I admit, but it is strategic.”
Pipes’ tragic and Talmudic ideology has yet to shock Western politicians, and perceptive observers have yet to realize that Pipes here is indirectly following his revolutionary antecedents: Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky.
The sad part is that when Putin tries to get involved in the political situation in Ukraine, all of a sudden he has become the new Hitler.
Pay close attention to neo-conservative blogger and mush-head Bill Whittle. Listen to the intellectual caliber of this man very carefully:
Didn’t Whittle know that the “Holocaust” is unique? Why is he comparing Putin to Hitler? Is he a Holocaust denier or anti-Semite?
Whether Whittle is ignorant or deliberately lying is hard to say. One thing is for certain: some of those people simply have no clue of what they are saying. They have been duped by the neoconservative agenda and their moral reasoning has been infected by the Zionist virus.
About two months ago, Jay Haug of the American Thinker wrote an article entitled “The American Left is Positively Putinesque,” in which he argued that Putin and Hitler are almost two sides of the same coins.
Haug’s article had neither moral nor intellectual depth whatever. So I immediately contacted him and asked him to explain the fact that Victoria Nuland is supporting neo-Nazis in Ukraine. His response?
“Who is she? No idea what you are talking about,” he wrote.
Here was a man who was postulating ad nauseam that Putin is the new Hitler, but he did not even know that U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland wants to “fu$k the E.U” by supporting neo-Nazis and creating chaos in the region.
I responded to Haug by saying, “I wonder why you didn’t know she even exists. Would you be interested in writing an article denouncing her as well?” His answer again was quite interesting: “I’ll leave it up to you.”
To support his claim that casualties were small, Sowell cited data from the Brookings Institution, another neoconservative think tank.
Brookings was so adamant about overthrowing the Iranian government that they literally forged a document in 2009, in which the institution argued that Iran should be the next country that ought to be invaded—first by covert means, and then by deliberate provocation.
In the dossier entitled “Which Path to Persia?,” Brookings ideologues proposed (please listen very carefully):
“A policy determined to overthrow the government of Iran might very well include plans for a full-scale invasion as a contingency for extreme circumstances.
“Certainly, if various forms of covert and overt support simply failed to produce the desired effect, a president determined to produce regime change in Iran might consider an invasion as the only other way to achieve that end.
“Moreover, the United States would have to expect Iran to fight back against American regime change operations, as it has in the past.
“ Although the Iranians typically have been careful to avoid crossing American red lines, they certainly could miscalculate, and it is entirely possible that their retaliation for U.S. regime change activities would appear to Americans as having crossed just such a threshold.
“For example, if Iran retaliated with a major terrorist attack that killed large numbers of people or a terrorist attack involving WMDs—especially on U.S. soil—Washington might decide that an invasion was the only way to deal with such a dangerous Iranian regime.
“Indeed, for this same reason, efforts to promote regime change in Iran might be intended by the U.S. government as deliberate provocations to try to goad the Iranians into an excessive response that might then justify an American invasion.”
If that is not evil in all of its manifestations, then nothing is. But things like that do not bother people like Sowell because to them Iran is the cradle of terrorism. Without even thinking straight, Sowell declared that Iran
“has for years ignored repeated U.N. resolutions and warnings against building nuclear facilities that can produce bombs. There is not the slightest reason to believe that they will stop unless they get stopped.
“With Iran moving toward the development of nuclear weapons, we are getting dangerously close to that fatal point of no return on the world stage….
“The Iranian government itself is giving us the clearest evidence of what a nuclear Iran would mean, with its fanatical hate-filled declarations about wanting to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.
“We know that Iran is moving swiftly toward nuclear weapons while the United States is moving slowly—or not at all—toward doing anything to stop them…
“Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran and its international terrorist allies will be a worse threat than Hitler ever was.”
I simply don’t know where Sowell got those ideas. It sounds like he was listening to John Hagee, Jerry Falwell, Benjamin Netanyahu and the rest of the Zionist and neoconservative crowd. Jewish professor Jonathan Adelman of the University of Denver has recently declared that
“Israel faces an array of threats unknown since 1973. The Iranian nuclear program existentially threatens Israel because of its small size (8,000 square miles), concentration in three cities, nearness to Iran (700 miles from its missile bases) and limitations to anti-missile defense.”
