“The intellectual levels of politicians are just one of the many things that intellectuals have grossly misjudged for years on end…
“…the ignorance of Ph.D.s is still ignorance and high-IQ groupthink is still groupthink, which is the antithesis of real thinking.” Thomas Sowell
…by Jonas E. Alexis
What makes it so disappointing and sometimes frustrating is that some of those neoconservative shills do not lack the intellectual sophistication and academic background to follow a logical deduction all the way through.
First, let us look at Thomas Sowell. Last July, he began one of his articles by saying,
“Many years ago, on my first trip around the world, I was struck by how the children in the Middle East — Arab and Israeli alike — were among the nicest looking little children I had seen anywhere. It was painful to think that they were going to grow up killing each other. But that is exactly what happened.”
Sowell could never explain how or why those children were going to grow up slaughtering each other. Leaving that aside, he then proceeded to say,
“At one time, launching a military attack on another nation risked not only retaliation but annihilation. When Carthage attacked Rome, that was the end of Carthage.
“But when Hamas or some other terrorist group launches an attack on Israel, they know in advance that whatever Israel does in response will be limited by calls for a cease-fire, backed by political and economic pressures from the United States.
“It is not at all clear what Israel’s critics can rationally expect the Israelis to do when they are attacked. Suffer in silence? Surrender? Flee the Middle East?”
Can this man be really serious? Does he actually have a phone at the Hoover Institution, where he has been the Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow in Public Policy for more than three decades? If so, why can’t Sowell call Israeli and Zionist historian Benny Morris before he made a fool of himself?
If Sowell wants to bring the issue of Carthage and Rome to the debate and justifies Israel’s perpetual carnage in the Middle East, let us grant him that silly argument and follow it to its own logical trail.
Let us go back to 1948. Who launched a military attack on the Palestinians? Sowell’s ancestors? Perhaps his grandpa? His mother-in-law? Let us quote Morris again:
“A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population.
“It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on.”
In the same vein, the eminent Israeli historian Shlomo Sand declares that Israel’s occupation “is leading us on the road to hell.” Previously, Sand writes,
“Racism is most certainly present to some degree everywhere, but in Israel it exists deep within the spirit of the laws. It is taught in schools and colleges, spread in the media, and above all and most dreadful, in Israel the racists do not know what they are doing and, because of this, feel in no way obliged to apologize.”
To be quite blunt, Sowell would almost certainly not make it as a serious academic at a major institution in Israel precisely because Sowell has a “bad” skin color or that he was born in the “wrong” family.
Furthermore, Sowell could have been a Palestinian. He could have been one of those Ethiopians who have been treated like animals in Israel. The Ku Klux Klan has evolved over the years and has recently extended its hands to Jews, blacks, gays, and Hispanics. Members or leaders of the NAACP have already expressed interest in joining the Klan.
The point here is that Israel is worse than the Ku Klux Klan in that it continues to display blatant racism everywhere. Sand again writes,
“I am often even ashamed of Israel, particularly when I witness evidence of its cruel military colonization, with its weak and defenseless victims who are not part of the ‘chosen people.’
“Earlier in my life I had a fleeting utopian dream that a Palestinian Israel should feel as much at home in Tel Aviv as a Jewish American does in New York. I struggled and I sought for the civil life of a Muslim Israeli in Jerusalem to be similar to that of the Jewish French person whose home is in Paris.
“I wanted Israeli children of Christian African immigrants to be treated as the British children of immigrants from the Indian subcontinent are in London. I hope with all my heart that all Israeli children would be educated together in the same schools.
“Today I know that my dream is outrageously demanding, that my demands are exaggerated and impertinent, that the very fact of formulating them is viewed by Zionists and their supporters as an attack on the Jewish character of the State of Israel, and thus as anti-Semitism.”
It certainly would be interesting to see how Sowell would debate Morris and Sand on this very issue. Wouldn’t it be laughable to watch Goyim like Sowell arguing with Israeli historians and saying that the Jewish state did not indeed uproot the Palestinians?
