…by Jonas E. Alexis
Reading many of the work that Neocon intellectuals and shills and magazines and institutions have produced over the years and dissecting their version (or perversion) of history has been an interesting journey.
These people always take great risks to defend their ideologically incoherent and essentially diabolical plan and always leave the world in a mess. And it is always a blast to watch them fall into their own political traps and blatant contradictions.
Pick up a Neoconservative book on your shelf or at your local library and you will quickly find that it is almost impossible to get through the first chapter or two without coming face to face with blatant contradictions, blatant lies, blatant fabrications, blatant hypocrisy, blatant double standards, and obvious inconsistencies.
For example, Jewish columnist Ben Shapiro writes books such as Porn Generation: How Social Liberalism Is Corrupting Our Future, in which he complains about “oral sex, masturbation, and homosexual activity” being taught in the classroom. Shapiro also goes after the culture, which he says preaches that “our sexuality should not and cannot be contained by any system of morality…No form of sexual expression may be condemned, and all must be taught.”
But the same Shapiro supported the Trotskyite group the Pussy Riot, which had a pornographic performance at a public museum in Russia. The same Shapiro condemned the Russian government for punishing the violent group for desecrating Christ the Savior Cathedral in Russia.
Neocon magazine World Affairs condemns Vladimir Putin for his alleged crime against dissents, but the same magazine condemns dissents such as Edward Snowden for revealing what the NSA has been doing to Americans.
Neocon shills and puppets like Ann Coulter pretentiously say that they fight for life, but they have no remorse for slaughtering and mercilessly torturing innocent people in the Middle East. Coulter loves to talk about “Democrat sex scandal,” but she rails against those who spend some time talking about sex abuse at Abu Ghraib, a prison complex near Baghdad where prisoners were literally sodomized by American forces.
If you were trained in logic and have little patience with complete nonsense, if your allegiance is to the moral order and practical reason and ultimate truth, then you are going to be stunned by what’s passing for clear thinking these days. If truth matters to you, then you will be very angry—for good reason. You also will be compelled to ask,
“Aren’t these people professors and intellectuals and so-called thinkers who are teaching at some of the major universities in the world? Do they mean to tell us that they are not even familiar with the nine rules of logic as to avoid internal contradictions and obvious irrationality? Don’t they know that logic is the key to understanding metaphysical issues, including U.S. foreign policy and generally geopolitics?
“Or could it be that the ideology that these people are working with is itself contradictory and therefore does not allow them to articulate a coherent and consistent thought? Could it be that their prevailing vision is metaphysically anti-reason, anti-Logos and therefore essentially Satanic?”
I have been studying the Neoconservative ideology for years now, and I must say that the latter is almost certainly the case. Proponents of that ideology have really internalized the commands of their oppressors. And Jewish writers brag about this. For example, Tevi Troy of Commentary has recently written a lengthy article entitled, “How the GOP Went Zionist.” Troy says:
“The movement to isolate Israel may be in full swing on college campuses across the country, and Israel may be the subject of ever-louder international denunciations, but when it comes to a Republican Party riven by squabbles, the Jewish state has become a unifying glue.
“Support for Israel is all but unanimous among the party’s politicians in Washington, and in the presidential race, candidates vie to outdo one another when it comes to expressing their commitment to it; even the isolationist presidential candidate Rand Paul has gone to great pains to attempt to establish his pro-Israel bona fides.”
So, the Republican Party, like much of the Democratic Party, is actually a Zionist cell, which is to say that Israel is to be elevated above the moral law and practical reason. George W. Bush once asked his father to define Neoconservatism. “‘What’s a neocon?’ ‘Do you want names, or a description?’ answered [the elder Bush]. ‘Description.’ ‘Well,’ said the former president of the United States, ‘I’ll give it to you in one word: Israel.’”
