Exposing Intelligence Agency Human Rights Abuses, Government and Corporate Corruption Along with the Problems of Zionism. The Foundation of Freedom is Freedom of Thought and Freedom of Speech
While Washington’s Gulf-funded think tank experts spun out public relations for the allies of Al Qaeda, ISIS found defenders in Israel. At the Likud Party-linked Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, its director Efraim Inbar promoted the Islamic State in Syria as a boon to Israel’s strategic deterrence. In an op-ed entitled “The Destruction of Islamic State Is a Strategic Mistake,” Inbar argued, “The West should seek the further weakening of Islamic State, but not its destruction.”
Instead, he insisted, it should exploit ISIS as a “useful tool” in the fight against Israel’s true enemy, Iran and its proxy, Hezbollah, which operates on Israeli frontiers from southern Lebanon. “A weak IS is, counterintuitively, preferable to a destroyed IS,” Inbar concluded. Inbar went on to argue for prolonging the conflict in Syria for as long as possible on the grounds that extended sectarian bloodshed would produce “positive change.”
As bracing as it might have been, Inbar’s argument provided a perfect distillation of the Israeli government’s position on the Syrian civil war. “In Syria, if the choice is between Iran and the Islamic State, I choose the Islamic State,” Israel’s former defense minister, Moshe Ya’alon, bluntly stated in 2016. Eager to see an Iranian ally weakened from within and without, the Israeli army occasionally bombed in support of the rebels operating around the southern city of Quneitra and attacked Damascus several times.
The end goal of the Israelis was to establish a buffer zone between itself and Hezbollah, with Sunni Islamists, including Al Qaeda affiliates, acting as its proxies. A rebel commander revealed to the US news outlet Al-Monitor, “The battle to capture Quneitra on Sept. 27 [2014] was preceded by coordination and communications between Abu Dardaa, a leader of Jabhat al-Nusra [Al Qaeda], and the Israeli army to pave the way for the attack.”
Benjamin Netanyahu greeting injured Rebel Fighter
The Israeli military-intelligence apparatus even funded its own unit of the Free Syrian Army, the Golan Knights. “Israel stood by our side in a heroic way,” Moatasem al-Golani, a spokesman for the Golan Knights, told the Wall Street Journal,“We wouldn’t have survived without Israel’s assistance.”
When journalist Bryan Bender visited top Israeli military officials in the occupied Golan Heights, he heard unapologetic arguments for supporting Al Qaeda and ISIS against the Syrian government, Iran and Hezbollah. “If I can be frank, the radical axis headed by Iran is more risky than the global jihad one,” said Army Brigadier General Ram Yavne, the head of the IDF’s Strategic Division. “It is much more knowledgeable, stronger, with a bigger arsenal.” When Bender asked another Israeli official if the United States should allow ISIS to maintain its caliphate in eastern Syria, he replied, “Why not?”
While Israeli military honchos took satisfaction from the bloodshed of Syria’s civil war, ISIS commanders tiptoed around the Israeli military. During a public forum in Israel, the ever-candid former minister of defense, Ya’alon, revealed that an ISIS cell operating alongside the rebels in southern Syria had accidentally launched a mortar into Israeli-controlled territory. “On most occasions, firing comes from regions under the control of the regime,” Ya’alon commented. “But once the firing came from ISIS positions—and it immediately apologized.”
Pushed by Israeli media to clarify his statement about ISIS formally apologizing to Israel—an open admission of an Israeli backchannel to the jihadists—Ya’alon refused further comment.
In Washington, meanwhile, top officials in the Obama administration, including Hillary Clinton, kept their complaints about the channels of state support to ISIS and other jihadist rebel factions confined to private discussions. There was a lot to lose in venting their frustrations in public, including the massive donations their own political operations received from the very same sources.
All along, Clinton knew that the major donors to her family’s vehicle for charity and influence peddling—a key platform for her forthcoming presidential campaign—were propping up ISIS and Al Qaeda in Syria. In a 2014 email to her longtime political confidant John Podesta, Clinton singled out Qatar and Saudi Arabia as the principal benefactors of the Islamic State. “While this military/para-military operation is moving forward,” she wrote, citing Western and US intelligence sources, “we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.”
Vice President Joseph Biden was even more explicit. Discussing the challenges facing America in Syria, he stated, “Our biggest problem is our allies.” Singling out Turkey and Saudi Arabia, Biden complained at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government in October 2014, “They were so determined to take down Assad and essentially have a proxy Sunni–Shia war; what did they do? They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad. Except that the people who were being supplied were Al-Nusra and Al Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world.”
Biden’s candid comments were immediately labeled as a “gaffe” by the Washington Post’s Adam Taylor, who grumbled about the “worrying habit of lumping al-Qaeda’s al-Nusra Front in with Islamic State.” For daring to give credence to what was already widely known, Biden was forced to embark on the equivalent of an international apology tour the same month, issuing “a formal clarification” to Turkey’s Erdoğan and thanking Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister for his country’s supposed cooperation in the fight against ISIS. After Biden’s pathetic retreat, scarcely anyone in Washington, whether in government, the world of think tank experts, or in the press corps, dared to openly confront America’s core Middle Eastern allies for their backing of Al Qaeda and ISIS.