It would be so funny to see Morris pulling documents from the archives and indicating that the Jewish state indeed committed genocide and then to see Sowell taking the opposite position with no historical backup.
It would also be hilarious if Sowell summons Israeli Zionist professors like Steven Plaut as his authority. (Plaut even believes that Rachael Corrie was aiding terrorists!) And wouldn’t it show the moral perversity and the intellectually promiscuous cleverness of neocon shills such as Sowell?
More importantly, if we follow Sowell’s political architecture here, the world should be bombing Israel for literally massacring at least 700,000 Palestinians from their homes! Is that the road that Sowell wants to take?
Sowell, as usual, continues his litany against Iran and then says,
“Even if the Israelis were all saints—and sainthood is not common in any branch of the human race—the cold fact is that they are far more advanced than their neighbors, and groups that cannot tolerate even subordinate Christian minorities can hardly be expected to tolerate an independent, and more advanced, Jewish state that is a daily rebuke to their egos.”
Sowell has written some decent books in the past. His books, Education: Assumption vs. History and Inside American Education are very informative. His views on affirmative action are quite correct.
But the neoconservative/neo-Bolshevik ideology has morally and intellectually crippled him. A serious metaphysician, eager to discover moral insight and intellectual rigor with respect to the Middle East, will never take Sowell seriously because his positions are inadequate and out of touch with the historical accounts. Sowell cannot reach his full potential as a serious scholar and thinker because he seems to be (intentionally) blind.
Like other neoconservative noisemakers such as Ann Coulter, Sowell tries desperately to remain a neoconservative shill and a rational human being at the same time, most particularly with respect to the Middle East.
This is an impossible task for Sowell precisely because neoconservatism—or shall we say Neo-Bolshevism—breaths lies and deceptions and hoaxes and reproduces them in the media.
Sowell has said some manifestly ludicrous things about Iran and the Middle. But his internal contradiction is so monumental that one needn’t be a scholar to detect them. For example, he declared 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 [the prevailing vision].”
Sowell has been piling assumptions about Iran without bothering to verify those assumptions from time immemorial, despite the fact that the evidence stacks against him. Why doesn’t he bother to verify the facts?
Simple: you cannot follow the neoconservative/Neo-Bolshevik/Zionist ideology with respect to perpetual wars in the Middle East and still live a rational life. The neoconservative architecture is neither logical nor existentially livable and always ends up getting America into trouble.
Thomas Sowell, of course, reminds us that some Goyim are willing to sell whatever rational clarity they possess for a mess of Jewish pottage.
Some of those Goyim are satisfied with the political price because their masters—the Dreadful Few—are able to put one foot in the rational world and the other foot in the irrational world. Sam Harris is a classic example.
The pervasive inconsistencies and internal contradictions that exist in the writing of this man are so monumental that one can write an entire book discussing them. I have discussed some of them in previous articles, most specifically in “God and the Intellectuals.” But let us discuss just a few here.
When he was confronted with the fact that “Israel is the only power in [the Middle East] to have nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons without being a signatory to the nonproliferation treaty,” Harris said,
“Correct. But this just speaks to the difference in intention that I consider paramount. Do you lose any sleep over the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons?”
Harris missed the point. He could not address Israel’s inconsistency with regard to the nuclear programs issue and swiftly moved to a comfortable territory: if you do not lose any sleep over Israel’s nuclear weapons, then it should be all right.
Is that a logical argument? Wasn’t Harris also trained in philosophy and therefore sound logic? Is it possible that this man superficially appeals to logic when it suits him (The End of Faith) and disregards it when it does not line up with his Zionist agenda?
Perhaps it is time for Harris to pick up the phone and call Israeli military historian Martin van Cleveld and ask him what he meant when he said,
“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.”
Harris, like Jewish psychologist Steven Pinker of Harvard, declares in page after page in The End of Faith that Christianity was primarily the main cause of social and political upheavals in the world, most specifically during the Middle Ages. In Letters to a Christian Nation, he explicitly declares that
“Christians have abused, oppressed, enslaved, insulted, tormented, tortured, and killed people in the name of God for centuries…”
Yet when it comes to Gaza, Harris again has to play the Jewish card. He admitted that Gaza “is a prison camp,” but he prefaced this remark by saying that
“The only reason that suicide bombing is no longer a weekly occurrence on the streets of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv is that there is now a concrete wall separating Israel from the people who want to carry out such bombings.”