If you doubt this, then alll you have to do is look at how people like Lindsey Graham and John McCain and Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann are willing to jump quite high for the Israeli regime. If you don’t want to jump, then you will be chastised, as we have seen in the case of Donald Trump.
Josh Nathan-Kazis of the Jewish Daily Forward has recently reported that “Donald Trump’s Rise Sparks Widespread Angst Among Jewish Republicans.” Trump is not even consistent and is partly rational. Trump admits that he is “very, very, very pro-Israel.”
Trump also makes the historically indefensible statement that “Israel is our great partner.” But for Jewish Republicans, Trump is not good enough for Jewish Republicans. He has to give his full commitment to the state of Israel.
He has recently said that Putin is right in saying that Turkey is sleeping with ISIS. But Jewish Republicans want nothing to do with him. What is Trump’s sin? Nathan Wurtzel, a Republican political consultant who happens to be Jewish and principal at The Catalyst Group, tells us:
“There are a lot of folks who are, to be charitable, into white identity politics, and to be uncharitable are outright racists, who are supporting Trump. It’s very off-putting and disturbing.”
What kind of logic is that? Wurtzel is too lazy to quote Trump personally and argue against what he believes, but he goes after his supporters, whom Trump may not even know!
One simply cannot call this dumb, for it is so inadequate. The English language doesn’t seem to have a word for this kind of claptrap because it is so crazy. But this kind of perversion is rampant among Neoconservative morons.
Here is a challenge: pick up Ann Coulter’s Demonic or Never Trust a Liberal Over 3-Especially a Republican or more recently Adios, America; pick up Thomas Sowell’s Intellectuals and Society; pick up Victor Davis Hanson’s The Savior Generals: How Five Great Commanders Saved Wars That Were Lost—From Ancient Greece to Iraq; pick up George W. Bush’s Decision Points.
First of all, you will need a strong stomach to digest the lies that are propounded in those books. You will quickly see that those intellectual and political mush-heads and morons have unanimously praised the Iraq War, which was based on colossal lies and fabrications, which has sent a six-trillion dollar bill to the American people, which cost millions of American and Muslim lives, and which ended up sodomizing prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
And never forget that the consequences of the war continue to create chaos throughout the Middle East. But how do intellectual morons like Thomas Sowell respond to all these disasters? Listen to him:
“Whether it was a mistake to invade Iraq in the first place is something that will no doubt be debated by historians and others for years to come. But, despite things that could have been done differently in Iraq during the Bush administration, in the end President Bush listened to his generals and launched the military ‘surge’ that crushed the terrorist insurgents and made Iraq a viable country.”
One has to be morally corrupt and intellectually blind to make such a dumb statement. As former U.S. Colonel and historian of Boston University Andrew Bacevich notes in his study Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country:
“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.”
Sowell’s moral deterioration seems to have no limit. He jumps from one territory to the next, which really puts his intellectual feet in midair. He said of Pope Francis:
“Pope Francis has created political controversy, both inside and outside the Catholic Church, by blaming capitalism for many of the problems of the poor. Pope Francis is part of a larger trend of the rise of the political left among Catholic intellectuals. He is, in a sense, the culmination of that trend.”
Isn’t Sowell at Stanford University, one of the major academic centers in the world? Doesn’t he know that the Catholic Church has stood against Capitalism and its main vehicle called usury from time immemorial? Perhaps E. Michael Jones needs to send Sowell a copy of his 1400-page study Barren Metal: A History of Capitalism as the Conflict Between Labor and Usury.
“Capitalism and Catholicism,” E. Michael Jones argues throughout his magnum opus, “far from being compatible, are antithetical. Capitalism is state-sponsored usury; Catholicism, the traditional foe of usury, believes in the priority of labor. There is no way to resolve this dichotomy. One system must prevail over the other.”
If Sowell isn’t sure about the statement here and is too lazy to do a little scholarly research, he can just google a document named Vix pervenit, which was issued way back in 1745 by Benedict XIV. It states very clearly that usury is sinful. It states in part:
“The nature of the sin called usury has its proper place and origin in a loan contract. This financial contract between consenting parties demands, by its very nature, that one return to another only as much as he has received.