Besides Saudi Arabia and Qatar, there was ample evidence that Turkey was taking a lead role in fueling Islamist militancy in Syria’s north. A leaked 2015 report from the Turkish Gendarmerie General Command found that lorries filled with heavy weapons had been sent by the Turkish intelligence services to resupply al-Nusra. “The trucks were carrying weapons and supplies to the al-Qaeda terror organization,” the report read. The government of Turkish president Erdoğan promptly banned all media coverage of the scandal and placed the soldiers who carried out the searches on trial for espionage.
A twenty-nine-year-old Lebanese American named Serena Shim had been reporting on these developments on the Turkish border for Press TV, the Iranian government’s English language channel. She was among the first correspondents to cover the transfer of arms from the Incirlik US air base in Turkey to insurgents in Syria. Her sister, Fatmeh, told local media in her hometown of Detroit, Michigan, that Shim “caught [Turkish intelligence] bringing ISIS high-ranked members into Syria from Turkey into camps, which are supposed to be Syrian refugee camps.” Shim began to fear for her life, complaining that Turkish intelligence considered her a spy. “I’m hoping that nothing is going to happen, that it’s going to blow over,” she told Press TV, the Iranian network, on October 18.
Turkey-backed FSA capture the city of Afrin in Syria.
One day later, Shim died in a car accident. The story of her death was buried, with no acknowledgement from Reporters Without Borders or the Committee to Protect Journalists. American media scarcely covered it at all. Press TV said the car that she died in and its driver had disappeared. Her family never accepted the official version of events and has pressed in vain for an investigation….
For more articles on ISIS, see the categories on my blog here and here. ============================================================================= MintPress explores the striking parallels between groups like ISIS and Zionists in their quest to secure politico-religious control in the Middle East, expand their territory and implement exclusionary policies. By Catherine Shakdam
Over the past decade, the Middle East — the cradle of civilization and the birthplace of the three major monotheistic religions — has become a flashpoint for religious extremism and fascism. The general public has grown used to associating radicalism with Islam, even to such an extent that the general notion is that the Islamic faith is the expression of religious extremism par excellence.
Yet such assessments have generally failed to take into account an equally dangerous radical trend that has been unfolding in the region for decades — Zionism.
“Although unpopular and deeply politically incorrect the notion might be, Zionism remains nevertheless a reality which the international community cannot afford to turn a blind eye on, especially since its ideology entails and affirms itself on the annihilation of an entire people — the Muslim people,” Rabbi Meir Hirsh, a member of the Neturei Karta, told MintPress News of the effort of Jews to regain and retain their biblical homeland — the historic “Land of Israel.”
Noting that the rise of Zionism is not just a Palestinian issue, Rabbi Hirsh warned that the Zionist absorption of Palestine is “the first step toward the rise of Greater Israel.”
“Criticism toward Israel has become such a social and political taboo that the public has been blinded to the truth. People can no longer see, let alone fathom, that Israel has become just as radical, intolerant and extreme in its views as Islamists have proven to be. I would actually argue that ISIS [Islamic State of Iraq and Syria] carries disturbing Zionist characteristics, not only in its ideology but its policies, even though it claims to seek to destroy Israel.”
#JSIL
In late September, “#JSIL” became a social media sensation. The play on words comparing the notion of a Jewish State of Israel and the Levant (JSIL) to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, or ISIS) was tweeted about 5,200 times at its peak. The hashtag sought to point out that the radical Islamic group that adheres to Takfirism and Zionists share similar characteristics, and in many ways, both ideologies stem from religious exclusivism.
Takfirism is a centuries-old ideology marked by the practice of using a harsh dogmatic lens to judge someone else to be a non-believer. It is defined by the belief that Muslims are required to cleanse their faith to be once more worthy of the pure Islam, as prescribed and practiced during the first caliphate in the 7th century. It calls upon its adherents to settle together in isolated communities and fight against infidels.
The movement experienced a revival in 1967, when Cairo was suddenly confronted by the Israeli military’s might and superiority and the country’s Arabs and Muslims were forced to grapple with the possibility of their world falling to another religious denomination — Judaism. Thus, in reaction to an attack they perceived as spiritual, groups of Muslims began their journey toward Takfirism and radicalization. Today, radical groups like al-Qaida and ISIS count themselves as adherents to the ideology.
As far as radicalism goes, investigative journalist Max Blumenthal is among the many who have pointed to the striking similarities between ISIS and Zionists, not only in the formulation and expression of their radical views but also in the deep-seated belief that the assertion of their ideology entails the destruction and negation of all others. Moreover, both groups operate on the same political plane and both advocate territorial expansion and political absorption.
Speaking of the commonalities existing in between Takfirism and Zionism, Rabbi Hirsh emphasized that the two movements are even identical in their blood patterns.
