Israel, the Psychopathic Nation

Besides the article below, see here and here. 

Is Zionism a Collective Personality disorder?

Can a nation be a psychopath?

According to one expert on political psychopathy, Andrzej Lobaczewski, the answer is yes. Whole nations, even international political movements, can exhibit behavior that parallels that of psychopathic individuals.

Lobaczewski, a Polish psychiatrist, diagnosed psychopathic symptoms among the Communist-era leadership. He argued that individuals with personality disorders, especially psychopathy, tend to gravitate to positions of power, which can set off a contagion in which the entire regime takes on psychopathic characteristics.

In the article below,  Laurent Guyénot argues that Israel (and the international Zionist movement surrounding and empowering it) is a textbook case of political psychopathy. Naturally, the Zio-psychopaths, who always have to be 100% right and cannot accept the slightest bit of criticism, will not respond well to this article. Their reaction will offer yet another item of evidence that Dr. Guyénot’s thesis is correct.

Laurent Guyénot is an Engineer (National School of Advanced Technology, 1982) and medievalist (PhD in Medieval Studies at Paris IV-Sorbonne, 2009). He has authored numerous books; the latest is JFK-9/11: 50 Years of Deep State. 

ISRAEL, THE PSYCHOPATHIC NATION

“Judeophobia is a psychosis. As a psychosis, it is hereditary and as a disease transmitted for two thousand years, it is incurable.” (Leo Pinsker, Auto-Emancipation, 1882)

Jewishness is a notoriously ambivalent notion. On the one hand, Judaism is a religion; on the other, Jews are a people, an ethnic group or race. It all depends on the circumstances. But in both cases, Jewishness may legitimately be subjected to psychological analysis. If Judaism is a religion, we may turn to Freud, who addressed the relationship between religion and neurosis in three books: Totem and Taboo, Civilization and Its Discontents and The Future of an Illusion, in which he calls “religion” (referring mainly to Catholicism) a “universal obsessional neurosis of humanity.” If, conversely, the Jews are a people, then we can base our analysis on common sense, which admits that every people has a national character forged by history – or a collective memory, which is to say, its own representation of its history. Concerning the character of the Jewish nation, there is no shortage of opinions from Jewish intellectuals.

The hypothesis presented in this paper can be summarized as follows: The Jewish nation, as a state, but also as an organized world community, acts collectively towards other nations and other human communities in the way a psychopath acts towards his fellow men. I will first describe psychopathy as a cognitive and behavioral structure and show how the ideology and methods of the chosen people are related to it. It goes without saying that I do not intend to imply that “the Jews” are psychopaths, but instead that they are the first victims of a mental straitjacket imposed by their elites, who through veritable intellectual terrorism, make of them, to the extent that they comply, the instruments of the collective psychopathy of Israel.

What is a psychopath?

Psychopathy is a syndrome of traits classified among the personality disorders. Canadian psychologist Robert Hare (1) in the wake of Hervey Cleckley’s The Mask of Sanity (1941), has defined its diagnostic criteria on the basis of a cognitive model that is now widely adopted, though some behaviorally-oriented psychiatrists prefer the term sociopathy. In an effort to get everyone to agree, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual on Mental Disorders, the American psychiatric bible, suggested antisocial personality disorder; but the term psychopathy is still in use.

The most striking traits of the psychopath are lack of empathy and conscience. Other traits are common to narcissism: psychopaths have a grand vision of their own importance. In their minds, everything is owed to them because they are exceptional. They are never wrong, and failures are always the fault of others. They often show megalomania, but some learn to hide their arrogance under false modesty. If the psychopath pretends to rise to the universal level, it is because he confuses it with his personal interests and the truth with his own opinions. However, the psychopath is distinguished from the simple narcissist by his appetite for power, which makes him much more destructive. Moreover, his capacity for harm is not inhibited by any scruples or remorse: he is incapable of feeling guilt. Although he imagines himself a hero, and in some cases looks like a hero, the psychopath is, on the human spectrum, the polar opposite of the hero who sacrifices himself for his community; he will not hesitate to sacrifice the people around him, and when he knows he is lost, he consoles himself by causing as many people as possible to fall.

Basically, the psychopath perceives others as objects. He has a mechanical view of people and human relationships (and, in some way, of himself as well). Although devoid of conscience, he often has a keen perception of the law, which he, as a mechanic of the social engine, overestimates. He has not internalized moral law and in this sense is not socialized, but he has mastered the rules of the game and cheats without qualms if he can. For the same reason, the psychopath almost always develops an immoderate taste for money; he idealizes it as the epitome of power, the very essence of the social; he thinks that people can be bought and sold like things, and life often proves him right.

The diagnostic criteria for psychopathy also include pathological lying, deception (cunning) and manipulative behavior. The psychopath feels only very superficial emotions and has no real feelings for anyone; but he has developed a great ability to deceive. He can be charming to the point of being charismatic. He typically shows highly-developed verbal intelligence and lies with disconcerting aplomb. He is unable to empathize, but learns to simulate it, sometimes with a tendency to histrionics (Latin histrio, “theater actor”). The psychoanalyst Helène Deutsche makes this trait the mark of “as-if personalities” endowed with purely mimetic “pseudo-emotions,” devoid of inner experience, “a little like an actor with good technique, but not animated by any actual life.” (2) But the psychopath is more than that: he is a manipulator. It is through his extraordinary ability to feign, trick, trap, and capture that the psychopath draws his power. Although he himself is immunized against guilt, he becomes a master in the art of using guilt to dominate others.

In any situation, the psychopath projects a persona, which can vary according to circumstances. The opinions he wears in public are all disguises that he tailors to his own advantage. However, lying is so deeply embedded in his nature that the question of his “sincerity” is almost irrelevant: the psychopath can beat a lie detector. The truth has no value in his eyes, or merges with the version of events that suits him. The psychopath is unable to put himself in the place of others, and thus to view himself critically. Confident in any circumstance of being right and innocent (and superior), he considers the resentment of his victims as irrational and pointless.