Iran does not even have nuclear weapons, and Adelman does not seem to get enough sleep at night. Fear has already got the best of him—a grown man who ought to know better.
Iran has always been in line with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and Israel does not even sign the Treaty!
Even the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) made it very clear in 2007 that Iran “had shut down its nuclear weapons program four years earlier. The new NIE also judged with ‘moderate confidence’ that the program remained frozen…”
From 1955 until 2013, the U.N. passed at least 77 resolutions against Israel and only one resolution against the Palestinians. If Sowell is going to use U.N. resolutions to prove his neoconservative case, then he is in a sorry state of affair.
Sowell’s Dismantling America is littered with assertions upon assertions with little evidence, and it is quite sad and disheartening to see that a man of his statue will abide by this principle. It is even more disheartening to learn that it was Sowell who wrote decades ago that assumptions
“are so much taken for granted by so many people, including so-called ‘thinking people,’ that neither those assumptions nor their corollaries are generally confronted with demands for empirical evidence.
“Indeed, empirical evidence itself may be viewed as suspect, insofar as it is inconsistent with [a particular] vision.
“What a vision may offer, and what the prevailing vision of our time, emphatically does offer, is a special state of grace for those who believe in it.
“Those who accept this vision are deemed to be not merely factually correct but morally on a higher plane. Put differently, those who disagree with the prevailing vision are seen as being not only in error, but in sin.”
So far, so good. But Sowell never subjects his own weltanschauung about Iran to the same examination. It is even more disturbing that Sowell seems to deliberately ignore the scholarly literature on this issue.
Scholars like Trita Parsi have written extensively on this. Other scholars like former CIA official Paul R. Pillar, John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt of the University of Chicago and Harvard, respectively, have all written about the nuances and where the conflict really lies.
I have been unable to find where Sowell deals with those presentations. Instead of engaging with the scholarly literature, Sowell continues to insult people’s intelligence by asserting that that the Iraq war was a success and that Iran is not abiding by international law.
Perhaps he should at least examine what military historian and former Colonel Andrew Bacevich has actually said about Iraq:
“Apart from a handful of deluded neoconservatives, no one believes that the United States accomplished its objectives in Iraq, unless the main objective was to commit mayhem, apply a tourniquet to staunch the bleeding, and then declare the patient stable while hastily leaving the scene of the crime.”
“The fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq has exacted a huge price from the U.S. military—especially the army and the Marines.
“More than 6,700 soldiers have been killed so far in those two conflicts, and over fifty thousand have been wounded in action, about 22 percent with traumatic brain injuries.
“Furthermore, as always happens in war, many of the combatants are psychological casualties, as they return home with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or depression.
“The Department of Veterans Affairs reported in the fall of 2012 that more than 247,000 veterans of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars have been diagnosed with PTSD. Many of those soldiers have served multiple combat tours.
“It is hardly surprising that the suicide rate in the U.S. military increased by 80 percent from 2002 to 2009, while the civilian rate increased only 15 percent. And in 2009, veterans of Iraq were twice as likely to be unemployed as the typical American.
“On top of all that, returning war veterans are roughly four times more likely to face family-related problems like divorce, domestic violence and child abuse than those who stayed out of harm’s way.
“In 2011, the year the Iraq War ended, one out of every five active duty soldiers was on antidepressants, sedatives, or other prescription drugs.
“The incidence of spousal abuse spiked, as did the divorce rate among military couples. Debilitating combat stress reached epidemic proportions. So did brain injuries. Soldier suicides skyrocketed.”
Last April, Sowell did not seem to get much sleep because Iran, to him, may become nuclear “in the very near future.”
Just recently, the Associated Press itself reported, “U.N. report to show Iran complying with nuclear deal—diplomats.” Paul R. Pillar has recently argued that there is a concerted effort in Congress to “kill the [recent] Iran deal.”
The only way people like Sowell have been propounded some of their risible theories about Iran and terrorism is because they have been juiced in the neoconservative factory, which doesn’t allow independent thought but group-think.
For example, suppose you lost millions upon millions of dollars on a business deal. You would certainly think twice when you are planning to make the next deal, wouldn’t you?
Yet after years of convincing the American people that terrorism is the actual problem in the Middle East, after wasting millions upon millions of dollars for the same project, we are being told over and over that terrorism is rising! Moreover, we are told that the United States “faces diffuse terrorism threats”!
