– The U.S. Trained Terrorist Group ISIS in 2012 (Veterans Today, June 20, 2014):
“The U.S. will for decades be reaping the whirlwind of its incompetent and insanely stupid ‘divide and conquer’ plan in the Muslim World.”
– Jack D. Douglas, former sociologist at the University of California
Trouble is still brewing in Iraq, and the neoconservatives are once again on the front line saying that we ought to “liberate” the country by sending more troops and attacking the Frankensteinian terrorist monster (ISIS) they themselves had helped create. Saddam, those neoconservatives told us, was the new Hitler on the block and had to go.
In the end, the neoconservatives powerfully used the strategy of fear to bleed America in 2003. As intellectuals, they knew pretty well that fear can be used as a weapon in the culture war. Once they walked into a radio station or started writing in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other Zionist media outlets, they started creating fear in the hearts of the vast majority of Americans. You could hear their voices as if they were basically saying:
“Saddam is under bed; he’s outside your window; he’s in your secret closet; he’s hiding in the wardrobe; he’s at the shopping mall; he’s going to come out soon; watch out!”
If you think this is an exaggeration, read Mersheimer and Walt’s The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.
But since Saddam is dead, the neoconservatives have invented countless new Hitlers all over the Middle East and elsewhere in order to propagate perpetual wars.
Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Max Boot, Richard Perle, David Frum, Robert Kagan, Bill Kristol, David Horowitz, among others, never got tired of beating the war drum. Those warmongers are alive and well and they have taken over the political landscape and much of the media once again.
Who cares if they created a disaster in 2003 in the same region? Who cares if they deliberately lied about the war? Who cares if they bragged about it afterwards in major newspapers such as Haaretz and the New York Times?
When Paul Wolfowitz was told by deputy national security advisor Stephen Hadley that there was no link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, Wolfowitz responded with certainty, “We’ll find it. It’s got to be there,” which is another way of saying that if it does not exist, they would make it up and tell the American people that Saddam was indeed behind 9/11.
They don’t give a squat about what you think. They want to continue perpetual wars at your expense, even when pension plans are still issues that have not been fully solved in places like Detroit and when decent college graduates are still struggling to find jobs in a shaky economy. Those neocons will not be satisfied until their mission is fully accomplished.
What is so frightening is that they will invoke some of the dumbest and the most ludicrous ideas in order to feel good about themselves and alleviate the guilt they might have from the chaos they had created in the Middle East.
As a classic example, some neoconservatives have gone so far as to blame the 2008 economic crash on terrorists and parties outside the United States! Kevin D. Freeman, the author of “Economic Warfare: Risks and Responses,” declares that “a three-phased attack was planned and is in the process against the United States economy.”
These “outside forces” include Islamic terrorists, the Chinese military, Russia, Venezuela, and Iran. Where is the evidence for these spurious notions?
Freeman provides none, but admits that this is only theoretical. Paul Bracken of Yale declares that there is “no convincing evidence that ‘outside forces’ colluded to bring about the 2008 crisis.”
It has become common knowledge that U.S. allies such as Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia actually funded the terrorist groups that are now roaming Iraq.
In fact, there is a direct link between those terrorists and the U.S. foreign policy. Last year, Spiegel declared that Americans were training the Syrian rebels in Jordan to oust Assad. But the evidence went back to 2012:
“Members of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIS, were trained in 2012 by U.S. instructors working at a secret base in Jordan, according to informed Jordanian officials.
“The officials said dozens of ISIS members were trained at the time as part of covert aid to the insurgents targeting the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. The officials said the training was not meant to be used for any future campaign in Iraq.”
Mainstream media outlets such as the Daily Beast are indirectly saying the same thing. “As ISIS takes over town after town in Iraq, they are acquiring money and supplies including American made vehicles, arms, and ammunition.”
The plot thickens. By supporting and training terrorist groups, the United States of America has progressively become a terrorist state itself. In other words, the United States can magically create terrorist groups out of thin air and fight them later at your expense.
