“So when they continued asking him [Jesus], he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her…And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst” (John 8:7, 11)
by Jonas E. Alexis
If you were trained in logic and have little patience with contradictions, illogical leaps, false conclusions, hypocrisy, double standards, ad hominem, straw man, and just plain nonsense and crazy ideas, then soon or later you will find yourself in a cosmic conflict with the Zionist regime that controls the media and U.S. foreign policy.
Senator Robert Menendez, “ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,” has recently declared that “North Korea landed a virtual bomb on Sony’s parking lot” by allegedly hacking the company’s computers.
Let us grant the ridiculous notion that North Korea did hack Sony. Hasn’t the Zionist regime landed a virtual bomb on virtually every American’s parking lot by snooping on us all? And isn’t it true that the NSA is still doing it? Is Menendez telling us that we should protest against the Dreadful Few for violating the Constitution of the United States? As Micah Zenko himself puts it,
“North Korea is not a leading source of malicious cyber activity—the United States is consistently ranked first, and other top sources remain debated. Symantec reported that the top three country sources of malware in 2013 were the United States (17 percent), China (9 percent) and India (5 percent).”
These irreconcilable contradictions will surely make your blood boil for a while.
At any rate, if you believe that people are free to believe in crazy ideas but are not free to impose those same crazy ideas upon others, most specifically upon the entire American people, then soon or later a righteous anger will start boiling in your spirit. Soon or later, you will eventually end up saying,
“Don’t the Dreadful Few claim to have super DNA? Aren’t they the ‘Chosen Ones’? Don’t they claim to have high IQ? Isn’t that why they were hired as professors and journalists and politicians and academics? Did people like Alan Dershowitz get hired at Harvard to cite a high school syllabus as a reliable source?
“Did people like Daniel Jonah Goldhagen become a professor at Harvard because they were masters at cooking up evidence and then threatening people with law suit if those people expose them? Why can’t the Dreadful Few and their puppets stick with logic and reason?
“What logical rule that allows them to use one standard for themselves and a completely different standard for people they do not like? And how can they maintain those contradictory notions in their heads? Do they really take logic and reason seriously? Or do they apply a Talmudic standard, which essentially dictates that logic and reason are to be used if they further the cause of Jewish ideology?”
To understand this issue, let us look at how the Dreadful Few have already treated people they do not like. Just a few days ago, the New York Times began one of their articles by saying,
“David Duke seems a figure from the past, the former Klansman and white supremacist who two decades ago was almost elected Louisiana governor.”
In the same vein, the Huffington Post declared,
“Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke issued a warning to Republicans who have criticized House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) for speaking to a white nationalist group in 2002, saying they ‘better be looking over their shoulders.’”
The Washington Post declared that “former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke…” The Times of Israel: “Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke…” The Time: “Former KKK Wizard David Duke Says He Doesn’t Support Steve Scalise.” The Jerusalem Post: “white supremacist” and “former KKK member” David Duke. The Weekly Standard: “David Duke, the former Ku Klux Klansman…” Commentary: “former Ku Klux Klan leader” David Duke.
Jonah Goldberg, editor-at-large of National Review Online, “former Ku Klux Klansman David Duke…” The Washington Times, “David Duke, the former head of the Ku Klux Klan…” The Wall Street Journal, “former Louisiana Ku Klux Klan leader and politician David Duke…”
As Jim W. Dean would say, you just can’t make this stuff up. Is the regime implicitly saying that what Americans need to fear in 2015 is a former Klansman? Doesn’t the regime know that public figures such as Harris S. Truman, Robert Byrd, Edward Douglass White, Hugo Black, Theodore G. Bilbo, Bibb Graves, Edward L. Jackson, Clifford Walker, George Gordon, John Clinton Porter, Warren G. Harding, among others, flirted with the Ku Klux Klan as well? What, then, is the difference between Duke and those people? Well, simple.
When Truman for example repented from his KKK flirtation, he became a vehicle for the Dreadful Few, though he privately despised their behavior. Truman knew very well that the Zionist mafia was conjuring something dark and evil, but he went along with it any way.
“After the vote in the Ad Hoc Committee, Truman reacted in the same telltale way he had reacted after the Yom Kippur statement. He railed against pressure from the Zionists and at the same time claimed it had no effect on him whatsoever…He told the Florida senator Claude Pepper,
“‘Had it not been for the unwarranted interference of the Zionists, we would have had the matter settled a year and half ago. I received about 35,000 pieces of mail and propaganda from the Jews in this country while this matter was pending. I put it all in a pile and struck a match to it.’”
Truman, though he accepted the Zionist narrative in public, could not carry the burden that the Dreadful Few were trying to put on his shoulders:
“Henry Wallace recalled a cabinet meeting of 30 July 1946 in which various demands of Jewish lobbyists were heatedly discussed. At one point Truman flared:
“‘Jesus Christ couldn’t please them when he was here on earth, so could everyone expect that I would have my luck.’”