Does that make any sense at all? Why can’t so-called “thinking people” start thinking outside the neoconservative box?
Suppose your house in on fire and in order to put out the fire, you put some liquid on it. If things get worse, the most reasonable and common sense interpretation you ought to come up with is this: probably the liquid was not water—it was gasoline.
Yet somehow so-called brilliant people cannot apply this common sense interpretation to politics.
If you have been fighting terrorism for more than ten years and it continues to rise, you ought to have a small dose of common sense to realize that you are applying the wrong medicine. This should not require serious mental exercise at all.
But get this. Obama is planning to loot the taxpayers once again: “Obama wants Congress to approve a new ‘Counter-Terrorism Partnerships Fund’ of up to $5 billion…”
There is another issue that should confuse people even more. We have been told ad infinitum by neocon intellectuals like Charles Murray of the “the Jewish genius,” but finding Al-Qaeda cells is too hard for those geniuses?
I simply had to laugh a bit when Max Boot declares in his book Invisible Armies that “Al Qaeda had shown an impressive capacity to regenerate itself.” And here we are being told that Al-Qaeda is beating them to the punch?
I guess Murray should turn the table around and say that Al-Qaeda is actually the genius among us all.
Be that as it may, we continue to have evidence showing that both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were a complete disaster.
Retired Army lieutenant general Daniel Bolger, “who played a key roles in Afghanistan and Iraq in his 35-year career,” now comes out saying that the wars cost more than the American taxpayers wanted to pay.
Bolger’s book, which is to be published in November, “calls into question the wars’ costs — 6,800 U.S. troops, untold enemy and civilian dead, and a $2 trillion, and rising, bill for U.S. taxpayers.”
“By next Memorial Day, who’s going to say that we won these two wars? “We committed ourselves to counterinsurgency without having a real discussion between the military and civilian leadership, and the American population —’Hey, are you good with this?
“Do you want to stay here for 30 or 40 years like the Korean peninsula, or are you going to run out of energy?’ It’s obvious: we ran out of energy.
“Once you get past that initial knockout shot, and decide you’re going to stay awhile, you’d better define ‘a while,’ because in counter-insurgency you’re talking decades.
“Neither [the Bush nor the Obama] Administration was going to do that, yet I was in a military that was planning for deployments forever, basically. An all-volunteer force made it easy to commit the military to a long-term operation because they were volunteers.”
“I’d tell the families we need to unscrew ourselves and make sure we don’t do this again.”
What Bolger probably will not mention in the book is that the people who actually screwed families both in Iraq and Afghanistan are the neoconservatives. Lest we be accused of anti-Semitism or something equally weird, let us hear from Thomas Friedman himself.
Friedman, a Jewish writer for the New York Times who supported the Iraq war even after he learned the fact that people were dying by the hundreds, declared that the Iraq war
“was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals, people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another and are convinced that political ideas are a major driving force of history.”
Jewish historian Murray Friedman said almost the same thing, adding that it was people like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol, among others, who “helped to persuade President Bush to pursue the war on terrorism by invading Iraq in March of 2003.”
In the process, the neoconservatives, as Jewish writers Craig R. Eisendrath and Melvin A. Goodman argued, ended up putting the entire world at risk.
As we have demonstrated in the past, the Iraq war alone will cost the American people six trillion dollars, and thanks to Tony Blair and his Jewish neocons, this will cost Britain quite as well.
People in the Middle East, including innocent civilians, continue to get screwed by the neoconservative ideology, while the goyim who supported and promoted the wars continue to amass thousands upon thousands of dollars.
Recently, Condoleezza Rice “got $150,000 for giving a speech at the University of Minnesota’s Hubert Humphrey School of Public Affairs.”
Similarly, across the British channel, war mongers like Tony Blair never stopped collecting millions upon millions of dollars every year.
If Alexander Solzhenitsyn is right, that “one word of truth outweighs the world,” then one word of truth is more powerful than the all the Zionist world put together.
Those who love the truth and endeavor to follow it wherever it may lead must keep in mind that truth will prevail in the end.
The truth may take longer to be discovered, since much of the West has been trapped in the Zionist matrix, but truth will show itself eventually.
