Intellectual Blasphemy and Zionist Puppet Show (Part I)

…by  Jonas E. Alexis

Whenever a self-proclaimed conservative ends up getting a million-dollar job at the New York Times or on CNN or Fox New or in any other Zionist factory, you can be sure that he or she is going to follow the ideology of his or her masters or internalize the commands of the Dreadful Few.

Take for example Bill O’Reilly, who was a student of Marvin Kalb at Harvard. Kalb ended up ridiculing John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt’s paper when it first came out without an iota of evidence. He said then,

“I do not regard this as a Kennedy School Research Paper, because it clearly does not meet the academic standards of a Kennedy School research paper. It is a rather sensational example of ‘realist’ journalism. My sense is that Dean Walt would be better advised to stick to scholarship and leave journalism to journalists, who generally check their ‘facts’ before publishing them.”[1]

Why was the paper “sensational”? Well, because Marvin Kalb said so! How else?

Mearsheimer and Walt painstakingly named names and organizations and citations from various Jewish groups. Those groups even bragged that they almost exclusively pushed the war in Iraq. Moreover, there are 211 citations in the Mearsheimer and Walt paper, and most of them are from Jewish sources. But Kalb did not bother to interact with them at all.

Since Kalb could not refute Mearsheimer and Walt’s argument, he therefore took the easy route. He chose to disprove Mearsheimer and Walt by appealing to an infallible source: Marvin Kalb himself. In other words, all one has to do to disprove Mearsheimer and Walt is cite Kalb. Kalb’s very existence is itself evidence that Mearsheimer and Walt are wrong!

This is quite sad. Unfortunately, the Dreadful Few have been using this modus operandi to silence people they do not like since the dawn of the twentieth century. So when Kalb sees his student Bill O’Reilly shouting and yelling and screaming about terrorism and lying about his past on Fox News,[2] you can be sure that Kalb is quite happy.

In short, if O’Reilly “would not shut up,”[3] it is because the Dreadful Few pay him well—18 million dollars (some sources say 20 million). (Sean Hannity gets paid $ 15 million to do almost the same thing.) O’Reilly in particular cannot seem to function without a teleprompter. He has been programmed like a puppet to act and react a certain way. Watch this:

Now here is the edited version:

When one journalist discovered and reported that O’Reilly lied about his war time reporting, O’Reilly responded by saying that the reporter ought “to be in the kill zone.”[4]

So, the logic is pretty clear: if Bill O’Reilly does not like what you are saying, particularly when you politically strip him naked, O’Reilly would like you to be hanged. This is the true color of Bill O’Reilly, and it is all the more interesting that he has just published a book entitled Hitler’s Last Days: The Death of the Nazi Regime and the World’s Most Notorious Dictator.

The world’s most notorious dictator? Can someone give O’Reilly a copy of Norman Naimark’s Stalin’s Genocide and The Russians in Germany: A History of the Soviet Zone of Occupation, 1945-1949?[5] How about Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers, by Jewish historian Brian Mark Rigg, or Hitler, Germans, and the Jewish Question, by Jewish historian Sarah Ann Gordon?[6]

I read just a few paragraphs from O’Reilly’s Hitler’s Last Days. Those paragraphs got me so dizzy that I had to put the book down. I honestly did not want to write a complete review of this book because it is full of historical nonsense. Here is just one example: Hitler had a “quest for world domination” and attacked Russia for this very reason![7]

Nothing could be further from the truth.

O’Reilly is certainly not the only “conservative” performer and showman in town. Ross Douthat of the New York Times is another case in point. Last January, Douthat wrote a frivolous and dubious article entitled “The Blasphemy We Need,” in which he made the following case:

“In the wake of the vicious murders at the offices of the satirical French newspaper Charlie Hebdo today, let me offer three tentative premises about blasphemy in a free society.

“1) The right to blaspheme (and otherwise give offense) is essential to the liberal order.

“2) There is no duty to blaspheme, a society’s liberty is not proportional to the quantity of blasphemy it produces, and under many circumstances the choice to give offense (religious and otherwise) can be reasonably criticized as pointlessly antagonizing, needlessly cruel, or simply stupid.

“3) The legitimacy and wisdom of criticism directed at offensive speech is generally inversely proportional to the level of mortal danger that the blasphemer brings upon himself.

“The first point means that laws against blasphemy (usually described these days as ‘restrictions on hate speech’) are inherently illiberal. The second point means that a certain cultural restraint about trafficking in blasphemy is perfectly compatible with liberal norms, and that there’s nothing illiberal about questioning the wisdom or propriety or decency of cartoons or articles or anything else that takes a crude or bigoted swing at something that a portion of the population holds sacred.

“Such questioning can certainly shade into illiberal territory — and does, all-too-frequently — depending on exactly how much pressure is exerted and how elastic the definition of ‘offensiveness’ becomes.”