As a corollary, the 9/11 attack played an influential role in giving the dreadful few enormous power over us. But the people who suffer most are largely decent Muslims living in America. Listen to this:
“Nearly 95 per cent of terrorist arrests have been the result of FBI foiling its own entrapment plots as a part of the so-called post-9/11 War on Terror, a new study revealed.
“According to thereport entitled ‘Inventing Terrorists: The Lawfare of Preemptive Prosecution’, the majority of arrests involved the unjust prosecution of targeted Muslim Americans.
“The 175-page study by Muslim advocacy group SALAM analyzes 399 individuals in cases included on the list of the US Department of Justice from 2001 to 2010.
“According to this study’s classification, the number of preemptive prosecution cases is 289 out of 399, or 72.4 percent. The number of elements of preemptive prosecution cases is 87 out of 399, or 21.8 percent.
“Combining preemptive prosecution cases and elements of preemptive prosecution cases, the total number of such cases on the DOJ list is 376, or 94.2 percent, the report concluded.
“The authors define ‘preemptive prosecution’ as “a law enforcement strategy adopted after 9/11, to target and prosecute individuals or organizations whose beliefs, ideology, or religious affiliations raise security concerns for the government.”
Moreover, the neoconservatives can magically tell decent Americans that they are really fighting terrorism—and many Americans will believe it. Neoconservative shill Thomas Sowell still believes that Americans liberated Iraq in 2003! How did America sink that low?
Well, we have been saying for months that once the neoconservative took over the U.S. foreign policy, they turned everything into Jewish revolutionary cells. What was up was down and what was down was up. What was really dumb became rational and what was rational became dumb. What was immoral became moral and what was moral became immoral.
Those Jewish revolutionaries, as scholars Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke put it, “pay little heed to the role of nonmilitary factors such as economic insentive, poverty alleviation, soft power, environmental loss, or international commerce.”
In that sense, the ideological agendas of this new Jewish movement are diametrically opposed “to the general cast of the American temperament as embodied by the Declaration of Independence.”
First, those those neocons took over the colleges and universities and dramatically turned them into revolutionary cells. Leo Strauss, one of the academic fathers of neoconservatism, who also was “a follower of the right-wing Zionist Vladimir Jabotinsky,”
“had nothing but disdain for most members of the political science department at the University of Chicago. He would mock them in his lecture. He loathed the abstract social science they practiced, which was devoid of values and morality, relying instead on polling data and behavioral studies. Strauss offered something different…
“Strauss’s students were supposed to shun commentaries. They weren’t supposed to read the original works; they were adjured to decipher them—to read them, word by word, line by line, as the rabbinic sages had studied the Talmud. For some, this hermeneutical approach was liberating; others were permanently crippled by it….”
“Strauss himself intimated to his students that he had discovered the key to the highest form of knowledge and that as his disciples they would become part of an elect that included the greatest minds in human history.
“Strauss (intentionally or otherwise) propagated the idea of an elite that could guide the vulgar multitude.”
The elite turned out to be the neoconservatives, who eventually took over the American foreign policy and disregarded what the vast majority of Americans think. Jewish writer Sidney Blumenthal has argued that the movement found its political and intellectual ideology “in the disputatious heritage of the Talmud.”
We know that the Talmud is anti-Gentile, and it is no accident that the neoconservatives pay little attention to what you and I think.
For example, Americans can overwhelmingly oppose sending more troops to Iraq, but the neoconservatives have continued to argue that we are going to Iraq because America is fighting for Iraq’s freedom and democracy.
In that sense for their democracy to occur, lots of people have to die. Over 500 people have already lost their lives in the recent debacle in Iraq, and you can be sure that that figure is bound to triple within the next few weeks or months.
But Jewish revolutionary movements, like psychoanalysis, cannot operate without some Goyim prostrating before money, power, and fame.
Sigmund Freud for example knew that for psychoanalysis to thrive, the Goyim had to be on board. This was one reason why he chose Carl Jung as one of his collaborators, though they part company in 1913.