When Harris again was confronted with the fact that Israel literally controlls virtually everything that comes in and out of Gaza and that “they occupy and control that entire region, and maintain checkpoints that burden and enrage many of the inhabitants,” he responded,
“The problem with invoking history in this discussion is that you have to decide when to start the clock. You could go back further than 1948—and many Jews would have you go back 2,000 years, pointing to the fact that this is their ancestral homeland, as evidenced by the history of the diaspora.
“The Jews were kicked out of Palestine and hunted and hounded and ghettoized and murdered for millennia—which would seem to justify the decision to return them to their homeland, provided it could be done in a way that wouldn’t ruin the lives of other people.”
I thought Harris was an atheist! I thought he said Judaism “was total bullshit”! Why is he subtly and politically defending the Judaic/Talmudic narrative? This is a central contradiction which Harris himself could not avoid.
It must be noted in passing that this central contradiction can also be found among anti-Zionists who irrationally and irresponsibly declare that Jewish behavior is genetic.
I simply have been amazed to see how people simply cannot see the internal contradiction that exists in their own worldviews. I have spent hours reading what some of those people are saying, trying to follow what they are trying to say, but inconsistency and illogical leap on serious matters simply drive me crazy.
For example, many anti-Zionists who oppose the Khazarian theory relentlessly quote Jewish writers, rabbis, ideologues, newspapers, and even some Jewish scientists in order to perpetuate the risible idea that Jewish behavior is genetic.
What about other scientists who say that the theory is just plain nonsense and is not on really based on science but ideology? No matter: for those people, intent is prior to content. Examining competing theories rationally is simply not an option for them because they are not really interested in the truth.
Without serious thought, those anti-Zionist writers indirectly argue that since rabbis and Jewish writers believe that the genetic theory is true, therefore it must be true.
Yet the simple fact is that the same Jewish writers and rabbis claim that they got the idea from the Old Testament, which those anti-Zionists say is a myth and a collection of fabrication! So which one is it? Those anti-Zionists do not believe the stories in the Old Testament, but what rabbis perversely say about the Old Testament is actually true. Nonsense!
I simply do not know how those people can maintain both positions simultaneously while their heads do not split into different particles. Those people certainly need to get real. They are like those Jewish intellectuals who proclaim that they do not believe in God but they do believe that God gave them Palestine.
Those anti-Zionists are free to live in contradiction and in an irrational and imaginary world, but they are not free to impose their perverse logic upon us.
Until they can rationally explain to us how their ideas work in a cogent fashion, we should not pay attention to them. Nor should we take them seriously in the fight against Zionism.
I particularly have been waiting for a serious writer who can rigorously and rationally explain the contradictions that are inherent in the idea that Jewish behavior is genetic. I’m only thirty-five years old, and hopefully I’ll find one in my lifetime.
After Harris declared that the history of the Jews goes back to 2,000 years, which is an implicit appeal to the Old Testament, Andrew Sullivan, the interviewer, was stunned. He immediately realized that Harris was ideally shooting himself in the toes:
“But you are supporting Israel based on just such a religious claim, which, given your other arguments, doesn’t make any sense. Because if Israel-Palestine were not an explicitly Jewish state, as you’d prefer, there would be a majority Arab population—that would presumably, in your view, result in the immediate extermination of every Jew in the country.”
Harris proved that Illan Pappe was right when he said that “Most Zionists don’t believe that God exists but they do believe that he promised them Palestine.”
Harris, as a Jewish intellectual ideologue, appealed to David Wyman’s book The Abandonment of the Jews to support the untenable and historically risible thesis that
“During World War II, with full knowledge that the Jews of Europe were being exterminated, there were anti-Semitic speeches on the floor of Congress. We even turned back boats of Jews who had escaped the inferno of Europe, knowing that they were thereby doomed.”