Although those close to the psychopath – at least those who learn the hard way his true nature – can judge him raving mad, the psychopath is not “sick” because he does not “suffer.” He is innocent of neurosis, and never requests psychiatric care (except as a strategic calculation). He is not psychotic, and cannot be regarded as maladapted to social life. On the contrary, he is, in a certain sense, over-adjusted. That is why the real mystery, from a Darwinian point of view, is not the existence of psychopaths, but their low proportion in the population.

Jewishness and selective empathy

The most optimistic low-end estimate of the proportion of psychopaths in the Western population is 1%. This 1% should not be confused with the famous 1% who own half the world’s wealth; but a study of senior executives of large companies, published under the title Snakes in Suits, shows that psychopathic traits are widespread among them (3). This is not surprising; modern society values psychopathic traits and favors the upward mobility of psychopaths.

The fact that Jews today are disproportionately represented among the elite (they form half of the billionaires in the United States, while representing only 2.4% of the population) (4) does not allow us to conclude that psychopathy is more prevalent among the chosen people. In a way, quite the opposite is the case: Jews demonstrate among themselves an extraordinary capacity for empathy, or at least familiarity that breeds exceptional solidarity to the point of self-sacrifice. But the selective nature of this empathy suggests that it is addressed less to the humanity of others than to their Jewishness. In Nomads. Essay on the Jewish Soul (1929) we learn what transpires when two Jews meet. “We have never met before, but I instantly know him. One look, one phrase, and I know where he grew up, how he grew up, where he got his drive and his sense of humor. He is New York. He is Jewish. He looks like my uncle Louis, his voice is my uncle Sam. I feel we’ve been together at countless weddings, bar mitzvahs, and funerals. I know his genetic structure. I’m certain that within the last five hundred years—perhaps even more recently—we shared the same ancestor.” (5)

This is a comment from Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor, about his meeting with Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Council of the Federal Reserve, two very influential Americans, about whom we would like to believe that such familiarity does not affect their judgment of the nation’s interest. Kadmi Isaac Cohen described Judaism as “the spiritualized deification of the race […]. Thus the divinity in Judaism is contained in the exaltation of the entity represented by the race.” (6) It is as if the Jews felt united by a collective or ethnic soul, which occupies more or less of their individual soul according to individuals and circumstances.

This is indeed how many Jews recall their Jewishness. “Being Jewish to me,” says Alain Finkielkraut, “is to feel involved, concerned, sometimes compromised by what other Jews do. It’s a feeling of belonging, affiliation; and in this affiliation, there is, for example, the tortured link to Israel.” (7) Every Jew experiences himself as part and parcel of the chosen people; everything he is doing reflects on the community. When a Jew is a victim, all Jewish people are victimized. (By contrast, if he is a torturer, his Jewishness is repressed because it would implicate the whole people in his guilt.) Jewishness is in some sense a latent sentiment capable of being activated by the slightest alarm. “The feeling of Jewishness remains in me something dark, abyssal, and above all, unstable. Both powerful and labile. Nothing is as important to me as my Jewishness which, however, in many respects, has so little importance in my life,” writes Jacques Derrida. (8)

Jewish ethnocentrism

In contrast to the empathy it shows for itself, the Jewish community as a whole, to the extent it submits to its representative elites, tends to behave towards the mass of Gentiles in a psychopathic rather than empathic manner. This is why a goy observer, Werner Sombart, despite his reputation as a Semitophile, highlights features of Jewish collective psychology that are similar to psychopathic tendencies including a temperament that is “coldly utilitarian” and “calculating,” alongside a propensity to mimicry, combined with a mechanical conception of human relations. (9) The founder of sociology Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), very critical of his Jewish community, noticed among Jewish intellectuals a pragmatic and self-interested notion of truth, which can be compared with that of the psychopath: “The Jew . . . seeks to learn not in order to replace his collective prejudices by reflective thought, but merely to be better armed for the struggle. . . . [H]e superimposes this intellectual life upon his habitual routine with no effect of the former upon the latter”. (10) Many Jewish historians, for example, seem to value History less as a pursuit of truth than as a means of power.

The hypothesis of a form of “collective psychopathy” with narcissistic tendencies makes it possible to deconstruct the universalism in which Judaism is draped. At the first level, Jewish universalism is a fable intended to obfuscate reality and confuse the goy. But it is not only this, as it also appears in the literature internal to the Jewish community, where it amounts to an expression of limitless ethnic narcissism. The Jewish people are “the seed that is germinating the humanity of the future” (Jacob Kaplan, Chief Rabbi of France); “the living ladder that meets the sky” (Emmanuel Levinas); “Israel equals humanity” (Levinas) (11); “The Jew is closer to humanity than any other,” so that “the enemy of the Jews is the enemy of humanity” and therefore killing Jews is “murdering all mankind” (Elie Wiesel) (12). Worse, “Hitting a Jew is hitting God Himself,” according to Cardinal Aron Jean-Marie Lustiger (13), taken almost verbatim from the Talmud (Sanhedrin 58b: “Hitting a Jew is like slapping the face of God himself “). This is why the strange notion of “crimes against humanity” was created specifically in 1945 at the Nuremburg Trials to describe the massacre of Jews, while the term “genocide” was coined for the same purpose by Raphael Lemkin in 1944. These terms having since been generalized to other victims of history, the copyrighted term Holocaust was coined — hard to beat.

This equation between Jewishness and humanity, which is the height of ethnocentrism, is the real meaning of Judaism’s claim to embody humanism. Though Israelis are “the most separatist people in the world” according to Nahum Goldman (former president of the World Jewish Organization and founder of the World Jewish Congress), he adds: “The Israelis have the great weakness of thinking that the whole world revolves around them .” (14) So there is not necessarily a contradiction in their minds between universalist discourse and the practice of tribalism. If the Jew is the essence of humanity, what is good for the Jews is good for humanity, on principle. And although fundamentally racist, Jewishness cannot see itself as such: “Judaic ethics […] by definition deny racism. A Jew cannot be racist.” (Elie Wiesel) (15). This does not prevent the same Elie Wiesel from stating that “Jewish history describes an ongoing conflict between us and the others. Since Abraham, we are on one side and the whole world is on the other.” (16)