We see the same thing in the neoconservative movement. If you look at some of the Goyim in America (Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Rumseld, Obama) and England (Tony Blair), you would assume that the Goyim are indeed in control of the foreign policy.
But neither Bush nor Blair or Obama could make major move in the Middle East without the approval of the neoconservatives or their Jewish boss. Keep in mind that it was Bill Kristol who said that Obama is a “born-again neocon.”
When Kristol made this pronouncement on Fox News, one of the hosts declared that “people who voted for Obama got four more years of Bush.” To which Kristol responded, “Yeah.”
Since Obama is now a fully-matured neocon with a neo-liberal slant, he can actually tell Congress point-blank: “I don’t need new permission on Iraq.” In other words, once the neoconservatives took over American foreign policy, the U.S. Constitution and what the Founding Fathers had previously said are irrelevant and therefore dismissive.
It must be emphasized that we are facing a formidable challenge here, and that challenge cannot be resolved within the “Left” and “Right” parameters. Granted, the “Left” and the “Right” differ on several points, but their ideological and metaphysical foundation is Jewish, which theologically is Talmudic, which works against all mankind, and which always revolves around suppressing the poor, enslaving nations, and destroying lives.
As Civilta Cattolica put it in the nineteenth century, Talmudic ideology will eventually reduce everyone “into a kind of moral nothingness, which contradicts the basic principles of the natural law.”
If you don’t think this is the case, look at the recent neoconservative ideology in the Ukraine, where neocon Victoria Nuland signed pacts with neo-Nazis to destroy and overthrow the old government and to enter into a conflict with Russia.
And guess what? People like Michael Savage (born Michael Alan Weiner) actually believe that it was the liberals—yes, liberals!—who were actually trying to create a conflict with Russia. Listen to this man very carefully here:
Now there is no doubt that Dr. Weiner knows about Victoria Nuland and other Jewish neoconservatives such as Max Boot, Bill Kristol, Jonathan S. Tobin, etc. Dr. Weiner probably knows that Israel was also involved in the Ukrainian coup.
Furthermore, it would be really disingenuous of him to say that he didn’t know Victoria Nuland said “Fuck the E.U.” Yet Dr. Weiner chose to put the blame on other people because both Nuland and Weiner are Jewish.
Dr. Weiner doesn’t want to take the road less traveled because that would strengthen the point that you cannot examine Jewish revolutionary movements through the “Liberal” and “Conservative” parameters. He keeps talking about immigration and how we need to close down our borders, but who is really behind this movement?
Well, obviously Dr. Weiner doesn’t want to know because finding the answer to this question would probably raise his blood pressure sky high. Perhaps he needs to pick up the Jewish Daily Forward and see what it says about the forces behind the movement.
Think about this for a moment: both “Liberals” and “Conservatives”–at least as they are being played in the political landscape in America–start on different ideological tendencies but end up with death. You want death in the Middle East? Vote for a Republican. You want death in America through abortion, which will eventually weaken the U.S. population? Vote for a Democrat.
But now the two ideologies (“Republicans” and “Democrats”) are beginning to merge, as Obama has progressively become a “born-again neocon,” which is to say that he is politically handcuffed by the neoconservative ideology with respect to insulting and sacking the Declaration of Independence.
Here is another classic example:
“On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband’s real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.”
When the vast majority of the American people were struggling to make ends meet, Feinstein was using the crisis to make billions of dollars. And if you think you can explain this situation within the “Left and “Right matrix, think again:
“Mrs. Feinstein’s intervention on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was unusual: the California Democrat isn’t a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC; and the agency is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments – not direct federal dollars.
“Documents reviewed by The Washington Times show Mrs. Feinstein first offered Oct. 30 to help the FDIC secure money for its effort to stem the rise of home foreclosures.
“Her letter was sent just days before the agency determined that CB Richard Ellis Group (CBRE) – the commercial real estate firm that her husband Richard Blum heads as board chairman – had won the competitive bidding for a contract to sell foreclosed properties that FDIC had inherited from failed banks.”