After I read Douthat’s article, I quickly wrote him the following message:

“I have read your article entitled ‘The Blasphemy We Need’ with great interest. A friend of mine by the name of Denis Rancourt, a professor of physic at the University of Ottawa, was fired after teaching for twenty five years largely because he criticized Israel. Would you like to interview him for an article in the New York Times? He says that he has been demonized and fired for advocating the very view that you are proposing. I look forward to hearing from you!”

Douthat never responded. This obviously gives the impression that he did not believe what he wrote in the New York Times. He wrote the article either to pay the bills or to please his masters or to feel good about himself.

So, Douthat is not interested in the truth or “the right to blaspheme” the Israeli or Zionist regime. You can only “blaspheme” Islam or enemies that the Dreadful Few do not like. You cannot blaspheme things that are sacrosanct to the powers that be. If you do, then you are going to end up in a jail cell (like my good Friend Dr. Fredrick Toben) or face something equally worse.

Furthermore, if Douthat truly believes what he wrote in the New York Times, then he has to explain the following phenomenon:

“An Israeli think tank on Monday kicked off an initiative to make anti-Semitism an international crime by launching a convention it hopes will be adopted by many states across the globe. Not a single foreign diplomat attended the event, much to the dismay of the organizers.

“All 160 diplomatic representations in Israel were invited to the launch of the ‘International Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Anti-Semitism,’ held in a West Jerusalem hotel, but not one showed up.”[8]

In response, Alan Baker, a former senior Israeli diplomat and the author of the convention, lamented, “It makes me sad and depressed.”

Why would an intelligent man like Baker be depressed when representatives realize that his views on anti-Semitism are way too expensive? Why couldn’t Baker accept a little “blasphemy” or even “diversity”? More importantly, why doesn’t Douthat chase people like Baker?

Baker asked,

“I ask myself, how come today, with all the known history of anti-Semitism and tragic results over the years, how come that until today, nobody has really done anything to turn into an international crime?”[9]

Baker acknowledged that “We can’t claim that every ‘legitimate criticism’ of Israel is anti-Semitism. And we shouldn’t.” But in the same breath he contradicted himself by saying that calling Israel an apartheid state is “false and untrue” and hence “crosses the border.”[10] Baker never told us what a legitimate criticism of Israel actually is. Instead, he declared,

“By its very nature, with anti-Semitism’s long, bitter, and never-ending history, and its propensity to constantly re-appear in modern forms and contexts, it cannot and should not be equated with, linked to, or treated as any other form of racial discrimination. It stands alone. It cannot and should not be relegated to any type of listing of forms of racial discrimination and xenophobia.”[11]

Right!

Baker simply shows that you cannot reason people out of an idea which was not formed on the basis of reason and logic. And if Douthat cannot write another article talking about people like Baker, then there is only one conclusion one can draw: Douthat has been duped (perhaps intentionally and lucratively).

Finally, it would be really stupid of Douthat if he declares that he does not know a man by the name of Norman Finkelstein and what really happened to him when he challenged the “hoaxers and gangsters.”[12]

We will discuss Finkelstein in the next installment.

[1] Quoted in Meghan Clyne, “Kalb Upbraids Harvard Dean Over Israel,” NY Sun, March 11, 2006.

[2] See for example David Corn, “Bill O’Reilly Respond. We Annotate,” Mother Jones, February 20, 2015.

[3] Marvin Kitman, The man Who Would Not Shut Up: The Rise of Bill O’Reilly (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2007).

[4] Corn, “Bill O’Reilly Respond. We Annotate,” Mother Jones, February 20, 2015.

[5] Norman M. Naimark, Stalin’s Genocide (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010); The Russians in Germany: A History of the Soviet Zone of Occupation, 1945-1949 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995). What a coincidence that he never mentions Naimark throughout his propaganda. O’Reilly has a degree in history, so it is pretty difficult to say that he is not aware of those scholarly books.

[6] Bryan Mark Rigg, Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers: The Untold Story of Nazi Racial Laws and Men of Jewish Descent in the German Military (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2002); Sarah Ann Gordon, Hitler, Germans, and the Jewish Question (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984).

[7] Bill O’Reilly, Hitler’s Last Days: The Death of the Nazi Regime and the World’s Most Notorious Dictator (New York: Henry and Hold Company, 2015), 256.

[8] Raphael Ahren, “Think tank fumes at foreign diplomats for skipping anti-Semitism event,” Times of Israel, May 12, 2015.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] See for example Norman Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering (New York: Verso, 2000).

Jonas E. Alexis, Assistant Editor

Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the new book Zionism vs. the West: How Talmudic Ideology is Undermining Western Culture. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.

• Read Jonas Alexis’s latest posts here >>>