In September of the same year, Truman declared,
“The Jews and the crackpots seem to be ready to go for Dewey…. There’s no solution to the Jewish problem and I fear the crackpots would turn the country over the Stalin if they had half a chance.”
“While the Jews were bringing all kinds of pressure on the president to support partition,” writes Michael T. Benson, “the State Department was adamantly opposed to such a course of action. Furthermore, Truman confessed, he had two Jews on his staff (David Niles and Max Lowenthal) who ‘burst into tears because they are so emotionally involved in the subject. So far I have not known what to do.”
Citing an inside source, Benson continued to say,
“Niles and Lowenthal never attended cabinet meetings when Palestine was the topic of discussion and asserted that even though Truman thought highly of both men and had every confidence in them, Palestine ‘was an issue in which they were so emotionally involved that he felt their advice might not always be the best.”
Benson historically documents that “Zionists deluge the white house” during the Truman administration.
“From 1947 to 1948, Truman received 48,600 telegrams, 790,575 cards, and 81,200 pieces of other mail—far and away a record for unsolicited mail for any president until that time. In 1948, during one three-month period alone, Truman received 301,900 postcards. Such a steady stream clearly annoyed the president.”
The differences between Duke and Truman are simple. Truman publically praised the Dreadful Few but privately despised their behavior. Duke despises their behavior in public and expose their malicious plan. To the Dreadful Few, that is an unpardonable sin. When Truman repented, he became a public Zionist; when Duke repented from his Ku Klux Klan sin, he became a public anti-Zionist.
To the Zionist regime, Truman’s sin is forgiven because he got baptized in the Zionist community by helping the Jewish people in Israel (though he never liked it). The Zionists were more than happy to welcome him into their group.
But Duke’s sin cannot be blotted out because he is not, well, born again; he still resents how the Dreadful Few are manipulating America and much of the world:
“When the Zionist whores lecture you that the Jews of Israel have some kind of moral right to mass murder and genocide of the children of Gaza, then if you don’t feel like throwing up, something is the matter with you, brother. Something is the matter with you.”
If you think Duke is just making this up, just watch this Australian documentary film:
To the Dreadful Few, Duke’s words of course are worse than atomic bombs because they can wake people up from their “dogmatic slumber.” And Duke is still out there plotting explosives in the Zionist camp and inciting people everywhere to rise up against Zionism.
To the Zionists, Duke has basically two choices: he has to either be born again in the Zionist camp or shut his mouth. Duke chose neither. In fact, he chose a third alternative: he decided to spend much of his life exposing the Zionist regime.
Refusing to be born again is one of deadliest sins in the Zionist list. You remember Bill Kristol said that Obama is a “born-again Neocon”? Well, the Zionists were expecting that Duke would be joining the crew when he dropped the Ku Klux Klan. Duke disappointed them all: he doesn’t seem to budge.
Put simply, in the Zionist world, redemption for past sin is only possible if you join the Zionist world. Conversely, if you attack the Zionist world (though you may change your views about certain things and even ask for forgiveness), then the Zionist world will look at your past record, dig up your sins, and conclude that you can never be redeemed.
But the simple fact is that no one has a “clean record”! Everyone has committed things that are horrible in his life—be they horrible words or horrible actions. And the Zionists suffer very badly in this regard.
If you doubt this, just look at the recent debacle in Gaza. As far as I am concerned, Duke hasn’t killed anyone, and the evidence shows that he does not want to carry that heavy burden on his shoulders. In fact, he has made it clear that he does not support violence and crimes against anyone—including Jews and Palestinians and blacks and whites.
But have the Israelis committed torture and have they slaughtered innocent people? Perhaps it is pertinent to cite Israeli historian Benny Morris once again:
“The [Israeli] conquest of the village [in 1948 and beyond] was carried out with great cruelty. Whole families—women, old people, children—were killed….Some of the prisoners moved to places of detention, including women and children, were murdered viciously by their captors….
“IZL troops had ‘raped a number of girls and murdered them afterwards…’ The IZL and LHI troopers systematically pillaged the village and stripped the inhabitants of jewelry and money. Altogether, 100-120 villages (including combatants) died that day…Most of the villages either fled or were trucked through West Jerusalem and dumped at Musrara, outside the Old City walls.”
“There is no justification for acts of rape. There is no justification for acts of massacre. Those are war crimes. But in certain conditions, expulsion is not a war crime. I don’t think that the expulsions of 1948 were war crimes.”
Now, play close attention here. This is Morris at his best:
“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.”