It has often been said that Jews have an ethnocentric conception of universal history, which has no meaning in their eyes except in relation to the Jewish people. Josef Kastein acknowledges this in his book History and Destiny of the Jews (1936): “Because it accepted the idea of the chosen people and salvation, the Jewish world was Judeocentric, and Jews could interpret everything that happened according to a single point of view, with themselves as the center.” (17) Joshua Jehouda illustrates this perfectly in Antisemitism, Mirror of the World: “He who plumbs the depths of universal history, to gain an overall vision, finds that from ancient times until today two opposing currents are fighting over history, penetrating and shaping it constantly: the messianic current and the anti-Semitic current […] Because messianism and anti-Semitism are the two opposite poles of the journey of humanity.” (18)

In his megalomania, the psychopath is convinced that when he uses others, it is for their own good. Similarly, according to rabbinical logic, it is to enlighten humanity that the Jewish community must preserve itself, prosper, and eventually dominate humanity: “Judaism considers only the salvation of the house of Israel, which alone will permit the salvation of the seventy nations of the universe” (Rabi, Anatomy of French Judaism, 1962) (19). 

This is where the double ethno-religious nature of Judaism helps streamline the paradox that the Jews should remain a separate people in order to spread their universal religion. Such Jewish intellectuals as Felix Adler (1851-1933) have defended the paradoxical idea that the Jewish people must remain ethnically united to accomplish their mission: To spread the universalism that will dissolve ethnicity from the rest of humanity. Only when the mission is completed will the Jewish people disappear. In this way has the most ethnically oriented community manages to impersonate the champions of universalism. (20) Thus when Martin Buber called for a state for the Jews, it was so they could serve humanity. For it is only by fulfilling his messianic dream of a national home, he said, that the Jewish religion can lead humanity towards the messianic age. (21) This argument, developed by Reform Judaism, is intended primarily for goyim but also for “soft” Jews, in order to convince them that their commitment in favor of the group is a service to humanity.

The Innocent Victim

The psychopath is unable to see the other person’s point of view, and criticism strikes him as irrational aggression. This is the reaction of the Jewish elites to criticism: To them it can be nothing other than the expression of visceral anti-Semitism, an atavistic goyish disease. “Judeophobia is a psychosis,” wrote Leo Pinsker, a founding father of Zionism, “a hereditary demonic madness,” “a congenital perversion of human mentality,” “passed down for two thousand years,” “incurable.” (22)

The psychopath does not know the feeling of guilt; he constantly plays innocent. Those who get in his way, or even cast a shadow over his path, are solely responsible for their own destruction. Their accusations are baseless fabrications, their anger an irrational hatred. “One thing that Judaism has which other spiritualities lack is innocence,” explains André Neher, one of the leaders of “the Jewish school of thought of Paris” (with Emmanuel Levinas and Leon Ashkenazi). “We are innocent, and we feel even more deeply that we are innocent when we are accused. […] It is this innocence that we must be aware of at present, and that we must never deny, never, in any circumstance.” (23) And it works: “You will understand nothing of anti-Semitism,” wrote Jean-Paul Sartre, “if you fail to remember that the Jew, that object of so much hatred, is perfectly innocent, nay harmless.” (Anti-Semite and Jew, 1946). 

The Jewish question is thus reduced to the question of anti-Semitism, which, thanks to the Holocaust, is elevated to the status of metaphysical Evil. (see here, here, here and here.) “The hatred of the Jews is the enigma of enigmas …” (André Glucksmann, Hate Speech, 2004) (24). It is a necessary enigma, without which the Jewish people could dissolve. Towards the end of his life, the Jewish writer Ilya Ehrenburg repeated that he would consider himself a Jew “as long as there was a single anti-Semite left on earth.” (25) Persecution has become the central theme of the Passover holiday, Hanukkah, Purim and Yom Kippur, and Jewish history as taught to Jewish children, according to Michael Walzer, is one long tale of exile and persecution – Holocaust history read backwards. (26) According to historian Zygmunt Bauman, Israel uses the Holocaust “as the certificate of its political legitimacy, as a safe-conduct pass for its past and future policies, and, above all, as advance payment for the injustices it might itself commit.” (27)

Israel, Psychopath State

The State of Israel is now in the international scene what the psychopath is in a human community. With regard to the Palestinians, “Israeli Jews’ consciousness is characterized by a sense of victimization, a siege mentality, blind patriotism, belligerence, self-righteousness, dehumanization of the Palestinians, and insensitivity to their suffering,” in the words of journalist Akiva Eldar (“Operation Cast Lead against Gaza in 2008-2009”). (28) As noted by the Deputy Director of Military Intelligence Yehoshafat Harkabi: “Dazzled by its self-righteousness, Israel cannot see the case of the other side. Self-righteousness encourages nations no less than individuals to absolve themselves of every failing and shake off the guilt of every mishap. When everyone is guilty except them, the very possibility of self-criticism and self-improvement vanishes…” (29) The Israeli journalist Gideon Levy wrote in Haaretz in 2010 that “Only psychiatrists can explain Israel’s behavior.” However, the diagnosis he offers, including “paranoia, schizophrenia and megalomania,” (30) is in my opinion, insufficient. It must take into account Israel’s extraordinary manipulative capacity on the world stage via corruption and propaganda, that is to say, the Bank and the Press.

Israel’s relationship to the United States is that of a typical psychopath to an influential and impressionable man he has decided to use to accomplish his misdeeds. The golden rule of manipulation formulated by Colonel Mandell House (who was the intermediary between the Zionist network and President Woodrow Wilson) applies generally to Israel’s manipulation of the United States: “With the President […] it was invariably my intention to always to make him believe that ideas he derived from me were his own.” (31) Indeed, Israel has managed to lead America into a Middle East policy that only serves Israeli interests, by pretending to the American people that it serves their interests. The psychopath tries to interfere in all the human relationships of his prey, so as to prevent any alliance that could allow him to be unmasked. Isolate and divide-and-rule are the essence of this strategy. This is exactly what Israel and its neoconservative moles have done, by trying to split the United States from its historic allies in the Middle East, with the aim of one day remaining the only ally of the United States in the area; the demonization of all heads of state in the Arab world is part of this strategy.