“If ISIS has proven sickening in its killing of innocent civilians and its taste for gruesome public executions, the same can be said of Israel. Was it not Ariel Sharon, Israel’s then-Defense Minister, who ordered the massacres of Sabra and Shatila, where thousands of Palestinian civilians were slaughtered? Was it not again Israel who targeted unarmed children on a Gaza beach this summer? Or was it not Israel who rationalized the killing of women and children in the name of its survival?”
While many may find the parallels uncomfortable to confront, the notion that ISIS and Zionists share not only common values, but identical ideological claims has been a recurring theme of late. United in their religious intolerance and exclusionism, experts — including Israel Shahak and Michel Chossudovsky of the Center for Research on Globalization — have argued that the ideologies have more in common than the world might care to acknowledge.
Yet some have pushed the envelope even further, positing that ISIS is no more than a Zionist creation engineered to serve Zionists’ hegemonic agenda in the Levant to see manifest on the ground a new political and institutional reality in the form of Greater Israel.
ISIS is an “operation by the West to create the greater Israel,” American author James Henry Fetzer told Tehran-based PressTV in an interview in August.
Such views were echoed by international security scholar and investigative journalist Nafeez Ahmed in a report republished by MintPress in September. In “How The West Created ISIS,” Ahmed wrote:
“Since 2003, Anglo-American power has secretly and openly coordinated direct and indirect support for Islamist terrorist groups linked to al-Qaeda across the Middle East and North Africa. This ill-conceived patchwork geostrategy is a legacy of the persistent influence of neoconservative ideology, motivated by longstanding but often contradictory ambitions to dominate regional oil resources, defend an expansionist Israel, and in pursuit of these, re-draw the map of the Middle East.”
In regards to Israel’s motives in the region, Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, a sociologist who specializes in the Middle East and Central Asia and the author of “The Globalization of NATO,” told MintPress, “What Israel is seeking is Israeli dominance, and this is very different from seeking religious supremacy in the region of the Levant.”
“Aside from token lip-service, Israel is not seeking the supremacy of Judaism at all. In fact, Tel Aviv has undermined the Jewish faith. The roots of the mainstream Zionism that Theodor Herzl subscribed to are based on the separation of the Jewish people from the Jewish faith (in other words, turning Jews into an ethnic category outside of faith and believing in Elohim or God and the Torah),” he explained.
Greater Israel: A Zionist dream
According to Theodor Herzl, the founding father of Zionism as a politico-religious movement in the late 19th century, “The area of the Jewish State stretches: From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.”
Another fervent Zionist and leading official, Rabbi Fischmann, a member of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, made a similar declaration in his testimony to the U.N. Special Committee of Enquiry on July 9, 1947: “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates; it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”
Ever since political Zionism emerged in Europe in the 19th century, supporters of the movement have lobbied for and strived to to re-create what they perceive as their political and religious heritage and their birth right: the re-establishment of a Jewish state, exclusive to the Jewish people, within the territory defined by the Jewish Scriptures as the Promised Land of Israel.
The appropriation — or, as some argue, the misappropriation — of Palestine by Israel was never the end game for Zionists, but the cornerstone of a Jewish empire.
In an introduction to “‘Greater Israel’: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East,” a report written by Israel Shahak for the Center for Research on Globalization, Global Research Editor Michel Chossudovsky emphasized, “The Zionist project supports the Jewish settlement movement. More broadly it involves a policy of excluding Palestinians from Palestine leading to the eventual annexation of both the West Bank and Gaza to the State of Israel.
“Greater Israel would create a number of proxy States. It would include parts of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, the Sinai, as well as parts of Iraq and Saudi Arabia,” Chossudovsky continued.
Looking at Zionism and how it has manifested through Israel’s policies, Shahak argues that Israel has actively worked toward the balkanization of the Middle East in view of asserting its own political supremacy.
The idea that “Greater Israel” can only be built atop the ruins of the Arab-Islamic world was documented in 1980 by Livia Rokach in her essay, “Israel’s Sacred Terrorism,” in which she details at length how Zionists in the mid-1950s planned to use Lebanon as ground zero for their divide-and-conquer modus operandi. Rather than the irrational work of a conspiracy theorist, Rokach based her argument on the memoirs of former Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharett, putting forward not her personal beliefs but rather the political manifesto of one of Israel’s founding fathers.
Within this narrative, Israel’s invasions of Lebanon in 1978 and 1982 can be understood as the implementation of Israel’s Yinon Plan — a strategy to fragment and weaken neighboring states to ensure Israel’s regional superiority.
Javad Arab Shirazi, an Iranian political analyst, believes that Israel’s attempt in 1982 to fragment not only Lebanon, but also Syria and Jordan, served as a springboard for Zionists’ divisionist policy in the Middle East. “Israel’s claims that it wants to see rise strong independent Arab states at its borders [Lebanon, Syria and Jordan] is laughable. What Israel wants are governments which will sanction its expansionist policy.”