Sullivan, who seems to have no background in what was happening in Europe during that time, nodded and said, “It’s a shameful episode in American history.”
In a similar vein, David Turner of the Jerusalem Post accuses the Roosevelt Administration of anti-Semitism because it refused to allow immigrant Jews from Europe entrance. (I have interacted with Turner in the past, and the interaction can be found here.)
Not once did Turner mention the complex social issues of the 1920s, such as the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, which was largely viewed as a Jewish revolutionary activity.
During the Bolshevik Revolution, millions upon millions of people were killed, including innocent peasants.
In addition, the Bolshevik ideology, with its Marxist leanings, began to spread like wildfire in Asian countries like China, and wherever it went countries began killing their own people by the millions (We have seen over and over that Mao alone liquidated more than 40 million people).
Not once did Turner mention that the U.S. State Department published a three-volume report in 1931 stating that Jewish-owned German banks conspired to send large sums of money to Lenin, Trotsky, and other Bolshevik luminaries to overthrow the Tsar.
Jewish financiers such as Jacob Schiff in the United States and Max and Paul Warburg in Germany poured millions of dollars into the Bolshevik movement. Schiff is said to have given $20 million dollars to the regime—a sum equivalent to billions of dollars today. Even The Jewish Encyclopedia calls communism and socialism Jewish phenomena.
Not once did Turner mention that the Jewish immigrants who came to the United States in the 1920s and 30s began to establish communist and socialist cells in major universities in the United States.
In addition, when Hollywood film industries were overtaken by Jewish revolutionaries, they began to implement communist and sexual ideologies in their films.
Also, we have seen in previous articles that between World War I and World War II, the pornography industry in America was largely controlled by Jews, as was “white slavery,” or prostitution, from 1880 until 1939. Both were used as a weapon to destroy the political and moral order, and were a huge problem in Germany before and during the rise of Adolf Hitler.
Turner agrees that Roosevelt had several Jews on his staff, including Henry Morgenthau as Treasury Secretary, and even nominated Felix Frankfurter to be justice of the Supreme Court.
Yet somehow Roosevelt, according to Turner’s reasoning, harbored anti-Semitism in private by refusing to allow Jews to come to America from Europe and the Soviet Union.
The sad part is that Turner and others would find themselves in a heated debate with two Jewish scholars and historians who have recently argued that Roosevelt was a flaming Zionist.
Jewish scholars Richard Breitman and Allan J. Lichtman abide by the Zionist narrative as perpetuated by the Holocaust establishment. Yet in their book FDR and the Jews, they produced documents saying that Roosevelt
“acted decisively to rescue Jews, often withstanding contrary pressures from the American public, Congress, and his own State Department.
“Oddly enough, he did more for the Jews than any other world figure, even if his efforts seem deficient in retrospect. He was a far better president for Jews than any of his political adversaries would have done.”
Roosevelt “used his executive powers to loosen immigration restrictions and to promote his own ambitious plans to resettle the Jews of Europe in other lands. He publicly backed a Jewish homeland in Palestine and pressured the British to keep Palestine open to Jewish immigrants.”
In 1943, Roosevelt again
“established a War Refugee Board to help rescue the surviving Jews of Europe and pursued plans for the postwar resettlement of refugees. Shortly before his death, a gravely ill president met personally with the influential king of Saudi Arabia in an effort to secure a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
“Roosevelt also denounced organized anti-Semitism as an integral part of Hitler’s brutal attempt to rule Europe and the Western world. Any American who condoned or participated in anti-Semitism was ‘playing Hitler’s game,’ he said in February in 1944. ‘There is no place in the lives or thoughts of true Americans for anti-Semitism.’”
Roosevelt’s mother ended up receiving the “Einstein Medal for lifetime humanitarian service to the Jewish people.”
Roosevelt’s family saw the Protestant elitess as “heroes of Enlightenment Europe who challenged the reactionary Catholic Church and oppressive monarchs.”
As governor of New York, Roosevelt “denounced discrimination against Jews in 1930 and backed Palestine as a Jewish homeland. In 1932, he became the first presidential candidate in history to criticize anti-Semitism.”