“The sin rests on the fact that sometimes the creditor desires more than he has given. Therefore he contends some gain is owed him beyond that which he loaned, but any gain which exceeds the amount he gave is illicit and usurious.”
It must be said in passing here that if you don’t think usury is bad, does not lead to economic chaos and therefore does not need to be expunged, then you are basically siding with oppressors and vampire squids like Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, the Federal Reserve, and all the oligarchs who have already screwed up the economic and education system in America and elsewhere.
If usury is abolished and criminals are placed behind bars, then economic progress will be back on the table. Furthermore, if we stop all the perpetual wars and put the money where it is needed, then America would not be in decline. Is that a bad idea, Victor Davis Hanson?
Iceland in particular has placed criminal bankers and what they called “financial terrorists” in prison, which obviously provided a form of relief for the poor and needy. We certainly must give Iceland credit for having the courage to put at least 25 “financial terrorists” in prison. But Iceland hasn’t solved the usury problem, which is at the heart of the economic issue.
What are some of the problems that Neoconservative morons do not want you to understand? First of all, they always complain that America is in decline. But the disaster in Iraq, they reason, had absolutely and positively nothing to do with the decline!
I can never understand this logic at all, and it is really disappointing to see so-called thinking people continue to propound it in books and in the media. Why? Once again, those people have internalized the commands of their oppressors.
Here is a classic example. After lamenting that we are in the middle of a crisis in America and Europe, Victor Davis Hanson declares:
“The Black Lives Matter movement in the last few months has often marched chanting for the death of ‘pigs,’ while intellectuals contextualized their anger — and while police were shot at and sometimes killed.”
True. But who is supporting Black Lives Matter, Hanson? Liberals? Republicans? Or none of the above?
Why can’t Hanson clear his head by reporting that Jewish billionaire George Soros—who has been accused of “funding activists trying to encourage the continued flow of refugees heading to the continent from the Middle East and beyond” and who has been chanting for the destabilization of Europe—has already given at least $33 million to the Ferguson protest movement?
Why can Hanson say that Soros is actually the guy who is playing with the political remote control in the United States and elsewhere? Why can’t he point out that a sizable section of the black community, as E. Michael Jones has recently pointed out, has been manipulated by ideological forces? Jones writes:
“For 60 years—from 1909 with the founding of the NAACP to 1969, when the FBI shut down the Black Panthers—influential Jews in organizations as diverse as the NAACP and the Communist Party tried to turn the Negro into a revolutionary. They created a monster instead.”
Black Lives Mater is a child of that monster. Jewish Revolutionaries, says Jones,
“infected the Negro with the virus of revolution. The Negroes of the South Side of Chicago now act the way they do because of an idea that was planted in their mind by Jewish revolutionaries…
“The main vehicle for this transformation in the black mind (from rural sharecropper to urban revolutionary) was the civil rights movement, which was the most successful part of the Black-Jewish Alliance, which was the 60-year-long attempt on the part of Jews at organizations like the NAACP and the Communist Party to turn Negroes into revolutionaries.”
Quoting Jewish historian Murray Friedman, Jones proceeds to say:
“Eventually every segment of the Jewish community enlisted in the civil rights struggle….Nothing would be the same again in the South, but a true revolution was under way.”
What we are seeing here is that Neoconservatives like Hanson do not want to tell the truth for ideological reasons. Hanson in particular talks about “the ongoing mass exoduses from the Third World into Europe and the United States.” But he seems to lay the blame at the foot of “Western liberalism,” which is complete nonsense.