John B. Judis, in his recent book Genesis: Truman, American Jews, and the Origins of the Arab/Israeli Conflict, declared unambiguously that the Zionists “conspired to screw the Arabs out of a country that by the prevailing standards of self-determination would have been theirs.” In the process,
“the Zionists who came to Palestine to establish a state trampled on the rights of the Arabs who already lived there. That wrong has never been adequately addressed, or redressed, and for there to be any kind of [peace] between the Israelis and Arabs, it must be.
“Zionists in Europe, Palestine, and the United States, with the notable exception of Ahad Ha’am and his protégés, refused to acknowledge that any wrong occurred.
“They advanced one rationalization after another—from the imperial-era argument that they were bringing civilization to savages to the later argument that while the Jews had nowhere but Palestine to go, Palestine’s Arab could comfortably live in any Arab country without sacrificing their right to self-determination.
“These arguments were put forth by European Socialists and by the foremost American liberals and moralists. And the violent and sometimes senseless reactions by the Palestinian Arabs and the neighboring Arab states to the original wrong inflicted upon Palestine’s Arab lent credibility to the Zionist rationalizations.
“After Israel’s founding, its supporters continued to grasp at any contention that would counter the idea that the Zionists owed Palestine’s Arabs anything.”
Judis’ historical knowledge with respect to the Ottoman Empire is quite obtuse, and we will discuss this issue probably in the spring or summer. Judis also has a slick way of implicating, perhaps not intentionally, Israel’s actions:
“Israel’s Jews had gained a world of their own but at the expense of another people. History, of course, often works that way. And if the people who are vanquished disappear, or are relatively weak and few in number, the victors can eventually lay aside the memory of what they have done. Few Georgians today remember or regret having driven the peaceful Cherokee Indians off their lands.”
Two wrongs put together certainly do not make a right. But Judis has made a few points that the Zionists themselves have yet to address.
“Israelis and their supporters spent decades trying to explain away the dark side of their conquest of Palestine. They claimed they were victims and the Palestinian Arabs aggressors. They linked the mufti and his successors to Hitler and the Nazis. They insisted that there were no such things as Palestinians—a claim that Jordan’s rulers were eager to reaffirm.
“But the Palestinian people have not gone away and have grown in number, and are a living reminder that what was a triumph for Zionism in 1948 has been an enduring catastrophe for them.”
Leading Jews such as Stephen Wise and presidents such as Roosevelt “didn’t really want to know what was happening, were determined to dismiss any suggestion that the Israelis had done wrong. They were willingly ignorant. That continues to be the case today among people who want to believe that Israel’s government can do no wrong.”
Can Duke garner enough political power to do this? Could the Ku Klux Klan in their heyday get enough people to slaughter at least 700,000 people? Did they ever reach that number?
If the answer is no, then we have a problem. The elephant in the room is certainly not David Duke, who is now appealing to everyone to abstain from violence and torture and degradation of human beings in politics, media, Hollywood, music, but the elephant in the room is the Zionist regime.
Duke certainly did not make life easier for the Zionist world by producing videos such as the following:
Let us go back to our previous discussion for a moment. You remember how the media reported ad infinitum that Duke is a former Ku Klux Klan? Now, let us suppose that the Dreadful Few apply the same standard across the board. What would happen to the neoconservative movement? What would happen to Bill Kristol, who is a frequent guest on Fox News?
Neoconservative luminary Francis Fukuyama of Stanford (formerly of Johns Hopkins), who signed Bill Kristol’s 2001 letter to President Bush saying that the United States needed to embark upon “a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq,” compares the neoconservative movement to Leninism.
Neoconservatism, says Fukuyama, is the reincarnation to some extent of both Leninism and Bolshevism. (Hence, my new term Neo-Bolshevism.)
It must be noted in passing that Fukuyama has been distancing himself from the movement due to the mess it has created in the Middle East. In 2003, he wrote an article vigorously criticizing the movement. Yet in 2004, he declared,
“I still consider myself to be a dyed-in-the-wool neoconservative.”
Fukuyama knew better. He knew very well that criticizing the movement means that people behind the movement will also have to be criticized; and criticizing the people behind the movement will bring him face to face with the Dreadful Few who instigated the war in Iraq in the first place.
“At an annual dinner of the American Enterprise Institute in February 2004, Dick Cheney and Charles Krauthammer declared the beginning of a unipolar era under Americanhegemony. ‘All of these people around me were cheering wildly,’ Fukuyama remembers.
“He believes that the Iraq War was being blundered. ‘All of my friends had taken leave of reality.’ He has not spoken to Paul Wolfowitz (previously a good friend) since.”
In 2004, Fukuyama
“attended a neoconservative think-tank dinner in Washington and listened aghast as the featured speaker, the columnist Charles Krauthammer, attributed ‘a virtually unqualified success’ to America’s efforts in Iraq, and the audience enthusiastically applauded.