“What Zionists want and what they are planning for is not an Arab world, but a world of Arab fragments that is ready to succumb to Israeli hegemony. Israel wants for the region to bow to its political will; its aims are certainly not democratic,” Shirazi continued, “Everything about Israel is actually the antonym of democracy.”
Likewise, Nazemroaya, the sociologist, noted:
“Zionism as an ideology is not intended on the institutionalization of sectarianism necessarily, but in practice it does do that, particularly in the case of Israel, too. The goals of Israeli officials are to entrench the sectarianism that already exists in their ethnocracy by supporting it in the neighboring states. This is why the Israelis want to see Lebanon, Syria and Iraq divided into political entities for Arabs and Kurds, at the ethnic level, and for Christians, Druze, Twelver Shia Muslims, Alawis, and Sunni Muslims, at the level of faiths.
Two faces of a single coin?
If one can reconcile with the idea that Israel intends to claim territorial legitimacy over more than just Palestine in order to recapture the glory of biblical times, where would Takfirism — the messianic ideology expressed by ISIS — ever fit?
Have ISIS militants not vowed that they will not rest until Israel is defeated and Palestine’s sovereign rights are restored, thus positioning themselves as Israel’s arch-enemies?
Franklin Lamb, a former assistant counsel of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee and professor of International Law at Northwestern College of Law in Oregon, wrote in a report for Media with Conscience that, as of the summer of 2013, ISIS had created a special unit dedicated to the annihilation of Israel and the re-conquest of Palestine.
“ISIS’ ‘Al Quds Unit’ (AQU) is currently working to broaden its influence in more than 60 Palestinian camps and gatherings from Gaza, across Occupied Palestine, to Jordan, and Lebanon up to the north of Syria seeking to enlist support as it prepares to liberate Palestine,” Lamb wrote.
Considering ISIS’ infamous leader Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi has made several grandiloquent anti-Semitic declarations stating his hatred and resentment of Israel, some may think any comparison between Zionism to Takfirism would be far-fetched — especially since the two movements appear to be inherently and fundamentally opposed. Further, as the media has drummed on, Islamic radicalism is best understood in its antipathy and opposition toward Israel.
Yet many experts, analysts and scholars have asserted that Takfirism remains but the expression of Zionist will — a tool in Israel’s hands to destroy the socio-religious fabric of the Middle East.
In October, Iran’s defense minister directly accused Israel of plotting against the Arab people by enabling terror. As the Jerusalem Post reported, “Brig.-Gen. Hossein Dehqan said ISIS and Israel are two sides of the same coin, seeking to weaken the anti-Zionism resistance movements in Palestine, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq.”
Dr. Kevin Barrett, a Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist, told MintPress that he has “no doubt Israel has plotted and conspired against Arab states in the region, playing sectarian and tribal tensions to generate instability” to better further its hegemonic agenda.
“The fact that ISIS has not moved against Israel and instead focused on killing Muslims actually says a lot about this organization’s real mission,” Barrett stressed.
The new Middle East
Yuram Abdullah Weiler, a political analyst and columnist for Tehran Times with a keen interest in radical movements, argues that the manner in which ISIS has expanded its territories is suspicious.
“Looking at a map of the Middle East, it is obvious that ISIS militants sit exactly where Zionists imagine Greater Israel should be. Are we to believe that ISIS’ campaigns in Iraq and Syria and its push toward Egypt and Jordan are but a coincidence?” he told MintPress.
In his report, “How The West Created ISIS,” Nafeez Ahmed argues that ISIS’ actions not only align with Israel’s interests but actually serve the Israeli agenda by balkanizing the greater Levant region. He wrote, “The Third Iraq War has begun. With it, longstanding neocon dreams to partition Iraq into three along ethnic and religious lines have been resurrected.”
He went on, referring to Brian Whitaker, the former Guardian Middle East editor, who noticed parallels between Washington’s Perle-RAND strategy and a 1996 paper published by the Israeli Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies — a paper co-authored by former Pentagon official Richard Perle and other neocons who held top positions in the post-9/11 Bush administration.
Ahmed noted:
“The policy paper advocated a strategy that bears startling resemblance to the chaos unfolding in the wake of the expansion of the ‘Islamic State’ – Israel would ‘shape its strategic environment’ by first securing the removal of Saddam Hussein. ‘Jordan and Turkey would form an axis along with Israel to weaken and “roll back” Syria.’ This axis would attempt to weaken the influence of Lebanon, Syria and Iran by ‘weaning’ off their Shi’ite populations.”
To succeed, Ahmed continued, Israel would need to gain U.S. support, “which would be obtained by Benjamin Netanyahu formulating the strategy ‘in language familiar to the Americans by tapping into themes of American administrations during the cold war.’”
For a previous article about Sam Harris, see here. For previous articles about ISIS, see here. here, here, here, here and here. Notice who two of the commentators are in the video? None other than General Clark and General Flynn. As we all know now, General Flynn was dismissed from the Trump administration. Why? It more than likely had something to do with loyalty --- maybe even what he was talking about in the video.