The power of the Zionist manipulation of the United States, based on quasi-total control of the mainstream media alongside large-scale psychological operations such as September 11th, is truly bewildering. But it becomes understandable in light of the cognitive mechanisms of psychopathy. It even becomes predictable to some extent, if we keep in mind that the psychopath has no ability to question, no limits to his appetite for power, and no remorse about leading humanity into ruin to save his skin. Nothing better illustrates the psychopathic nature of Zionism than the apocalyptic nuclear blackmail Israel perpetually exercises over the West under the name “the Samson Option.” In 1974 Golda Meir summed it up as “Israel’s willingness in a doomsday situation to take the region down with it” (32) in the event of looming defeat.

And remember: there is no limit to the psychopath’s thirst for power, because he does not seeks power for the comfort it can bring him, but instead loves power for the sake of power.

Absolute Must Read! Click on Picture to Enlarge and See Text

Conclusion

By drawing a parallel between psychopathy as a personality disorder and the attitude of Israel, I do not mean, of course, the Jews in general. They are the first to be manipulated by their elites, and they are part of this collective psychopathy only to the extent of their submission to those elites. Jewishness, do not forget, is whatever idea the Jews make of it; and the idea the Jews make of it is, almost entirely, the one imposed on them by their elites.

What is at issue is the prevailing ideology of Israel, and (more discreetly) of the organized Jewish community. Dominant discourse is always shaped by the elite. Sometimes a strong current of popular thought emerges to challenge the dominant way of thinking, but nothing of this kind is yet observable in the Jewish community; it is overwhelmingly docile to its elite, which currently dominates the media and the entertainment industry and therefore enjoys considerable mind-control powers. Their ruse is to maintain in the Jews an absolute conviction of the immaculate innocence of their people, and simultaneously to inculcate a paranoid fear of anti-Semitism, this “disease transmitted for two thousand years, incurable.” (Leon Pinsker) (33)

In The Corporation: the Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power (Free Press, 2005), Joel Bakan noted that those “legal persons” that are large companies behave like psychopaths, insensitive to the suffering of those they crush in their pursuit of profit: “Corporate behavior is very similar to that of a psychopath.” That company culture, which involves every employee to one degree or another, is driven by its ruling elite. The Enron case has shown the world the tremendous damage that can be done by a company run by people of high intelligence and perverse ideology. (34) My analysis here of the Jewish community is based on exactly the same reasoning. Like it or not, the character of a nation is as much determined by its legitimate leaders than the reverse. Until proven otherwise Benjamin Netanyahu is as much Israel as Vladimir Putin is Russia.

And since Israel has New York as its second capital, we must also count among its elites the neoconservatives (“neo” here means “crypto” and “conservative” means “Likudnik”), whose leaders define themselves as disciples of Leo Strauss, therefore implicitly as super-Machiavellian. (In his Thoughts on Machiavelli, in fact, Strauss claims he is the only one who understands what Machiavelli never dared to write). This hyper-Machiavellianism of the neoconservatives, to which they admit when speaking amongst themselves, must be taken very seriously. In an article in the Jewish World Review of June 7, 1999, the neoconservative Michael Ledeen defends the thesis that Machiavelli was a “secret Jew” since “If you listen to his political philosophy you will hear Jewish music.” (35) According to Strauss, Machiavelli is the super-patriot who understands that only the nation has an eternal soul, and that, therefore, the best leader is one who has no fear of losing his soul, since he has none. In practice, the art of the Machiavellian prince is to terrorize while diverting popular resentment toward his enemies. I believe that the admission of Ledeen sheds light on the psychopathic nature of Israel. From the Judeo-Machiavellian (i.e. neoconservative) point of view, the current leaders of Israel from Tel Aviv to New York – from Benjamin Netanyahu to Larry Silverstein – are super-patriots.

This article is in no way anti-Semitic; it is a severe criticism of “Jewishness” as a system of thought, a representation of the world and the self. We are critiquing an idea by exposing its dangerous irrationality, nothing more. Even if it is as old as the world, an idea still deserves critique. Since the first victims of a toxic idea are the men and women it inhabits, they are likewise the first we would help liberate. This article is basically a fraternal message to all Jews: Jews of all countries, disunite! Break away from your elites and their pathological ideology! Rejoin humanity!

Likewise, not all elites deserve to be put in the same bag. Many are the Zionist leaders who have had the courage to confront the monster they created, and to try to undo the damage. Moshe Sharett, Foreign Minister from 1948 to 1956 and Prime Minister from 1954 to 1955, advocated a moderate Zionism respectful of international rules, in contrast to the methods of Ben Gurion, Pinhas Levon, Moshe Dayan and Shimon Peres, the clan determined “to set the Middle East on fire,” “to frighten the West into supporting Israel’s aims,” by raising “terrorism to the level of a sacred principle” according to Sharett (36). The Zionist leader Nahum Goldman, quoted above, was in favor of a genuine dialogue with the Arabs and was deeply disillusioned by the attitude of Ben Gurion, whom he described as “organically incapable of compromise” and blinded by self-righteousness. After 1967 he became an outspoken critic of illegal occupation of Palestinian territories. During the government of Begin, he advised President Carter to “break the back” of the Zionist lobby that he had long headed, which he believed had become a “negative factor” afflicting American foreign policy. (37)

Why have men like Sharett and Goldman never managed to overcome the psychopathic ideological power machine of Zionism? Could it be because it – like Jewishness itself – is rooted deeply in the Bible? In the final analysis does not the Zionist manipulation go back to the creation by those ancient priests, the Levites, of a tribal god by the name of Yahweh, who usurped the title of the Creator of the Universe and Father of Humanity? Ultimately, is not Zionism the logical outcome of Yahwism? This is a question that I will reserve for another article.

1) Robert Hare, Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us, The Guilford Press, 1993.

2) Helene Deutsche, Les «comme si» et autres textes, 1933-1970 (1992), Seuil, 2007, p. 55, cited in Roland Gori, La Fabrique des Imposteurs, Le Lien qui Libère, 2013, p. 232.

3) Paul Babiak et Robert Hare, Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work, HarperCollins, 2007. Theme expressed in documentary film I am Fishead (2011) : www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXFmo6WipNk

4) Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State, University of Chicago Press, 1993 ; J.J. Goldberg, Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment, Basic Books, 1997.