“In years gone by, Fukuyama would have felt cozily at home among those applauding neoconservatives. He and Krauthammer used to share many a political instinct.
“It was Krauthammer who wrote the ecstatic topmost blurb (‘bold, lucid, scandalously brilliant’) for the back jacket of Fukuyama’s masterpiece from 1992, ‘The End of History and the Last Man.’
“But that was then.”
In any event, Fukuyama’s new observation that the neoconservative movement is a dressed-up version of Stalinism and Leninism makes sense when even Irving Kristol proudly admitted that the
“honor I most prized was the fact that I was a member in good standing of the [Trotskyist] Young People’s Socialist League (Fourth International).”
Kristol was not just a former Trotskyist, but a former neo-Marxist, neo-socialist, and neo-liberal.
Long before Kristol, Jewish intellectuals like Irving Howe used to brag about being Trotskyists in the 1940s. Those Trotskyists quickly realized that the fall of Nazi Germany could catapult the Jewish cause. They finally and strategically settled on the “Jewish Holocaust.”
William Phillips for example recalled that Irving Howe
“was haunted by the question of why our Jewish intellectual community … had paid so little attention to the Holocaust in the early 1940s…. He asked me why we had written and talked so little about the Holocaust at the time it was taking place.”
“It’s perfectly true that ‘Jewish Writers in America’ … missed what should have been for them the central event of their time, the destruction of European Jewry. I can’t say how our responsibility can be assessed.
“We … should have reckoned more fully, more deeply with it. Nobody in America seriously took this on and only a few Jews elsewhere (like Primo Levi) were able to comprehend it all.”
Kristol argues in The Neoconservative Persuasion that Jewish intellectuals like himself did not forsake their heritage when they gave up Communism and other revolutionary movements, but had to make some changes in their thinking. Kristol declared explicitly that they
“did not forsake their Jewish heritage to replace it with another form of cultural identity or ethnic belonging. What they sought can best be described as an abstract and futuristic idealism of assimilation qua emancipation in a denationalized and secularized democratic society, ideally of universal scope. Leaving the world of their childhood did not necessarily imply its total abandonment in one act of irreversible forgetfulness.
“For many this departure under the sacred halo of socialism was the next best solution to their own existential problems—a solution that was enormously attractive since it also held out the utopian promise of the ‘genuine emancipation’ of all Jews in a socialist republic of universal brotherhood devoid of national, religious, and social discrimination or even distinctions.”
America is filled with such former Trotskyists who unleashed an unprecedented foreign policy that led to the collapse of the American economy and misery in the Middle East.
If this sounds like an exaggeration and if you think the projectile motion of Trotskyism is over, listen to Gabriel Schoenfeld, senior advisor to the Mitt Romney for President campaign, as to why he supported Romney for president,
“My support for Mitt Romney has something to do with a ship called the Serpa Pinto and with an American Marxist revolutionary.”
Schoenfeld later declared that his father was a Trotskyist in the revolutionary sense, and that Obama was too soft on the Middle East, and Romney is the better choice to take care of Iran. Schoenfeld was an editor for the neoconservative magazine Commentary.
In other words, neoconservative think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute are extensions of Trotskyism, most particularly with respect to foreign policy. Other think tanks such as the Bradley Foundation were overtaken by the neoconservative machine back in 1984.
Some of those institutions have been known to have worked with Likud-supporting Jewish groups such as the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), an organization which has been known to have “co-opted” several
“non-Jewish defense experts by sending them on trips to Israel. It flew out the retired general Jay Garner, now slated by Bush to be proconsul of occupied Iraq.”
Scholars such as Stephen Halper of Cambridge University and Jonathan Clarke of the CATO Institute agree that the neoconservative agendas “have taken American international relations on an unfortunate detour,” which is another way of saying that this revolutionary movement is not what the Founding Fathers signed up for, who all maintained that the United States would serve the American people best by not entangling herself in alliances with foreign entities.
As soon as the Israel Lobby came along, as soon as the neoconservative movement began to shape U.S. foreign policy, as soon as Israel began to dictate to the U.S. what ought to be done in the Middle East, America was universally hated by the Muslim world.
In that sense, the neoconservative revolution as a Jewish political and intellectual movement represents a fifth column in the United States in that it subtly and deceptively seeks to undermine what the Founding Fathers have stood for and replace it with what the Founding Fathers would have considered horrible foreign policies—policies which have already contributed to the demise of America.
Halper and Clarke, themselves philo-Semitic scholars, declare that the neoconservative movement is
“in complete contrast…to the general cast of the American temperament as embodied by the Declaration of Independence.”
The neoconservative persuasion is horrible in the sense that much of the war in the Middle East has been based on colossal hoaxes and fabrications.