The Incorrigible Sam Harris and Zionist Group-Think
“The intellectual levels of politicians are just one of the many things that intellectuals have grossly misjudged for years on end…
“…the ignorance of Ph.D.s is still ignorance and high-IQ groupthink is still groupthink, which is the antithesis of real thinking.” - Thomas Sowell
Zionist propagandists, Jewish intellectuals and even neoconservative shills continue to amaze us all with their “logic.”
What makes it so disappointing and sometimes frustrating is that some of those neoconservative shills do not lack the intellectual sophistication and academic background to follow a logical deduction all the way through.
First, let us look at Thomas Sowell. Last July, he began one of his articles by saying,
“Many years ago, on my first trip around the world, I was struck by how the children in the Middle East — Arab and Israeli alike — were among the nicest looking little children I had seen anywhere. It was painful to think that they were going to grow up killing each other. But that is exactly what happened.”
Sowell could never explain how or why those children were going to grow up slaughtering each other. Leaving that aside, he then proceeded to say,
“At one time, launching a military attack on another nation risked not only retaliation but annihilation. When Carthage attacked Rome, that was the end of Carthage.
“But when Hamas or some other terrorist group launches an attack on Israel, they know in advance that whatever Israel does in response will be limited by calls for a cease-fire, backed by political and economic pressures from the United States.
“It is not at all clear what Israel’s critics can rationally expect the Israelis to do when they are attacked. Suffer in silence? Surrender? Flee the Middle East?”[1]
Can this man be really serious? Does he actually have a phone at the Hoover Institution, where he has been the Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow in Public Policy for more than three decades? If so, why can’t Sowell call Israeli and Zionist historian Benny Morris before he made a fool of himself?
If Sowell wants to bring the issue of Carthage and Rome to the debate and justifies Israel’s perpetual carnage in the Middle East, let us grant him that silly argument and follow it to its own logical trail.
Let us go back to 1948. Who launched a military attack on the Palestinians? Sowell’s ancestors? Perhaps his grandpa? His mother-in-law? Let us quote Morris again:
“A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population.
“It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on.”
In the same vein, the eminent Israeli historian Shlomo Sand declares that Israel’s occupation “is leading us on the road to hell.”[2] Previously, Sand writes,
“Racism is most certainly present to some degree everywhere, but in Israel it exists deep within the spirit of the laws. It is taught in schools and colleges, spread in the media, and above all and most dreadful, in Israel the racists do not know what they are doing and, because of this, feel in no way obliged to apologize.”[3]
To be quite blunt, Sowell would almost certainly not make it as a serious academic at a major institution in Israel precisely because Sowell has a “bad” skin color or that he was born in the “wrong” family.
Furthermore, Sowell could have been a Palestinian. He could have been one of those Ethiopians who have been treated like animals in Israel. The Ku Klux Klan has evolved over the years[4] and has recently extended its hands to Jews, blacks, gays, and Hispanics.[5] Members or leaders of the NAACP have already expressed interest in joining the Klan.[6]
The point here is that Israel is worse than the Ku Klux Klan in that it continues to display blatant racism everywhere. Sand again writes,
“I am often even ashamed of Israel, particularly when I witness evidence of its cruel military colonization, with its weak and defenseless victims who are not part of the ‘chosen people.’
“Earlier in my life I had a fleeting utopian dream that a Palestinian Israel should feel as much at home in Tel Aviv as a Jewish American does in New York. I struggled and I sought for the civil life of a Muslim Israeli in Jerusalem to be similar to that of the Jewish French person whose home is in Paris.
“I wanted Israeli children of Christian African immigrants to be treated as the British children of immigrants from the Indian subcontinent are in London. I hope with all my heart that all Israeli children would be educated together in the same schools.
“Today I know that my dream is outrageously demanding, that my demands are exaggerated and impertinent, that the very fact of formulating them is viewed by Zionists and their supporters as an attack on the Jewish character of the State of Israel, and thus as anti-Semitism.”[7]
It certainly would be interesting to see how Sowell would debate Morris and Sand on this very issue. Wouldn’t it be laughable to watch Goyim like Sowell arguing with Israeli historians and saying that the Jewish state did not indeed uproot the Palestinians?
It would be so funny to see Morris pulling documents from the archives and indicating that the Jewish state indeed committed genocide and then to see Sowell taking the opposite position with no historical backup.
It would also be hilarious if Sowell summons Israeli Zionist professors like Steven Plaut as his authority. (Plaut even believes that Rachael Corrie was aiding terrorists!) And wouldn’t it show the moral perversity and the intellectually promiscuous cleverness of neocon shills such as Sowell?
More importantly, if we follow Sowell’s political architecture here, the world should be bombing Israel for literally massacring at least 700,000 Palestinians from their homes! Is that the road that Sowell wants to take?