5) Robert Reich, Locked in the Cabinet, Scribner, 1997, cited in Kevin MacDonald, Culture of Critique: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, Praeger 1998, kindle edition 2013, e. 9222-27.

6) Cited in André Pichot, Aux origines des théories raciales, de la Bible à Darwin, Flammarion, 2008, p. 418-419.

7) www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/Alain-Soral-commentaires-de-l-actualite-et-conseils-de-lecture-25711.html, à 15:12.

8) Cité dans Hervé Ryssen, Les Espérances planétariennes, Éditions Baskerville, 2005, p. 183.

9) Werner Sombart, Les Juifs et la vie économique (1902), KontreKulture, 2012, p. 482 et 158.

10) Cited in Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism, Praeger, 1998, édition kindle 2013, e. 5403-10.

11) Cited in Hervé Ryssen, La Guerre eschatologique, Éditions Baskerville, 2013, p. 23-24 et Les Espérances planétariennes, Éditions Baskerville, 2005, p. 184-189.

12) Cited in Roger Garaudy, Le Procès du sionisme, 1998, p. 17 et dans Hervé Ryssen, Les Espérances planétariennes, Éditions Baskerville, 2005, p. 184-189.

13) Jean-Marie Lustiger, La Promesse, Parole et Silence, 2002.

14) Nahum Goldman, The Jewish Paradox, Fred Jordan Book, 1978, p. 8 et 56-57.

15) Cited in Hervé Ryssen, Les Espérances planétariennes, Éditions Baskerville, 2005, p. 191.

16) Hervé Ryssen, La Guerre eschatologique, Éditions Baskerville, 2013, p. 25.

17) Josef Kastein, History and destiny of the Jews, Garden City publishing, 1936, cited in Douglas Reed, La Controverse de Sion (1956), Kontre Kulture, 2012, p. 163.

18) Josué Jehouda, L’Antisémitisme, miroir du monde, Éditions Synthesis, 1958, p.185, cited in Léon de Poncins, Les Juifs et le Concile Vatican II, Kontre Kulture, 2014, p. 173.

19) Cited in Martin Peltier, L’Antichristianisme juif. L’enseignement de la haine, Diffusion Internationale Édition, 2014, p. 250-252.

20) Kevin MacDonald, Culture of Critique, Praeger, 1998, Kindle edition 2013, e. 9983-10008 ; see also Separation and Its Discontents, Praeger, 1998, Kindle edition 2013, ch. 7.

21) Cited in Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents, Praeger 1998, Kindle edition 2013, e. 5485-91.

22) Léon Pinsker, Autoémancipation, Lettre d’un juif russe à ses frères (1882), Éditions Mille et Une Nuits, 2006, p. 17 et 21.

23) Cited in Hervé Ryssen, Les Espérances planétariennes, Éditions Baskerville, 2005, p. 319.

24) Cited in Hervé Ryssen, Psychanalyse du judaïsme, Éditions Baskerville, 2006, p. 205.

25) Kevin MacDonald, Culture of Critique, Kindle 2013, e. 3176-78.

26) Michael Walzer, “Toward a New Realization of Jewishness,” Congress Monthly n° 61, 1994, p.4, cited in MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents, Kindle 2013, e. 4675-86.

27) Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents, Kindle 2013, e. 4674-86.

28) Cited in Max Blumenthal, Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel, Nation Books, 2013, p. 16.

29) Alan Hart, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, Volume 2: David Becomes Goliath, p. 42-49.

30) Gideon Levy, “Only psychiatrists can explain Israel’s behavior,” Haaretz, January 10, 2010, www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/only-psychiatrists-can-explain-israel-s-behavior-1.261115

31) Arthur Howden Smith, The Real Colonel House (1918), Bibliographical Center for Research, 2010, citd in Aline de Diéguez, Aux Sources du chaos mondial actuel, on line at: http://aline.dedieguez.pagesperso-orange.fr/mariali/chaos/house.html.

32) Alan Hart, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, vol. 2: David Becomes Goliath, Clarity Press, 2009, p. 194.

33) Léon Pinsker, Auto-émancipation, 1882, cited in Jean Daniel, La Prison juive, Odile Jacob, 2005, p. 133.

34) See the documentary The Smartest Guy in the Room (2005), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxzLX_C9Z74

35) Michael Ledeen, “What Machiavelli (A Secret Jew?) Learned from Moses,” Jewish World Review, 7 juin 1999, www.jewishworldreview.com/0699/machiavelli1.asp

36) Livia Rokach, Israel’s Sacred Terrorism: A Study Based on Moshe Sharett’s Personal Diary and Other Documents, Association of Arab-American University Graduates, 1986, p. 42-49.

37) Alan Hart, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, Volume 2: David Becomes Goliath, p. 42-49

Mining, Barrick Gold, Peter Munk and Their Influence on Canadian Politics

See here and here for more on this topic.

By Anthony J. Hall

Canadian Council of Chief Executives head John Manley, former prime minister and current Barrick international advisory board chair Brian Mulroney, Barrick chairman Peter Munk, and former foreign minister and current Barrick international advisory board member John Baird, pictured in 2012 at an exclusive dinner at The Museum of Nature where Bill Clinton’s former Secretary of Defense William Cohen was keynote speaker. Now, who is shaking hands, and what is the deal? photo by Jake Wright

• Nigel Wright has been much in the news for the $90,172 cheque he signed over to Mike Duffy. Much less attention has been devoted to the scandalous implications of the $9 million payment from former Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird to Peter Munk’s School at the University of Toronto. The anatomy of both deals sheds light on the abundant conflicts of interest linking the Barrick Gold Company with Conservative Party governments led by Brian Mulroney and now Stephen Harper.

The origins of Barrick Gold

After terminating his tenure as the most undiplomatic Minister of Foreign Affairs in Canada’s history, John Baird has been extended a place on Barrick Gold Corporation’s International Advisory Board. Its founding Chair was former US President George H.W. Bush. The international panel’s current Chair is former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. A close student of the relationship between Bush Sr. and Mulroney, in 1997 Anton Chaitkin came up with the phrase “Barrick’s Barracudas.” Baird is a recent recruit among this school of fishy predators inhabiting those murky zones of lucrative interaction between business and politics. This pattern goes back at least to 1984 when Adnan Khashoggi visited Ontario’s capital to establish a Toronto headquarters for the Barrick complex of companies.