This point became more interesting when it was discovered that Israel has maintained covert operations against the U.S. on multiple levels, including smuggling illegal weapons for years, while the neoconservative machine says nothing about this issue and keeps propounding that Israel is a model of Western values in the Middle East.
Israel has been spying on the United States for years using various Israeli or Jewish individuals, including key Jewish neoconservative figures such as Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, who were under investigation for passing classified documents to Israel.
The FBI has numerous documents tracing Israel’s espionage in the U.S., but no one has come forward and declared it explicitly in the media because most value their careers and lives.
For example, when two top AIPAC officials—Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman—were caught passing classified documents from the Pentagon to Israel, Gabriel Schoenfeld defended them. In the annual FBI report called “Foreign Economic Collection and Industrial Espionage,” Israel is a major country that pops up quite often.
This is widely known among CIA and FBI agents and U.S. officials for years. One former U.S. intelligence official declared,
“There is a huge, aggressive, ongoing set of Israeli activities directed against the United States. Anybody who worked in counterintelligence in a professional capacity will tell you the Israelis are among the most aggressive and active countries targeting the United States.
“They undertake a wide range of technical operations and human operations. People here as liaisons…aggressively pursue classified intelligence from people. The denials are laughable.”
In 1991, the Israeli tried to recruit a former U.S. intelligence official, but he declined.
“I had an Israeli intelligence officer pitch me in Washington at the time of the first Gulf War. I said, ‘No, go away,’ and reported it to counterintelligence.”
Covert operations were done by the Israelis in
“a 1997 case in which the National Security Agency bugged two Israeli intelligence officials in Washington discussing efforts to obtain a sensitive U.S. diplomatic document. Israel denied wrongdoing in that case and all others, and no one has been prosecuted.”
Yet this has rarely seen the light of day in the popular media. Pointing these facts out, according to the reasoning of Omri Ceren of Commentary, is tantamount to anti-Semitism.
The simple questions again are these: has the Ku Klux Klan ever gotten that much power to control U.S. foreign policy and the media? Are the Dreadful Few telling us that one man—David Duke—is more powerful than the Israelis? Or are the Dreadful Few simply engaging in character assassination?
Last January, USA Today reported that “up to 48,000 Afghan, Iraq vets [are] at risk for homelessness.” David Duke was certainly not responsible for that. The Dreadful Few indirectly were the culprits. The Iraq war, Jewish writer Thomas Friedman told us in 2003,
“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.”
What are the results? Well, civilians began to lose their lives by the thousands:
What is equally worse is that men and women began to be raped in the military by the thousands:
“An estimated 26,000 rapes and sexual assaults took place in the military in 2012, the last year that statistic is available; only 1 in 7 victims reported their attacks, and just 1 in 10 of those cases went to trial.
“According to mental-health experts, the effects of military sexual trauma (MST) include depression, substance abuse, paranoia, and feelings of isolation.
“Victims spend years drowning in shame and fear as the psychological damage silently eats away at their lives. Many frequently end up addicted to drugs and alcohol, homeless, or take their own lives….
“While stationed in Bahrain, Brittany Fintel says she was grabbed and pinned down on a bed by a superior. She says she reported the assault and was told she had an ‘adjustment disorder,’ was taken off the ship, and eventually left the Navy due to PTSD. ‘They kick the victim out. The victim is more fu$ked up in the head than apparently the rapist,’ she says, weeping at her home in San Diego.”
If the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and now Syria did not happen, would we have this outrageous statistics about rape in the military? Probably not. And was Duke wrong about the Zionist whores who ignited the wars in the first place? Absolutely not.
I do take issues with the idea that Jewish behavior is genetic, which Duke seems to espouse. I am not sure if he understands the metaphysical and moral nature of that idea.
If he does understand it, perhaps he would flee from it precisely because the concept is internally contradictory. But if he does understand it and still upholds it, then we will have to part company with him and wish him good luck.
If behavior is genetic, then there is no way to hold the Dreadful Few morally accountable. They can easily say,
“Excuse us, Mr. Duke. Our corrupt genes made us do it and there is no way to avoid it. After all, materialist philosophy teaches us that man is just matter and energy and that morality is just illusory. In fact, we have read what Darwinists such as Michael Ruse have said:
“‘Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction…an ephemeral product of the evolutionary process, just as are other adaptations. It has no existence or being beyond this, and any deeper meaning is illusory.’
“We also have read Nobel Laureate Francis Crick’s analysis as well. Crick told us that
“‘The Astonishing Hypothesis is that ‘You,’ your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.’
“How can you help us with our bad genes? We are not sure how seriously you take Darwin, but he predicted that this would happen in a Darwinian universe: the so-called good genes will be in conflict with the bad ones.