Sowell, as usual, continues his litany against Iran and then says,
“Even if the Israelis were all saints—and sainthood is not common in any branch of the human race—the cold fact is that they are far more advanced than their neighbors, and groups that cannot tolerate even subordinate Christian minorities can hardly be expected to tolerate an independent, and more advanced, Jewish state that is a daily rebuke to their egos.”[8]
Sowell has written some decent books in the past. His books, Education: Assumption vs. History and Inside American Education[9] are very informative. His views on affirmative action are quite correct.[10]
But the neoconservative/neo-Bolshevik ideology has morally and intellectually crippled him. A serious metaphysician, eager to discover moral insight and intellectual rigor with respect to the Middle East, will never take Sowell seriously because his positions are inadequate and out of touch with the historical accounts. Sowell cannot reach his full potential as a serious scholar and thinker because he seems to be (intentionally) blind.[11]
Like other neoconservative noisemakers such as Ann Coulter, Sowell tries desperately to remain a neoconservative shill and a rational human being at the same time, most particularly with respect to the Middle East.
This is an impossible task for Sowell precisely because neoconservatism—or shall we say Neo-Bolshevism—breaths lies and deceptions and hoaxes and reproduces them in the media.
Sowell has said some manifestly ludicrous things about Iran and the Middle. But his internal contradiction is so monumental that one needn’t be a scholar to detect them. For example, he declared that
“assumptions are so much taken for granted by so many people, including so-called ‘thinking people,’ that neither those assumptions nor their corollaries are generally confronted with demands for empirical evidence.
“Indeed, empirical evidence itself may be viewed as suspect, insofar as it is inconsistent with [the prevailing vision].”[12]
Sowell has been piling assumptions about Iran without bothering to verify those assumptions from time immemorial, despite the fact that the evidence stacks against him.[13] Why doesn’t he bother to verify the facts?
Simple: you cannot follow the neoconservative/Neo-Bolshevik/Zionist ideology with respect to perpetual wars in the Middle East and still live a rational life. The neoconservative architecture is neither logical nor existentially livable and always ends up getting America into trouble.
Thomas Sowell, of course, reminds us that some Goyim are willing to sell whatever rational clarity they possess for a mess of Jewish pottage.
Some of those Goyim are satisfied with the political price because their masters—the Dreadful Few—are able to put one foot in the rational world and the other foot in the irrational world. Sam Harris is a classic example.
The pervasive inconsistencies and internal contradictions that exist in the writing of this man are so monumental that one can write an entire book discussing them. I have discussed some of them in previous articles, most specifically in “God and the Intellectuals.” But let us discuss just a few here.
When he was confronted with the fact that “Israel is the only power in [the Middle East] to have nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons without being a signatory to the nonproliferation treaty,” Harris said,
“Correct. But this just speaks to the difference in intention that I consider paramount. Do you lose any sleep over the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons?”
Harris missed the point. He could not address Israel’s inconsistency with regard to the nuclear programs issue and swiftly moved to a comfortable territory: if you do not lose any sleep over Israel’s nuclear weapons, then it should be all right.
Is that a logical argument? Wasn’t Harris also trained in philosophy and therefore sound logic? Is it possible that this man superficially appeals to logic when it suits him (The End of Faith) and disregards it when it does not line up with his Zionist agenda?
Perhaps it is time for Harris to pick up the phone and call Israeli military historian Martin van Cleveld and ask him what he meant when he said,
“We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force.
“Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: ‘Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.’
“I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third.
“We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.”[14]
Harris, like Jewish psychologist Steven Pinker of Harvard, declares in page after page in The End of Faith that Christianity was primarily the main cause of social and political upheavals in the world, most specifically during the Middle Ages. In Letters to a Christian Nation, he explicitly declares that
“Christians have abused, oppressed, enslaved, insulted, tormented, tortured, and killed people in the name of God for centuries…”[15]
Yet when it comes to Gaza, Harris again has to play the Jewish card. He admitted that Gaza “is a prison camp,” but he prefaced this remark by saying that
“The only reason that suicide bombing is no longer a weekly occurrence on the streets of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv is that there is now a concrete wall separating Israel from the people who want to carry out such bombings.”
When Harris again was confronted with the fact that Israel literally controlls virtually everything that comes in and out of Gaza and that “they occupy and control that entire region, and maintain checkpoints that burden and enrage many of the inhabitants,” he responded,
“The problem with invoking history in this discussion is that you have to decide when to start the clock. You could go back further than 1948—and many Jews would have you go back 2,000 years, pointing to the fact that this is their ancestral homeland, as evidenced by the history of the diaspora.
“The Jews were kicked out of Palestine and hunted and hounded and ghettoized and murdered for millennia—which would seem to justify the decision to return them to their homeland, provided it could be done in a way that wouldn’t ruin the lives of other people.”
I thought Harris was an atheist! I thought he said Judaism “was total bullshit”! Why is he subtly and politically defending the Judaic/Talmudic narrative? This is a central contradiction which Harris himself could not avoid.
It must be noted in passing that this central contradiction can also be found among anti-Zionists who irrationally and irresponsibly declare that Jewish behavior is genetic.
I simply have been amazed to see how people simply cannot see the internal contradiction that exists in their own worldviews. I have spent hours reading what some of those people are saying, trying to follow what they are trying to say, but inconsistency and illogical leap on serious matters simply drive me crazy.