In the period when he was laying out the political, legal and economic groundwork for what would become Barrick Gold, the flamboyant playboy Khashoggi was reputed to be one of the world’s richest men. This CIA asset and arms merchant also served as a front man for a group of Saudi Arabian investors that included Kamal Adham, the oil-rich country’s head of intelligence operations. This strategic link to Saudi wealth was crucial in the financial life of western capitals during an era when much depended on Saudi Arabia’s backing for the shift of the US dollar from a gold-backed to an oil-based currency.

Barrick Gold’s connection through Peter Munk to Canada’s Bronfman family dynasty formed a vital dimension of the Israeli-Saudi axis, an important factor in maintaining the Anglo-American empire. Edgar Bronfman’s activities, as the influential head of the World Jewish Congress between 1979 and 2007, provide us with a glimpse into the politico-economic juggernaut that included the Barrick complex of companies.

Khashoggi met with Ontario Premier Bill Davis in 1984 during a heavily hyped media event meant to promote the listing of what was then known as American Barrick or Barrick Resources in the Toronto Stock Exchange. Flash forward to 2015 when Newt Gingrich became John Baird’s co-appointee on Barrick’s international advisory panel.

In 2008, Gingrich became a candidate for the US Republican Party’s nomination in the presidential election. Multi-billionaire gambling czar Sheldon Adelson famously funded Gingrich’s neoconservative candidacy. Adelson’s political priorities include putting in place a US president that will agree to nuke Iran, the number one national nemesis of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The Munk School’s role in promoting the hawkish policies of the Harper Government towards Iran

Several weeks before joining Barrick’s well-rewarded international advisory panel, Foreign Affairs Minister Baird conducted a press conference in Toronto along with Professor Janice Stein, then Director of the Munk School of Global Affairs. The Munk School originated in its present form in 2011. It began with a large donation to the University of Toronto from Peter Munk.

Munk became the most public face of Barrick Gold Corporation after Adnan Khashoggi was exposed in the Iran-Contra scandal in the late 1980s. Khashoggi and some of his fellow Saudi investors in Barrick businesses were exposed as key operatives in a complex web of illegal financial transactions on behalf of the National Security apparatus of the Reagan-Bush White House.

During and after his term as US President from 1989 to 1993, Bush Sr. took firm charge of Barrick’s most rapid phase of international expansion. To help him with this enterprise he recruited his peer, Brian Mulroney, with whom Bush had worked particularly closely in putting together the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA. NAFTA was instituted in 1992 shortly before both men left elected public office under clouds of infamy.

On January 6 of this year, Stein and Baird announced that the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper was directing a grant of $9 million to the Digital Public Square Project. In this scheme of internet manipulation, the U of T’s Munk School was enlisted in a federal operation reminiscent of old Cold War initiatives to encourage dissidents within communist countries to join forces and rise up in order to topple their Soviet-backed oppressors.

This Harper U of T initiative is being pressed forward in a context defined by Ottawa’s severance in 2012 of diplomatic ties with Tehran. The federal government’s unilateral decision to terminate formal relations was introduced with Baird’s inflammatory allegation that “Canada views the Government of Iran as the most significant threat to global peace and security in the world today.”

Baird added to this saga of vituperation in 2013 by asserting, “The [Iranian] regime is hollow. It does not have the depth, the intellect, the humanity or the humility to bring about a better future for its people.” This most undiplomatic of characterizations was delivered notwithstanding the diplomatic transformations brought by the election in 2013 of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.

The Digital Public Square initiative is a thinly disguised instigation of hostile regime change directed at Iran and also several other countries on the Harper government’s Enemies List. Professor Stein attempted to soft-peddle U of T’s role in this scheme. “It’s about making space for different narratives. It’s about making space for different voices,” she declared.

I was struck with a sense of irony when I first saw these words attributed to Professor Stein, who apparently coached John Baird regularly in how he should articulate Canada’s international positions. When it comes to issues like Canada’s relationships with the Islamic Republic of Iran, or, for that matter, the Jewish state of Israel, I do not hear a multiplicity voices in Parliament or in mainstream media coming from a wide variety of perspectives. What I have heard instead – especially on the airwaves of Canada’s public broadcaster – is a very narrow spectrum of blinkered, one-sided international commentary.

Indeed, I can report from my experience as a delegate in October 2014 at an international conference in Tehran that I participated in a much more free-ranging and broad discussion of global affairs than would be possible these days in the heavily censored CBC. The same comparison might be applied to the gate-kept academic environment at the U of T and certainly to the cloistered confines of its Munk School.

In 2013, the Munk School Director, Janice Stein, and Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird were accused of stifling such free-ranging academic debate by a coalition of Canadian-Iranian community groups. They accused the organizers of an allegedly closed and secretive academic gathering at the U of T of making “a calculated attempt to sideline critics and censor opponents of the Conservative government’s policy on Iran.” Those invited to make presentations were said to display uniformly “hawkish views” unreflective of “the Iranian diaspora’s outlook.”

Barrick Gold, the political agenda and constraints on academic freedom

Peter Munk’s donation to the University of Toronto was negotiated in secret with the U of T’s former President, David Naylor. Dr. Naylor was recently appointed to Barrick’s Board. The Naylor-Munk deal of 2011 breaks new ground in terms of tying strings to the future flow of funding to an important academic unit at a Canadian university.

The Munk School Director must satisfy Peter Munk – and, after his death, the trustees of Munk’s estate – that he or she is meeting predetermined academic and “branding” guidelines. The U of T’s adoption of these conditions sets very unfortunate precedents for the corporate sponsoring of other academic institutions.

This constraint on academic freedom only begins the litany of negative implications permeating the Munk School’s positioning in the academy. As emphasized on the website of a campus-wide coalition entitled Peter Munk Out of U of T, “students have cause for concern that their school is so closely associated with this company… that is accused of human rights violations, labour violations, environmental devastation and/or corruption where they operate.”