“Should we succumb to those who say that we should all be slaughtered because of our bad genes? If not, what is the antidote for those bad genes? Should we all move to a place of our own? If so, don’t you think that those bad genes will spread like wildfire and reach other parts of the world as well?” 
Over the past few decades, biology has erroneously been used to propagate the idea that Jewish behavior is genetic, despite the fact that the proponents of this idea have never bothered to address the philosophical, moral and scientific challenges the idea faces.
Proponents of this idea adopt Enlightenment principles, add a Darwinian spin, apply it to human behavior, and then absolve themselves of any responsibility for their preposterous maxims. The very fact that we are complaining about Jewish behavior and asking the Dreadful Few to change their ways means that morality is the actual issue. The very fact that Duke is producing dozens of videos appealing to reason and the moral law implicitly means that he does believe that the issue is morality.
Moreover, if genes are the arbiter of our behavior, we are therefore doomed to the survival of the fittest. The strongest genes will survive, and the weakest ones must be eliminated for the good of the strongest ones. If the genetic theorists do not like that, they need to take it up with Darwin himself, who fantasized that
“at some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.
“At the same time, the anthropomorphous apes…will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope…and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.”
The genetic theorists, like many neo-Darwinists, do not want to go beyond mere words and apply their conclusions to ultimate metaphysics. Darwin “was keenly aware that admitting any purposefulness whatsoever to the question of the origin of species would put his theory of natural selection on a very slippery slope.”
If eminent physicist Lawrence Krauss is right in saying that “we’re just a bit of pollution,” why not get rid of the pollution through deceptive means? If Richard Dawkins is right, that the universe (including you and me) has “no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference”—an ideology which he gleaned from his intellectual antecedent Charles Darwin and which has been widely accepted by the vast majority of biologists—why did he see the need to attack the God of the Old Testament as evil in a book that is more than four hundred pages long?
Here and elsewhere, both Richard Dawkins and the genetic theorists share a kindred spirit: their hypothesis is internally contradictory, though they search tirelessly for a solution to that contradiction, so far without success.
Joseph S. Levine and Kenneth R. Miller tell us that “Darwinian evolution is not only purposeless but also heartless—a process in which nature ruthlessly eliminates the unfit…The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons.”
How ironic that neo-Darwinists try to confront Jewish ideology while ignoring the contradictory nature of Darwinism itself.
The West did not have this DNA issue until Wilhelm Marr (1819-1904) published his famous tract The Victory of Jewry over the Germans: Viewed from a Non-Religious Point of View in which he argued that Germans and Jews were locked in perpetual combat because they were racially different.
Albert S. Lindemann declared that Marr repudiated his tract when anti-Semitism broke out in the 1890s.
But Marr seemed to have foreseen that his idea would spark violence. “I ask you,” he wrote, “please do not attack the Jews in my presence.”
Marr’s cardinal error was not that he was not a good observer or meticulous writer. Marr observed quite accurately that the Jewish network abhorred “real work” and had the inclination to, in the words of Lindemann, “exploit the labor of others.”
This is not a stereotype, and Alexander Solzhenitsyn found the same thing in Russia. Marr’s father, Heinrich, “used his connections to get Wilhelm jobs with two Jewish firms, neither of which ended happily.” And if the testimony of history is not enough, take a look at Goldman Sachs.
But Marr, as an atheist, deliberately ignored the theological substratum in examining the Jewish question. It is like examining Muslims or Christians without a serious and thorough examination of their religions or what their founders actually taught and practice—a highly implausible, dubious, and daunting task. Hence, Marr’s project was doomed to fail because it lacked moral and metaphysical foundation.
If writers want to be taken seriously and aspire to examine the issue accurately, they ought not to quickly dismiss the theological dimension, though they may not subscribe to its premise.
What is particularly interesting about this issue is that some writers will cite rabbis and Jewish propagandists approvingly saying that there seems to be a genetic basis for Jewish behavior. When you ask the rabbis, they perversely declare that they exegete it out of the Old Testament, but those same writers do believe that the Old Testament is a myth! Which one is it?
Those people certainly are trying to have it both ways. They are brilliant enough to recognize contradictions, and hopefully they will reconcile them for us.
The Catholic Church has never fallen to the DNA or racial trap precisely because it is morally repugnant and impressively incoherent. In fact, “white culture” is essentially not the metaphysical ground upon which to attack a wicked ideology.
A classic example would be the Catholic Poles and Lithuanians who came to America in the early 1920s, who didn’t even know that they were “white,” because in Poland you are a human being, not “white.” They eventually became “white” by default.
It was after the ideology of people like Luis Wirth in the 1920s, after the rise of the civil rights debacle and the events leading up to the sexual revolution in the 1960s, that the cultural shift began to take place.