Jewish revolutionaries sought to destroy Russia during the Bolshevik Revolution, but the truth actually showed up. Now Russia is somewhat a pain in the neck of the Zionist world.
Jewish revolutionaries sought to do the same thing in Poland, but with the help of the Catholic Church, Poland drove Communism out. Even Anne Applebaum of the Washington Post acknowledged back in 2005 that
“the pope [John Paul II] made two contributions to the defeat of totalitarian communism, a system in which the state claimed ownership of all or most physical property—factories, farms, houses—and also held a monopoly on intellectual life.
“No one was allowed to own a private business, in other words, and no one was allowed to express belief in any philosophy besides Marxism.
“The church, first in Poland and then elsewhere, broke these two monopolies, offering people a safe place to meet and intellectually offering them an alternative way of thinking about the world.”
Applebaum declared that it was priests who helped “to create what we now call ‘civil society…’”
Granted, priests and others have also been trapped in sexual scandals, ideology and corruption. People of various stripes have used that vehicle to denounce the essential teachings of the Church, while at the same time they seem to give people like Woody Allen a free pass.
I simply have to say this: let us bring all sexual perverts to judgment. But if Mr. X goes to court for sexual perversion but Mr. Y gets a free pass, are we being serious?
Moreover, shouldn’t we go after the sexual culture as well? Doesn’t Hollywood, in the name of freedom and democracy, teach people how to be perverts and sluts and whores in movies such as Basic Instinct, The Reader, A Dangerous Method, Cosmopolis, Black Swan, etc.?
Isn’t it still “democracy” if viewers act on those impulses? Didn’t people like Ted Bundy say that pornographic movies had a huge influence on them? Isn’t there a swamp of scholarly literature on this very topic?
If writers are going to understand the serious issue here, they need to get serious and start examining the problem from its roots, not from the branches.
 Stephen M. Feldman, Neoconservative Politics and the Supreme Court: Law, Power, and Democracy (New York: New York University Press, 2012), 1.
 See for example Elliott Abrams, Tested by Zion: The Bush Administration and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013).
 Bernard Lewis, Notes on a Century: Reflections of a Middle East Historian (New York: Viking, 2012), see chapter 13.
 Ann Coulter, Never Trust a Liberal Over 3—Especially a Republican (WA: Regnery Publishing, 2013), 3.
 Ibid., 17.
 Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society (New York: Basic Books, 2009), 267.
 Ami Pedahzur and Arie Perliger, Jewish Terrorism in Israel (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011).
 See for example Avner Cohen, Israel and the Bomb (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998); The Worst-Kept Secret: Israel’s Bargain with the Bomb (New York: Columbia University Press, 2010); Michael Karpin, The Bomb in the Basement: How Israel Went Nuclear and What That Means for the World (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006); Seymour M. Hersh, The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy (New York: Random House, 1991).
 Quoted in “The War Game,” Guardian, September 21, 2003.
 Seymour M. Hersh, The Samson Option: israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy (New York: Random, 1991), 291.
 Gareth Porter, Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare (Charlottsville, VA: Just World Books, 2014).
 Jeff Stein, “Israel Eavesdropped on President Clinton’s Diplomatic Phone Calls,” Newsweek, May 30, 2014.
 “Israel Aiding Terror Group to Kill Iran Scientists,” Jerusalem Post, September 2, 2012; Artin Afkhami, “Tehran Abuzz as Book Says Israel Killed 5 Scientists,” NY Times, July 11, 2012; Dan Raviv and Yossi Melman, Spies Against Armageddon: Inside Israel’s Secret Wars (New York: Levant Books, 2012).
 “Obama pushes Israel to stop assassinations of Iran nuclear scientists – report,” Russia Today, March 2, 2014.
 Bill Gertz, “Inside the Ring: Memo Outlines Obama’s Plan to Use the Military Against Citizens,” Washington Times, May 28, 2014.
 Quoted in Andrew Higgins, “How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas,” Wall Street Journal, January 24, 2009.
 See for example Eric Lichtblau, “Saudi Arabia May Be Tied to 9/11, 2 Ex-Senators Say,” NY Times, February 29, 2012; Paul Sperry, “Inside the Saudi 9/11 Cover Up,” New York Post, December 15, 2013.