This corruption begins in Canada and extends to many countries where Barrick operates including Peru, Tanzania, Papua New Guinea and Australia. Barrick’s horrendous record has been highlighted by many organizations and NGOs including Mining Watch and Protest Barrick as well as by many authors including Alan Denault, Sakura Saunders, Greg Palast, Alex Constantine and E. P. Heidner.

Especially serious from the perspective of the growing assaults on academic freedom at the University of Toronto and other centers of higher learning is Barrick Gold’s history of trying to intimidate, shut up and destroy altogether its critics through a variety of coercive techniques. These include financially debilitating SLAPP suits, strategic lawsuits against public participation.

Barrick’s precedent-setting litigious assault in Ontario on the Internet postings of Chilean-Canadian miner, Jorge Lopehandia, became especially aggressive in the early 2000s. With his Vancouver-based associates Lopehandia has achieved considerable traction with the Chilean judiciary in demonstrating that he, not Barrick Gold, is the primary holder of title to the massive deposits of gold, silver and copper at the Pascau Lama Mine.

Barrick Gold’s main man on the ground in Latin America is heir to the financial empire of Andronico Luksic Sr.. Luksic Sr. was one of the primary beneficiaries of the radical privatization of public property imposed on Chile after the US-backed coup in 1973. Banker Andronico Luksic Jr. has taken over his father’s hostility to Lopehandia’s unrelenting assertion of title to one of the world’s richest mineral deposits. Through the public exposure attending his politically-motivated efforts to extend improper loans to the family of Chilean President Michelle Bachelet, Luksic has botched his overzealous power play. His attempt to cozy up to Chile’s first family is generating much negative domestic publicity in ways that are engulfing Barrick’s Chilean outpost in the hot glare of scandal.

Lopehandia’s tenacious defense of his rights and interests is part of a tsunami of problems overwhelming Barrick in what was once advertised as its prime Latin American bastion. In 2013 in Canada’s Financial Post, Peter Koven accused Barrick of “screwing up the Pascua Lama project about as badly as any mining company has ever screwed up a major project.”

Mining the public interest for corporate and private gain

As Canada’s recent Minister of Foreign Affairs, John Baird has played a key role in Barrick Gold’s litigious interactions with, for instance, Jorge Lopehandia. Lopehandia has had much company in bringing forward serious indigenous grievances in those many countries where Barrick’s Barracudas are active.

Barrick has emerged as a core polity in a structure of international affairs wherein fully 75 percent of the world’s mining companies are headquartered in Canada. It seems that very lax oversight of the Toronto and Vancouver stock exchanges, as well as the lack of any serious regulation by our federal government, has made Canada a laissez-faire magnet for extractive enterprises of many sorts.

There is an unmistakable stench of conflict of interest surrounding John Baird in his work inside and now outside Stephen Harper’s cabinet. The most obvious indicator of this malfeasance began the moment he handed over a federal cheque for $9 million dollars to the Munk School of Global Affairs. The purpose of the grant was to advance the U of T’s transformation into a partisan partner in the Canadian government’s decidedly “hawkish” interactions with Iran.

Only weeks after this delivery of public funds to the Munk School, the Barrick Gold Corporation reciprocated. In his very first days as a private citizen, Baird joined the International Advisory Board of Peter Munk’s main medium of golden endowment to the University of Toronto.

John Baird thus followed a path laid out by former US President George H.W. Bush and by Brian Mulroney. Mulroney joined Barrick’s Barracudas after receiving cash from Karlheinz Schreiber for services rendered when he was the Canadian Prime Minister that cleared the way for neocon Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

As Foreign Affairs Minister, Baird had intervened in 2012 to fend off allegations that Harper’s former Chief of Staff, Nigel Wright, was guilty of conflict of interest in advancing Barrick Gold’s interests with his boss. Wright was then being investigated by Mary Dawson, Parliament’s Ethics Watchdog, on the suspicion that he had played a role on three separate occasions as an advocate of Barrick’s preferred positioning of Canada vis-à-vis mining in Latin America.

The National Post paraphrased the former Minister’s characterizations of Wright’s interactions with the Gold Company as follows, “Wright did nothing wrong; he merely listened to Barrick’s concerns, said nothing, passed the matter over to others responsible for the file and was not involved in any decision relating to the company.”

What credibility do these words now possess given Baird’s own subsequent induction along with David Naylor into Barrick Gold’s inner sanctum through the medium of the company’s deep infiltration of the U of T’s academic life? Here is yet another indication that the Harper government’s ethics initiative is a scam as epitomized by Baird’s bringing his very recent access to state secrets to the service of Barrick Gold.

With an accompanying email assurance as Stephen Harper’s Chief of Staff that the deal was “good to go,” Nigel Wright delivered the now-notorious $90,172 cheque to suspended Senator Mike Duffy. This payment is seen by many as a smoking gun in the high-profile criminal trial now underway in Ottawa.

Wright’s close friend is Anthony Munk, his former colleague in the giant private equity firm, Onex Corporation. Wright’s intimacy with the Munk family is marked in his role as godfather to the grandson of Peter Munk. “I have complete trust” in Nigel Wright, declared Munk Sr. in 2011. Munk’s trust in his grandson’s godfather was reflected in Wright’s appointment along with Andrew Coyne and Ken Whyte to the Board of the Aurea Foundation.

With its annual debates at the Munk School of Global Affairs, the Aurea Foundation constitutes another example of how neoconservatives operate to engineer the boundaries of acceptable discourse in the mainstream media and in the academy. This discourse most valorizes the deregulation of business and maximum latitude for the expansionary policies of Likudnik Israel, both political priorities for the newest of Barrick’s Barracudas, John Baird and Newt Gingrich.

An academic alternative to the Munk School of Global Affairs?

After two decades of intense engagement in the courts of both Chile and Canada with representatives of our country’s chief mining leviathan, Jorge Lopehandia’s survival speaks volumes. Not only has he retained his legal ground, but he is gaining strategic turf. From this adversarial experience, Lopehandia has developed his own personal perspective on what he sees as Barrick Gold’s ruthless and unethical way of conducting business.