As we have pointed out in numerous articles, if a Jew becomes a Christian or even challenges the Zionist madness—as in the case of Gilad Atzmon or Norman Finkelstein or Israel Shamir—he is banned by the state of Israel and sometimes persecuted (even if his family died in Nazi Germany, as in the case of Oswald Rufeisen), which clearly indicates that something other than DNA is at work here.
It seems to us that man was created in the image and likeness of God, who, in the words of Augustine, is “the Author of this universe, who is not only above everybody, being incorporeal, but also above all souls, being incorruptible—our principle, our light, our good.”
This Author does not act “rashly, and, as it were, fortuitously…but according to the order of things and times, which is hidden from us, but thoroughly known to Himself.”
That in no way means that the Author of life is going to act contrary to reason, but sometimes He may act, as E. Michael Jones rightly puts it, “in ways that sometimes go beyond what human reason can comprehend but never in ways that contradict that reason.”
The Creator has imbued us all with the capacity to reason, choose, and reject evil and that which degrades and suppresses other human beings. If man suppresses that reason or morality, if he is blinded by a Talmudic system which intellectually and morally suppresses the obvious, even if that blindness has continued over the centuries and attracted other people, that is not a license for anyone to say that he has wicked DNA.
To us, history makes sense precisely because it is not meaningless and evildoers will be held accountable for their deeds. To put it another way, judgment delayed does not necessarily mean judgment denied. According to the Christian understanding of things, nothing takes Him by surprise—no, not a single evil act committed by man—and He will judge the world at the end of all things.
To summarize, the idea that Jewish behavior is genetic is theologically incomprehensible for the very fact that nearly all the early disciples were ethnic Jews. Christ himself says that “salvation is of the Jews,” meaning that the issue is not DNA or genetics. Paul, who declared that “the Jews” are “contrary to all men,” also says that he himself was
“circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee, conserving zeal, persecuting the church…” (Philippians 3:5-6).
One final point. The genetic theorists need not forget that it was a Jewish convert to Christianity by the name of Nicholas Donin who made us all aware of the deceptive nature of the Talmud in the thirteenth century.
If Donin had wicked DNA, how did he overcome it? If he did not, how can one adjudicate one wicked DNA from a good one? What are the parameters? Do we now differentiate good DNA vs. bad DNA by people’s actions? Do people like Brother Nathanael Kapner have good DNA or bad DNA? How about Gilad Atzmon? Mortimer Adler? St. Paul? Jesus Christ?
This writer would like to know.
 Micah Zenko, “If Cyberattacks Are Terror, Who’s the Biggest Terrorist?,” National Interest, January 7, 2015.
 Jeremy Alford, “Much of David Duke’s ’91 Campaign Is Now in Louisiana Mainstream,” NY Times, December 31, 2014.
 “David Duke Threatens To Expose Other Politicians With White Supremacist Ties,” Huffington Post, January 1, 2015.
 Greg Sargent, “Morning Plum: A David Duke flashback,” Washington Post, December 30, 2014.
 Charles Babington, “GOP backs member after apology for speech to racist group,” Times of Israel, January 2, 2015.
 Michael Scherer, “Former KKK Wizard David Duke Says He Doesn’t Support Steve Scalise,” Time, December 30, 2014.
 Fred Barnes, “The Vote that Dare Not Speak Its Name,” Weekly Standard, April 19, 2004.
 Jonathan S. Tobin, “GOP ‘House of Cards’ Problem, Part Two,” Commentary, January 2, 2015.
 Cheryl K. Chumley, “David Duke, ex-KKKer, warns GOP: Back Steve Scalise, or I’ll name names,” Washington Times, December 31, 2014.
 Byron Tau, “White House Tries to Link Steve Scalise to David Duke,” Wall Street Journal, January 5, 2015.
 For Truman, see for example David McCullough, Truman (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992).
 John B. Judis, Genesis: Truman, American Jews, and the Origin of the Arab/Israeli Conflict (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2014), 274.
 Michael T. Benson, Harry S. Truman and the Founding of Israel (Westport: Praeger Publishers, 1997), 93.
 Ibid., 94.
 Benny Morris, 1948: The First Arab-Israeli War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 127.
 Ari Shavit, “Survival of the Fittest?: Interview with Benny Morris,” Counter Punch, January 16, 2004.
 John B. Judis, Genesis: Truman, American Jews, and the Origins of the Arab/Israeli Conflict (New York: Straus & Giroux, 2014), 251.
 Ibid., 351-352.
 Ibid., 350.
 Ibid., 353.
 Francis Fukuyama, “After neoconservatism,” NY Times, February 19, 2006.
 “The Neoconservatism of Francis Fukuyama,” National Interest, August 4, 2004.
 Paul Berman, “Neo No More,” NY Times, March 26, 2006.