 Kimiko de Freytas-Tamura, “Foreign Jihadis Fighting in Syria Pose Risk in West,” NY Times, May 29, 2014.
 Daniel Pipes, “Support the Syrian Rebels?,” National Review, May 12, 2013.
 Jay Haug, “The American Left is Positively Putinesque,” American Thinker, April 14, 2014.
 Thomas Sowell, Dismantling America and Other Controversial Essays (New York: Basic Books, 2010), 31, 41, 61.
 Jonathan Adelman, “For Israel: The Worst of Times…and the Best of Times,” National Interest, May 29, 2014.
 For a recent development and analysis on this issue, see Gareth Porter, Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare (Charlottsville, VA: Just World Books, 2014).
 Stephen Spector, Evangelicals and Israel: The Story of American Christian Zionism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 69.
 For similar reports, see for example Alison Weir, Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was to Create Israel (Create Space, 2014).
 Thomas Sowell, The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy (New York: Basic Books, 1995), 2-3.
 Trita Parsi, Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007); A Single Roll of Dice: Obama’s Diplomacy with Iran (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011).
 For a recent analysis, see for example John J. Mearsheimer, “America Unhinged,” National Interest, January/February 2014.
 Andrew Bacevich, Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed their Soldiers and Their Country (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2013), 94.
 Andrew Bacevich, Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2013), 105.
 Thomas Sowell, “How Foreign is Our Policy?,” Jewish World Review, April 1, 2014.
 Paul R. Pillar, “Congress and Attempt to Kill the Iran Deal,” National Interest, May 29, 2014.
 Mark Landler, “Obama Warns U.S. Faces Diffuse Terrorism Threats,” NY Times, May 28, 2014.
 Charles Murray, “Jewish Genius,” Commentary, April 1, 2007.
 Max Boot, Invisible Armies: An Epic History of Guerrilla Warfare from Ancient Times to the Present (New York: W. W. Norton, 2013),547.
 Mark Thomson, “A General Writes the First After-Action Report on the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq: Why We Lost,” Time, May 22, 2014.
 Ari Shavit, “White Man’s Burden,” Haaretz, April 4, 2003.
 Murray Friedman, The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 121.
 Craig R. Eisendrath and Melvin A. Goodman, Bush League Diplomacy: How the Neoconservatives Are Putting the World at Risk (New York: Prometheus Books, 2004).
 Oliver Wright, “Iraq and Afghanistan Wars Cost UK Taxpayers 30bn pounds,” Belfast Telegraph, May 27, 2014.
 See for example Jan Kubik, The Power of Symbols Against the Symbols of Power: The Rise of Solidarity and the Fall of State Socialism in Poland (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1994); Timothy Garton Ash, The Polish Revolution: Solidarity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002); Andrzej Paczkowski and Malcolm Byrne, ed., From Solidarity to Martial Law: The Polish Crisis of 1980-1981—A Documented History (Budapest and New York: Central European University Press, 2007).
 Anne Applebaum, “How the Pope ‘Defeated Communism,’” Washington Post, April 6, 2005.
 See for example Dorothy G. Singer and Jerome L. Singer, Imagination and Play in the Electronic Age (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005); Joy D. Osofsky, ed., Children in a Violent Society (New York: Guilford Press, 1997); Wilson Brian Key, Media Sexploitation (New York: Signet, 1977); Elizabeth Landau, “Study Links Sexual Content on TV to Teen Pregnancy,” CNN, November 3, 2008; Frances S. Connelly, The Sleep of Reason: Primitivism in Modern European Art and Aesthetics, 1725-1907 (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995); Charles Kipps, Out of Focus: Power, Pride, and Prejudice—David Puttnam in Hollywood (New York: William Morrow, 1989); Bram Dijkstra, Idols of Perversity: Fantasies of Feminine Evil in Fin-de-Sicle Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986); Bradley M. Waite, Marc Hillbrand, and Hilliard G. Foster, “Reduction of Aggressive Behavior After Removal of Music Television,” Hospital and Community Psychiatry, Vol. 43, February 1992, 173-175; Sissela Bok, Mayhem: Violence as Public Entertainment (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1998); Eric Csapo and Margaret C. Miller, eds., The Origins of Theater in Ancient Greece and Beyond (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007); Iris Murdoch, The Fire and the Sun: Why Plato Banished the Artists (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978).