We have already seen how Jewish revolutionaries such as Barbara Spectre has vowed to destroy Europe through “multiculturalism,” and we have already alluded to George Soros’ diabolical dream for Europe. But Hanson obviously stays silent because that will complete destroy his Neoconservative ideology:
Hanson continues to say:
“The first casualty in a bored and would-be-revolutionary society is legality. And certainly in the West the law — whose sanctity built Western civilization — has become a joke.”
I simply had to shake my head in disgust here. The simple fact is that Hanson knows better. He is not some crack-head and scumbag out there who does not have access to the scholarly literature. He is a military historian and former classics professor at California State University.
Hason is the author of books such as Bonfire of the Humanities: Rescuing the Classics in an Impoverished Age, Who Killed Homer?: The Demise of Classical Education and the Recovery of Greek Wisdom, Warfare and Agriculture in Classical Greece, Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power, A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War, etc.
Yet when it comes to examining some of the metaphysical issues that the West is now facing, Hanson has sided with his oppressors, people who have kept the Western political and intellectual tradition captive.
It is now common knowledge that Jewish intellectuals have perpetuated the lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that America had to go to war against a sovereign nation. To cite again Jewish writer Thomas Friedman, the war in Iraq
“was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another and are convinced that political ideas are a major driving force of history.”
For Hanson, the war in Iraq was a success and a great enterprise, and it is right in light with the Western tradition. In 2013, Hanson wrote The Savior Generals: How Five Great Commanders Saved Wars That Were Lost – From Ancient Greece to Iraq, in which he praised David Petraeus for his “success” in Iraq.
Hanson wrote the book too soon. Former Lt. Gen Michael Flynn is now saying that the disaster in Iraq created ISIS. What is so tragic is that Hanson, like Sowell and Coulter, never even addresses the scholarly literature which makes the convincing case that the war in Iraq was based on multiple lies. Stephen M. Walt and John J. Mearsheimer, Paul R. Pillar, Murray Friedman, Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, have all written on these issues.
Yet Hanson, like other Neoconservative shills, does not even take some time responding to those people. (It has recently been pointed out that even South African experts were telling Bush and Blair that Hussein had no WMDs and that it would be a terrible mistake to invade a sovereign nation such as Iraq.)
I was really disappointed with Hanson, Sowell and Coulter when they failed to address the evidence that the scholars cited above have produced. But it gets worse. Just this year alone, Petraeus, Hanson’s general savior in Iraq, was found guilty of not only lying but passing classified documents to his mistress, Paula Broadwell.
So, Petraeus made a grave mistake, which cost precious Muslim and American lives and trillions of dollars, and he wants to move on as a private citizen. No apology to Muslim countries which are still reaping the detrimental the cost. No apology to precious mothers and fathers who are still weeping for the precious sons and daughters in the war. Petraeus is telling us that life must continue as if nothing happened.
What is so pathetic about this whole issue is that Petraeus was being summoned again to give his great insight about ISIS.
Can Hanson confront those issues?
Well, we already know the answer to that question. Hanson’s intellectual deterioration seems to have no boundary. He writes that “Europe is shrinking because child-raising is seen as a drag and the state ensures old-age care without the need for family support — until the money runs out.”
But he rails against Putin because he is “aggressive.” For Hanson, China, Iran, Russia, and ISIS are “the four horsemen of a looming apocalypse.” Nothing could be further from the truth. As columnist Elias Isquith adequately put it last year, Hanson sees the world
“being overrun by Orcs, who are like Nazis, who are like ISIS, who are like Putin, who is like Benghazi, and so on — and how the weak would-be Chamberlains in the White House and throughout Europe are doing precious little to save us.”
This “neoconservative worldview,” says Isquith, “is essentially no different from that of a decades-old fantasy saga, one in which most of the world’s problems can be solved by saying the word “evil” a bunch, forming alliances with killer elves, and running around yelling while carrying a big sword.”
Hanson is not that stupid. He knows that Putin has been supporting family values from time immemorial. And he knows that it is America, not Russia, that is degrading family values.