But the authors declare that “The Bolshevik Revolution of October 1917 in Russia and America’s Red Scare of 1919-1920 led many Americans to associate Jewish socialism with communism abroad and subversion at home.”
Now here is the point: Roosevelt was obviously a Zionist pawn and opportunist who also played by the Jewish card. As we have already demonstrated in previous articles, Roosevelt allied with blood-thirsty monsters like Joseph Stalin and war-mongering Winston Churchill in order to defeat Hitler.
Yet despite what he has done for the Dreadful Few, people like David Turner are now saying that he was an anti-Semite! That is really stupid. And this simply shows how mad some Zionists are. Brother Nathanael Kapner was right after all: the Zionists will not be satisfied until they have total control of much of the world.
If Assad abides by international law but does not support the Zionist state of Israel, Assad has to go and the rule of law has to be abandoned. In fact, Israel prefers Al-Qaeda rather than Iran or Assad:
 Thomas Sowell, “Cease the Cease-Fires,” Jewish World Review, July 29, 2014.
 Shlomo Sand, How I Stopped Being a Jew (New York: Verso, 2014), 100.
 Ibid., 98.
 For a recent story, see for example Gareth Platt, “From KKK Grand Dragon to Anti-Racism Crusader: The Remarkable Reinvention of Scott Shepherd,” International Business Times, September 24, 2014.
 Fiona Keating, “Ku Klux Klan Opens its Doors to Hispanics, Blacks, Jews and Gays,” International Business Times, November 9, 2014.
 “NAACP and Ku Klux Klan Sit Down for Unprecedented Meeting,” NY Daily News, September 4, 2013.
 Sand, How I Stopped Being a Jew, 99.
 Sand, How I Stopped Being a Jew, 98.
 Thomas Sowell, Education: Assumptions vs. History (Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 1985); Inside American Education (New York: Free Press, 1992).
 Thomas Sowell, Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004).
 I have written to him in the past asking for evidence for some of his assertions. No response was made available.
 Thomas Sowell, The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy (New York: Basic Books, 1995), 2.
 See for example Trita Parsi, Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008); A Single Roll of Dice: Obama’s Diplomacy with Iran (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011).
 Quoted in “The War Game,” Guardian, September 21, 2003.
 Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation (New York: Vintage Books, 2008), 23.
 David Turner, “The Acquiescence of the United States in the Murder of the Jews,” Jerusalem Post, April 12, 2012.
 See Slezkine, The Jewish Century; Carr Hallett Edward, The Bolshevik Revolution (New York; Macmillan, 1950); Stephen Cohen, Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980); Adam B Ulam, Bolsheviks (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980); Jerry Z. Muller, Capitalism and the Jews (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010). Many scholars do not declare that Jews were at the forefront of the revolution because this would imply that anti-Jewish reactions would have to be reassessed.
 See Robert Conquest, Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivism and the Terror-Famine (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008) and The Great Terror (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990); Miron Dolot, Execution by Hunger: The Hidden Holocaust (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987).
 See Steven Rosefielde, Red Holocaust (New York: Routledge, 2010).
 See Frank Dikotter, Mao’s Great Famine (New York: Walker, 2010).
 See Gary Allen, None Dare Call It Conspiracy (Cutchogue, NY: Buccaneer Books, 1976).
 Cyrus Adler and Isidore Singer, ed., The Jewish Encyclopedia (New York: Funk-Wagnalls, 1901-1906), 583-585.
 See Kramer, Murphy, et al, The Black Book of Communism.
 See Gabler, An Empire of their Own.
 See Gerztman, Bookleggers and Smuthounds; Bristow, Prostitution and Prejudice.
 David Turner, “FDR and the Holocaust, Part 1: The President and the Jews,” Jerusalem Post, March 29, 2012.
 Richard Breitman and Allan J. Lichtman, FDR and the Jews (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2013).
 Ibid., 2.
 Ibid., 3.
 Ibid., 4.
 Ibid., 8.
 Ibid., 9.
 Ibid., 5.
 Ibid., 21.
Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, history of 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.