 Quoted in Stephen Halper and Jonathan Clarke, America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 43.
 Meir Soloveichik, “Irvign Kristol, Edmund Burke, and the Rabbis,” Jewish Review of Books, Number 6, summer 2011.
 Quoted in Edward Alexander, “New York Jewish Intellectuals: Another Moral Debacle?,” Jerusalem Post, September 15, 2011.
 Quoted in E. Michael Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2008), 1033-1034.
 Gabriel Schoenfeld, “Why Mitt?,” Jerusalem Post, October 17, 2012.
 Justin Raimondo, “Trotskyites for Romney,” Antiwar.com, October 17, 2012.
 See Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, 1028-1029.
 Michael Lind, “How Neoconservatives Conquered Washington—and Launched a War,” Antiwar.com, April 10, 2003.
 Harper and Clarke, America Alone, 9.
 See John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (New York: Farrar, Strauss & Giroux, 2007).
 Halper and Clarke, America Alone, 10.
 See Pillar, Intelligence and U.S. Foreign Policy (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011); Mearsheimer, Why Leaders Lie (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011; Vincent Bugliosi, The Prosecution of George W. Bush (New York: Perseus Books, 2008); Mearsheimer and Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.
See Grant F. Smith, Divert!: NUMEC, Zalman Shapiro and the Diversion of U.S. Weapons Grade Uranium into Israeli Nuclear Weapons Program (Washington DC: Institute for Research Middle Eastern Policy, 2012).
 Philip Giraldi, “The Spy Who Loves Us,” American Conservative, June 2, 2008.
 Raymondo, “Trotskyites for Romney.”
 Giraldi, “The Spy Who Loves Us,” American Conservative.
 See “France, Israel Cited in CIA Espionage Study,” LA Times, August 15, 1996; Bob Drogin and Greg Miller, “Israel Has Long Spied on U.S., Say Officials,” LA Times, September 3, 2004.
 Bob Drogin and Greg Miller, “Israel Has Long Spied on U.S., Say Officials,” LA Times, September 3, 2004.
 Omri Ceren, “The Times’s Spectacular Bias Against Israel,” Commentary, September 8, 2012.
 Gregg Zoroya, “Up to 48,000 Afghan, Iraq Vets at Risk for Homelessness,” USA Today, January 17, 2014.
 Quoted in Ari Shavit, “White Man’s Burden,” Haaretz, April 4, 2003.
 Dan Murphy, “Iraq Violence More Than Doubles in 2013: Is Country Headed Off the Cliff?,” Christian Science Monitor, December 20, 2013.
 Mary F. Calvert, “Photos: Women Who Risked Everything to Expose Sexual Assault in the Military,” Mother Jones, September 8, 2014; for similar reports, see also Adam Sewer, “Sexual Assaults in Military Keep Rising—And Nearly 90 Percent Never Report It,” Mother Jones, May 8, 2013.
 Michael Ruse, The Darwinian Paradigm: Essays on its History, Philosophy, and Religious Implications (New York: Routledge, 1989), 268-269.
 Francis Crick, The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994), 3.
 For an introduction to what DNA can and cannot do, see Francis S. Collins, The Language of Life: DNA and the Revolution in Personalized Medicine (New York: Harper Collins, 2010).
 Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (New York: Modern Library, 1936), 201.
 J. Scott Turner, The Tinker’s Accomplice: How Design Emerges from Life Itself (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007), 206.
 Richard Panek, “Out There,” NY Times, March 11, 2007.
 Dawkins, River Out of Eden , 155.
 See Gregory W. Graffin, Evolution, Monism, Atheism, and the Naturalist Worldview (Ithaca, NY: Polypterus Press, 2004), 42.
 See Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York: Mariner Books, 2006).
 Joseph S. Levine and Kenneth R. Miller, Biology: Discovering Life (Lexington, KY: D. C. Heath, 1994), 161.
 Albert S. Lindemann, Esau’s Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 127.
 Quoted in E. Michael Jones, Barren Metal: A History of Capitalism as the Conflict between Labor and Usury (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2014), 1167.
Lindemann, Esau’s Tears, 128.
 Jones, Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, 571-577.
 Jones, Barren Metal, 1161.
 See for example e. Michael Jones, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control (South Bend: St. Augustine’s Press, 2000), 347-349.
 See David R. Roediger, Working Toward Whiteness: How America’s Immigrants Became White (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 2005); John J. Bukowczyk, ed., Polish Americans and their History, Community, Culture, and Politics (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1996).
 See E. Michael Jones, The Slaughter of Cities: Urban Renewal as Ethnic Cleansings (South Bend: St. Augustine’s Press, 2004).
 Augustine, The City of God Against the Pagans (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 184-185.
 Jones, Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, 14.
 Jones has a chapter on this in The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit.
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.