But since Hanson is living in an irrational world which pledges allegiance to the Dreadful Few and which is hostile to Logos and all its manifestation, since he has internalized the commands of his oppressors, he cannot make a rational point with respect to Russia. He has no choice but to attack Vladimir Putin.
In fact, one can say that irrationality is at the core of the Neoconservative ideology. We have already seen what happened to Neocon intellectuals who happened to be Goyim.
Take again Ann Coulter and her “f–ing Jews” comment. Because she lacks the theological and historical vocabulary to articulate the central issue, Coulter has to resort to profanity to make a point. The Dreadful Few were more than ready to jump on her. She was like an antelope that got ambushed by a horde of lions.
“If Israel had our open-border policies,” says Coulter, “it would be overrun with Palestinian, Jordanian, and Eritrean criminals. Jews forthrightly ask: Is it good for the Jews? Why can’t Americans ask: Is it good for America?”
That was indeed a heavy burden and unpardonable sin, and Coulter obviously knew that she was too skinny to carry that huge political sin on her back. She then began to beg for mercy. “I’m pro-Israel,” she said.
“Anyone with a pulse knows I am pro-Israel and against the enemies of the Jewish people. I have a whole chapter in my current book praising Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.”
Coulter said many uncomfortable things in the past. She talked about black crimes, immigration, etc. But the moment she opened her mouth and said the unprintable word, she was then out of the political equation.
After spending hours begging her bosses to forgive her and to take her back to the political club, Coulter finally got some help. Dennis Prager eventually rescued her from political oblivion. Prager, who is an Orthodox Jewish talk show host, wrote in the Jerusalem Post:
“We need to be very careful before labeling people anti-Semites.”
True. But why doesn’t Prager and others think that this only works for puppets like Coulter? Why didn’t Prager reflect on that thought when he co-wrote Why the Jews?: The Reason for Anti-Semitism? In that particular book, Prager and his co-author Joseph Telushkin made this incredible assertion:
“Though affirmation of God’s existence was not widespread among the early Soviet Jewish dissidents, they did deny the proclaimed truths of communism.”
This is really pathetic, particularly when it comes from people who ought to know better. So, if they denied the “proclaimed truths of communism,” what was the Bolshevik Revolution about? Peace on earth and good will toward all men?
Prager and his co-author moved from bad to worse, saying crazy things such as “The Jews’ monotheism…has been the single most important factor in Christian anti-Semitism.”
One needn’t be a historian to see that this claim is historically perverse and worthless. Does “monotheism” include suppressing the poor and producing diabolical movements over the centuries? How about the ideologies of Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Sigmund Freud, Leon Trotsky, to name just a few? As French Jewish writer Bernard Lazare put it:
“If this hostility, this repugnance had been shown towards the Jews at one time or in one country only, it would be easy to account for the local causes of this sentiment. But this race has been the object of hatred with all the nations amidst whom it ever settled. Inasmuch as the enemies of the Jews belonged to diverse races; as they dwelled far apart from one another, were ruled by different laws and governed by opposite principles; as they had not the same customs and differed in spirit from one another, so that they could not possibly judge alike of any subject, it must needs be that the general causes of anti-Semitism have always resided in Israel itself, and not in those who antagonized it.”
Michael Jones documents in his ground-shaking book that Jewish behavior has always been the cause of anti-Jewish reactions throughout history—from the time of Christ to our present age. The theological equation, argues Jones, is pretty simple:
“When Jews rejected Christ, they rejected Logos, and when they rejected Logos, which includes within itself the principles of social order, they became revolutionaries. Jews may have become revolutionaries at the foot of the cross, but the full implications of their decision didn’t become apparent until 30 years later, when Jews rebelled against Rome, and Rome retaliated by destroying the Temple.”
Some Goyim have adopted Jewish discourse in saying that the issue hinges on DNA, but the issue is metaphysically theological.
 As a classic example, see Victor Davis Hanson, “Is the West Slip, Slip, Slipping Away?,” National Review, October 26, 2015.