In short, if one looks at the Jewish question through the lens of the two political parties in America, it is irreducibly incomprehensible. One has to go beyond the political landscape in order to make sense of the metaphysical forces that post beneath the surface.
The metaphysical forces, as Civilta Cattolica rightly pointed out in the nineteenth century, does not “originate in the loathing of the race, as implied by the improperly applied adjective, Semitic.”
Those forces had their inception in a complete rejection of the moral and political order, and that rejection has been codified in a theological text called the Talmud, which over the centuries has largely become the nuts and bolts of the Jewish people. As Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz wrote in The Essential Talmud:
“In many ways the Talmud is the most important book in Jewish culture, the backbone of creativity and of national life. No other work has had a comparable influence on the theory and practice of Jewish life, shaping spiritual content and serving as a guide to conduct.”
At the end of 2010, a new edition of the Talmud was complete, and Jewish communities in Palm Beach and Broward counties, Florida, celebrated the monumental event. On that day, Rabbi Michael Stern declared,
“The Talmud is the lifeblood of the people. Most Judaism practiced today is not the Five Books of Moses. You would find it in the Talmud.” Rabbi Alan Sherman added, “It’s not just rabbis who study the Talmud; all Jews do, in one way or another.”
This is where the issue begins and ends. As we have seen in several articles, it doesn’t begin and end with bad DNA. As Civilta Cattolica again declared:
“And that the sinister codex of the Talmud, even beyond the rules of an execrable morality, commands hatred of all men who don’t have Jewish blood, and especially Christians, and makes it licit to spoliate and ill-treat them like noxious beasts, isn’t any longer one of its doctrinal points that can be denied.”
Perhaps it is high time for serious observers to drop frivolous theories such as bad DNA and look at the issue at a more historical and theological level. Only then will they be able to escape their own morally repugnant and intellectually risible contradictions.
 Timothy Noah, “Fathers and Sons,” NY Times, January 13, 2008.
 Jacob Heilbrun, “The Neocon Surge,” Politico, June 18, 2014.
 Quoted in Thomas E. Ricks, “Fear Factor,” NY times, October 5, 2012.
 Mary Williams Walsh, “Detroit Rolls Out New Model: A Hybrid Pension Plan,” NY Times, June 18, 2014.
 Adam Davidson, “It’s Official: The Boomerang Kids Won’t Leave,” NY Times, June 20, 2014.
 Bill Gertz, “Financial Terrorism Suspected in 2008 Economic Crash,” Washington Times, February 28, 2011.
 “U.S. Training Syrian Rebels In Jordan, Der Spiegel Reports,” Huffington Post, October 3, 2013; see also Julian Borger and Nick Hopkins, “West Training Syrian Rebels in Syria,” Guardian, March 8, 2013; “Americans Are Training Syrian Rebels in Jordan,” Jerusalem Post, October 3, 2013; Mark Landler and Michael R. Gordon, “U.S. Offers Training and Other Aid to Syrian Rebels,” NY Times, February 7, 2013.
 Josh Rogin, “America’s Allies Are Funding ASIS,” Daily Beast, June 14, 2014.
 Thomas Sowell, “A Bitter After-Taste,” Jewish World Review, June 16, 2014.
 Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, America Alone: The Neoconservatives and the Global Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), 13.
 Jacob Heilbrunn, They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons (New York: Anchor Books, 2009), 91, 92.
 Sidney Blumenthal, The Rise of the Counter-Establishment: From Conservative Ideology to Political Power (New York: HarperCollins, 1998), 124.
 I have addressed this issue in Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism (volume II).
 Chuck Neubauer, “Senator’s Husband’s Firm Cashes in on Crisis,” Washington Times, April 21, 2009.
 See for example Peter Schafer, Jesus in the Talmud (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007).
 Adin Steinsaltz, The Essential Talmud (New York: Basic Books, 2006), 3.
 James Davis, “Jewish Communities in South Florida Celebrate New Edition of the Talmud,” Palm Beach Post, November 5, 2010.