For example, many anti-Zionists who oppose the Khazarian theory relentlessly quote Jewish writers, rabbis, ideologues, newspapers, and even some Jewish scientists in order to perpetuate the risible idea that Jewish behavior is genetic.
What about other scientists who say that the theory is just plain nonsense and is not on really based on science but ideology? No matter: for those people, intent is prior to content. Examining competing theories rationally is simply not an option for them because they are not really interested in the truth.
Without serious thought, those anti-Zionist writers indirectly argue that since rabbis and Jewish writers believe that the genetic theory is true, therefore it must be true.
Yet the simple fact is that the same Jewish writers and rabbis claim that they got the idea from the Old Testament, which those anti-Zionists say is a myth and a collection of fabrication! So which one is it? Those anti-Zionists do not believe the stories in the Old Testament, but what rabbis perversely say about the Old Testament is actually true. Nonsense!
I simply do not know how those people can maintain both positions simultaneously while their heads do not split into different particles. Those people certainly need to get real. They are like those Jewish intellectuals who proclaim that they do not believe in God but they do believe that God gave them Palestine.
Those anti-Zionists are free to live in contradiction and in an irrational and imaginary world, but they are not free to impose their perverse logic upon us.
Until they can rationally explain to us how their ideas work in a cogent fashion, we should not pay attention to them. Nor should we take them seriously in the fight against Zionism.
I particularly have been waiting for a serious writer who can rigorously and rationally explain the contradictions that are inherent in the idea that Jewish behavior is genetic. I’m only thirty-five years old, and hopefully I’ll find one in my lifetime.
After Harris declared that the history of the Jews goes back to 2,000 years, which is an implicit appeal to the Old Testament, Andrew Sullivan, the interviewer, was stunned. He immediately realized that Harris was ideally shooting himself in the toes:
“But you are supporting Israel based on just such a religious claim, which, given your other arguments, doesn’t make any sense. Because if Israel-Palestine were not an explicitly Jewish state, as you’d prefer, there would be a majority Arab population—that would presumably, in your view, result in the immediate extermination of every Jew in the country.”
Harris proved that Illan Pappe was right when he said that “Most Zionists don’t believe that God exists but they do believe that he promised them Palestine.”
Harris, as a Jewish intellectual ideologue, appealed to David Wyman’s book The Abandonment of the Jews to support the untenable and historically risible thesis that
“During World War II, with full knowledge that the Jews of Europe were being exterminated, there were anti-Semitic speeches on the floor of Congress. We even turned back boats of Jews who had escaped the inferno of Europe, knowing that they were thereby doomed.”
Sullivan, who seems to have no background in what was happening in Europe during that time, nodded and said, “It’s a shameful episode in American history.”
In a similar vein, David Turner of the Jerusalem Post accuses the Roosevelt Administration of anti-Semitism because it refused to allow immigrant Jews from Europe entrance.[16] (I have interacted with Turner in the past, and the interaction can be found here.)
Not once did Turner mention the complex social issues of the 1920s, such as the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, which was largely viewed as a Jewish revolutionary activity.[17]
During the Bolshevik Revolution, millions upon millions of people were killed, including innocent peasants.[18]
In addition, the Bolshevik ideology, with its Marxist leanings, began to spread like wildfire in Asian countries like China,[19] and wherever it went countries began killing their own people by the millions (We have seen over and over that Mao alone liquidated more than 40 million people[20]).
Not once did Turner mention that the U.S. State Department published a three-volume report in 1931 stating that Jewish-owned German banks conspired to send large sums of money to Lenin, Trotsky, and other Bolshevik luminaries to overthrow the Tsar.[21]
Jewish financiers such as Jacob Schiff in the United States and Max and Paul Warburg in Germany poured millions of dollars into the Bolshevik movement. Schiff is said to have given $20 million dollars to the regime—a sum equivalent to billions of dollars today.[22] Even The Jewish Encyclopedia calls communism and socialism Jewish phenomena.[23]
Not once did Turner mention that the Jewish immigrants who came to the United States in the 1920s and 30s began to establish communist and socialist cells in major universities in the United States.[24]
In addition, when Hollywood film industries were overtaken by Jewish revolutionaries, they began to implement communist and sexual ideologies in their films.[25]
Also, we have seen in previous articles that between World War I and World War II, the pornography industry in America was largely controlled by Jews, as was “white slavery,” or prostitution, from 1880 until 1939.[26] Both were used as a weapon to destroy the political and moral order, and were a huge problem in Germany before and during the rise of Adolf Hitler.
Turner agrees that Roosevelt had several Jews on his staff, including Henry Morgenthau as Treasury Secretary, and even nominated Felix Frankfurter to be justice of the Supreme Court.