 Ben Shapiro, Porn Generation (Washington: Regnery Publishing, 2005), chapter 2.
 “Pussy Riot ‘Desecrated’ Cathedral – Russian Church Head,” Sputnik News, March 24, 2012.
 Vladimir Kara-Murza, “The Kremlin’s Continued Attack on Dissent,” World Affairs, November 20, 2015.
 Michelle Van Cleave, “What It Takes: In Defense of the NSA,” World Affairs, November/December 2013.
 Ann Coulter, Never Trust a Liberal Over 3—Especially a Republican (Washington: Regnery Publishing, 2013), 68.
 Ann Coulter, Guilty: Liberal “Victims” and Their Assault on America (New York: Crown Forum, 2008), 194, 251.
 See for example Karen J. Greenberg and Joshua L. Dratel, ed., The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 205); Mark Danner, Torture and Truth: America, Abu Ghraib, and the War on Terror (New York: New York Review of Books, 2004); David Cole, Torture Memos: Rationalizing the Unthinkable (New York: The New Press, 2009); Jane Mayer, The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals (New York: Anchor Books, 2009); Seymour M. Hersh, Chain of Command: The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib (New York: Harper Perennial, 2005); Steven Strasser, The Abu Ghraib Investigations: The Official Independent Panel and Pentagon Reports on the Shocking Prisoner Abuse in Iraq (New York: Public Affairs, 2004).
 Tevi Troy, “How the GOP Went Zionist,” Commentary, November 10, 2015.
 Andrew Cockburn, Rumsfeld: His Rise, Fall, and Catastrophic Legacy (New York: Scribner, 2007), 219.
 Quoted in David Martosko, “Trump plans trip overseas to visit Netanyahu as he tells Virginia crowd he’s ‘very, very, very pro-Israel’ – and PRAISES Putin for ‘dropping bombs all over ISIS,’” Daily Mail, December 3, 2015.
 Antonio Olivo, “Trump says he plans to visit Israel to meet with Netanyahu,” Washington Post, December 2, 2015.
 Eliza Collins, “Trump aligns with Putin in accusing Turkey of siding with ISIL,” Politico, December 1, 2015.
 Quoted in Josh Nathan-Kazis, “Donald Trump’s Rise Sparks Widespread Angst Among Jewish Republicans,” Forward, September 10, 2015.
 See for example John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (New York: Farrar & Straus, 2006); Paul R. Pillar, Intelligence and U.S. Foreign Policy: Iraq, 9/11, and Misguided Reform (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011); John J. Mearsheimer, Why Leaders Lie: The Truth About Lying in International Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011); Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, America Alone: The Neoconservatives and the Global Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).
 “Iraq War Cost U.S. More Than $2 Trillion, Could Grow to $6 Trillion, Says Watson Institute Study,” Huffington Post, March 14, 2013; Bob Dreyfuss, “The $6 Trillion Wars,” The Nation, March 29, 2013; Michael B Kelley and Geoffrey Ingersoll, “The Iraq War Could Cost More Than $6 Trillion,” Business Insider, March 14, 2013.
 See for example John Hagan and Joshua Kaiser, Iraq and the Crimes of Aggressive War: The Legal Cynicism of Criminal Militarism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015); Mark Kukis, Voices from Iraq: A People’s History, 2003-2009 (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011).
 Thomas Sowell, “Who Lost Iraq?,” Jewish World Review, June 9, 2015.
 Andrew Bacevich, Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed their Soldiers and Their Country (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2013), 94, 105.
 Thomas Sowell, “The Left Has Its Pope,” Jewish World Review, September 22, 2015.
 E. Michael Jones, Barren Metal: A History of Capitalism as the Conflict Between Labor and Usury (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2014), 1374.