Yet somehow Roosevelt, according to Turner’s reasoning, harbored anti-Semitism in private by refusing to allow Jews to come to America from Europe and the Soviet Union.[27]
The sad part is that Turner and others would find themselves in a heated debate with two Jewish scholars and historians who have recently argued that Roosevelt was a flaming Zionist.[28]
Jewish scholars Richard Breitman and Allan J. Lichtman abide by the Zionist narrative as perpetuated by the Holocaust establishment. Yet in their book FDR and the Jews, they produced documents saying that Roosevelt
“acted decisively to rescue Jews, often withstanding contrary pressures from the American public, Congress, and his own State Department."
“Oddly enough, he did more for the Jews than any other world figure, even if his efforts seem deficient in retrospect. He was a far better president for Jews than any of his political adversaries would have done.”[29]
Roosevelt “used his executive powers to loosen immigration restrictions and to promote his own ambitious plans to resettle the Jews of Europe in other lands. He publicly backed a Jewish homeland in Palestine and pressured the British to keep Palestine open to Jewish immigrants.”[30]
In 1943, Roosevelt again "established a War Refugee Board to help rescue the surviving Jews of Europe and pursued plans for the postwar resettlement of refugees. Shortly before his death, a gravely ill president met personally with the influential king of Saudi Arabia in an effort to secure a Jewish homeland in Palestine."
“Roosevelt also denounced organized anti-Semitism as an integral part of Hitler’s brutal attempt to rule Europe and the Western world. Any American who condoned or participated in anti-Semitism was ‘playing Hitler’s game,’ he said in February in 1944. ‘There is no place in the lives or thoughts of true Americans for anti-Semitism.’”[31]
Roosevelt’s mother ended up receiving the “Einstein Medal for lifetime humanitarian service to the Jewish people.”[32]
Roosevelt’s family saw the Protestant elites as “heroes of Enlightenment Europe who challenged the reactionary Catholic Church and oppressive monarchs.”[33]
As governor of New York, Roosevelt “denounced discrimination against Jews in 1930 and backed Palestine as a Jewish homeland. In 1932, he became the first presidential candidate in history to criticize anti-Semitism.”[34]
But the authors declare that “The Bolshevik Revolution of October 1917 in Russia and America’s Red Scare of 1919-1920 led many Americans to associate Jewish socialism with communism abroad and subversion at home.”[35]
Now here is the point: Roosevelt was obviously a Zionist pawn and opportunist who also played by the Jewish card. As we have already demonstrated in previous articles, Roosevelt allied with blood-thirsty monsters like Joseph Stalin and war-mongering Winston Churchill in order to defeat Hitler.
Yet despite what he has done for the Dreadful Few, people like David Turner are now saying that he was an anti-Semite! That is really stupid. And this simply shows how mad some Zionists are. Brother Nathanael Kapner was right after all: the Zionists will not be satisfied until they have total control of much of the world.
If Assad abides by international law but does not support the Zionist state of Israel, Assad has to go and the rule of law has to be abandoned. In fact, Israel prefers Al-Qaeda rather than Iran or Assad. Besides the video below, to learn more about ISIS, see here, here, here, here, here, and here.
[1] Thomas Sowell, “Cease the Cease-Fires,” Jewish World Review, July 29, 2014.
[2] Shlomo Sand, How I Stopped Being a Jew (New York: Verso, 2014), 100.
[4] For a recent story, see for example Gareth Platt, “From KKK Grand Dragon to Anti-Racism Crusader: The Remarkable Reinvention of Scott Shepherd,” International Business Times, September 24, 2014.
[5] Fiona Keating, “Ku Klux Klan Opens its Doors to Hispanics, Blacks, Jews and Gays,” International Business Times, November 9, 2014.
[6] “NAACP and Ku Klux Klan Sit Down for Unprecedented Meeting,” NY Daily News, September 4, 2013.
[9] Thomas Sowell, Education: Assumptions vs. History (Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 1985); Inside American Education (New York: Free Press, 1992).
[10] Thomas Sowell, Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004).
[11] I have written to him in the past asking for evidence for some of his assertions. No response was made available.
[12] Thomas Sowell, The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy (New York: Basic Books, 1995), 2.
[13] See for example Trita Parsi, Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008); A Single Roll of Dice: Obama’s Diplomacy with Iran (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011).
[14] Quoted in “The War Game,” Guardian, September 21, 2003.
[15] Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation (New York: Vintage Books, 2008), 23.
[16] David Turner, “The Acquiescence of the United States in the Murder of the Jews,” Jerusalem Post, April 12, 2012.
[17] See Slezkine, The Jewish Century; Carr Hallett Edward, The Bolshevik Revolution (New York; Macmillan, 1950); Stephen Cohen, Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980); Adam B Ulam, Bolsheviks (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980); Jerry Z. Muller, Capitalism and the Jews (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010). Many scholars do not declare that Jews were at the forefront of the revolution because this would imply that anti-Jewish reactions would have to be reassessed.
[18] See Robert Conquest, Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivism and the Terror-Famine (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008) and The Great Terror (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990); Miron Dolot, Execution by Hunger: The Hidden Holocaust (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987).
[19] See Steven Rosefielde, Red Holocaust (New York: Routledge, 2010).
[20] See Frank Dikotter, Mao’s Great Famine (New York: Walker, 2010).