 “Iceland’s jailed bankers ‘a model’ for dealing with ‘financial terrorists,’” Russia Today, December 14, 2013; “Iceland jails former Kaupthing bank bosses,” BBC, December 12, 2013; “Icelandic Bankers Sentenced to Prison,” Iceland Review, February 12, 2015.
 “Iceland does what the US won’t: 26 top bankers sent to prison for role in financial crisis,” Raw Story, October 21, 2015; “Iceland, Where Bankers Actually Go To Jail For Committing White-Collar Crimes,” Think Progress, October 23, 2015; “Iceland Has Sentenced 26 Bankers To Prison While US White Collar Prosecutions Hit Record Low,” MintPress News, October 23, 2015.
 Victor Davis Hanson, “Is the West Dead Yet?,” National Review, September 8, 2015.
 “Storm on the Horizon: Does Soros Want to Inflame Revolution in Europe?,” Sputnik News, November 13, 2015.
 “Soros and Co. Harboring New ‘Color Revolution’… This Time in Europe,” Sputnik News, October 8, 2015.
 Kelly Riddell, “George Soros funds Ferguson protests, hopes to spur civil action,” Washington Times, January 14, 2015.
 E. Michael Jones, “Soros or Cyrus?: The Violent Legacy of the Black/Jewish Alliance,” Culture Wars, December 2015.
 Hanson, “Is the West Dead Yet?,” National Review, September 8, 2015.
 For a study on similar issues, see Murray Friedman, The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and Public Policy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005); Stephen M. Walt and John J. Mearsheimer, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (New York: Farrar & Straus, 2006); Paul R. Pillar, Intelligence and U.S. Foreign Policy (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011); John J. Mearsheimer, Why Leaders Lie: The Truth About Lying in International Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011); Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, America Alone: The Neoconservatives and the Global Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); Jesus Velasco, Neoconservatives in U.S. Foreign Policy under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush: Voices behind the Throne (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010).
 Quoted in Ari Shavit, “White Man’s Burden,” Haaretz, April 3, 2003.
 Victor Davis Hanson, The Savior Generals: How Five Great Commanders Saved Wars That Were Lost – From Ancient Greece to Iraq (New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2013), chapter 5.
 ‘Too dumb’: Ex-US intelligence chief blames Iraq War, poor strategy for rise of ISIS,” Russia Today, December 1, 2015; “Ex-US Intelligence Chief on Islamic State’s Rise: ‘We Were Too Dumb,’” Spiegel International, November 29, 2015.
 David Smith, “Blair and Bush went to war in Iraq despite South Africa’s WMD assurances, book states,” Guardian, November 30, 2015.
 See for example Rad Berky, “Petraeus gets probation for leaking secrets to mistress,” USA Today, April 23, 2015; Timothy M. Phelps and David S. Cloud, “David Petraeus pleads guilty to giving classified journals to mistress,” LA Times, March 3, 2015.
 Ray McGovern, “General David Petraeus: Too Big To Jail,” Commondreams.org, March 6, 2015.
 Hanson, “Is the West Dead Yet?,” National Review, September 8, 2015.
 Elias Isquith, “This neoconservative pundit’s tweet on ISIS really says it all,” Salon, September 9, 2014.
 Quoted in Mary Bowerman, “Ann Coulter rants about ‘Jews’ and Israel during GOP debate,” USA Today, September 17, 2015.
 Ann Coulter Calls Fury Over Jewish-Debate Tweet ‘Fake Outrage’: ‘I’m Pro-Israel,’” Hollywood Reporter, September 17, 2015.
 Dennis Prager, “Comment: Ann Coulter is not an anti-Semite,” Jerusalem Post, September 28, 2015.
 Dennis Prager and Joseph Tlushkin, Why the Jews? The Reason for Anti-Semitism (New York: Touchtone, 1983 and 2003), 17.
 Ibid., 16.
 Bernard Lazare, Anti-Semitism: Its History and Causes (New York: Cosimo, 2005), 8.
 E. Michael Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2008), 15-16.
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.