Lopehandia is especially critical of the effects of Barrick’s accounting machinations on the declining value of the many pension funds invested heavily in what was once widely viewed as a blue chip company. The revolt of pensioners is being felt once again in 2015 as many managers of retirement funds repeat the main themes of their protest in 2013.

A common thread of grievance in their votes of non-confidence is Barrick’s very high rate of executive compensation. This penchant for huge payoffs to those at the top goes back to the days when George H. W. Bush was handsomely rewarded for engineering the transactions that catapulted Barrick Gold from obscurity to the world’s number one marketer of gold and gold derivatives.

As Lopehandia sees it, the high rates of reward to executives and their political advisors reflect the reality that Barrick’s most important asset is privileged access to the inner citadels of political, juridical and media influence. A common theme running throughout this process of infiltration involves the corruption of the state in order to harness its coercive force for the displacement of indigenous peoples from valuable natural resources.

The consistency of this expansionary pattern in the growth of Barrick Gold Corporation flows naturally from the history of the heavy trade in mining shares on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Toronto’s rise to commercial prominence has depended on dispossessing and displacing First Nations in the development of one mining frontier after the next in northern Ontario.

This same general trajectory of expansion through Aboriginal dispossession is continuing through venues such as Barrick Gold into the wider international realm. It is a process that is making Canada synonymous with the most dirty and exploitative networks of extractive industry.

A father of college-aged young men, Lopenhandia speaks eloquently of the tragic subordination of one of Canada’s oldest and most prestigious universities to the imperatives of corporatist subversion. He asks rhetorically, “Why pay homage to those who have benefited most from the kind of outrageous incursions that are giving the Canadian mining industry a bad name among many decent folks throughout Latin America and Africa? What messages are we sending to our young people by treating the likes of Peter Munk, Brian Mulroney, John Baird and Newt Gingrich as role models for the country’s future leaders?”

As Lopenhandia sees it, some of the funds poured into the Munk School of Global Affairs are in fact stolen from him and individuals like him in Barrick Gold’s global rush for spoils. He speaks eloquently of the kind of alternative to the Munk School that he would like to endow if he succeeds in his quest to put in place a more just model for mining sustainably the riches of the vast Pascua-Lama repository of precious metals.

Lopehandia underlines that any alternative to the Munk School in which he might become involved would have to promote rather than constrain academic freedom. The kind of institute Lopehandia has in mind would be an arena of academic meritocracy affording respect, recognition and security especially to those voices of dissent emanating from outside the charmed inner circle of privilege and power.

Such a centre of excellence would eschew rather than cultivate conditions of exclusion such as those that provoked the Iranian Canadian community groups in 2013 to accuse the Munk School of organizing a closed event to promote the hawkish policies of the ruling party. Rather than responding appropriately to this significant criticism, the anti-Iranian partnership of the University of Toronto and the Harper government was solidified in 2015 with John Baird’s and professor Stein’s announcement of substantial federal largesse for the Munk School.

A Lopehandia School of Globalization Studies would embrace, rather than spurn, those academics willing to speak truth to power, even when that power takes the form of a corporate leviathan like Barrick Gold with its still largely hidden history of serial dealings with the most dubious variety of former public official.

Anthony Hall is professor of Globalization Studies at the University of Lethbridge. He has written for the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star, Canadian Dimension and many other periodicals. His most recent books are Earth into Property: Colonization, Decolonization and Capitalism and The American Empire and the Fourth World. Both volumes are published by McGill-University Press.

The Neoconservative Movement is Trotskyism

Besides the article below, it is very important to see these documentaries about the connections between the origins of Homeland Security, Bolshevism, the Cheka, and the Stasi, then watch these documentaries about the connections between Neo-Conservatives and organized crime.  Also, see here for a list of books about Neo-Conservatism and how it morphed out of the Trotskyites of Communism.


By  Jonas E. Alexis

Former neoconservative luminary Francis Fukuyama of Stanford (formerly of Johns Hopkins) compares the neoconservative movement to Leninism. Neoconservatism, according to Fukuyama, is the reincarnation to some extent of both Leninism and Bolshevism.

Fukuyama’s observation makes sense when even Irving Kristol, who founded the movement, proudly admitted that the “honor I most prized was the fact that I was a member in good standing of the [Trotskyist] Young People’s Socialist League (Fourth International).”

And this neoconservative movement, as Jewish writer Sidney Blumenthal has shown, found its political and intellectual ideology “in the disputatious heritage of the Talmud.” (See here for more articles about the Talmud. Be sure to scroll down and go through all the articles.)

Even after the birth of the neoconservative movement, many of its members such as Stephen Schwartz of the Weekly Standard and Joan Wohlstetter of the RAND Corporation still had a burning thirst for Lev Davidovich Bronstein, known as Leon Trotsky.

In that sense, the neoconservative persuasion is a subversive movement which started out in the 1920s and 30s. Legal scholar Michael Lind pointed out some years ago that,

“Most neoconservative defense intellectuals have their roots on the left, not the right. They are products of the influential Jewish-American sector of the Trotskyist movement of the 1930s and 1940s, which morphed into anti-communist liberalism between the 1950s and 1970s and finally into a kind of militaristic and imperial right with no precedents in American culture or political history.”

This was the case for Kristol, who bragged about how his Jewish intellectual comrades such as Nathan Glazer of Harvard, Philip Selznick of Berkley, Peter Rossi of Johns Hopkins, Merroe Berger of Princeton, I. Milton Sacks of Brandeis, and Seymour Melman of Columbia were not only Trotskyists but were “unquestionably the most feverishly articulate” in indoctrinating students into their Weltanschauung.

Kristol argues in his book The Neoconservative Persuasion that those Jewish intellectuals did not forsake their heritage (revolutionary ideology) when they gave up Communism and other revolutionary movements, but had to make some changes in their thinking. America is filled with such former Trotskyists who unleashed an unprecedented foreign policy that led to the collapse of the American economy.

We have to keep in mind that America and much of the Western world were scared to death of Bolshevism and Trotskyism in the 1920s and early 30s because of its subversive activity.

Winston Churchill himself wrote an article in 1920 in the British newspaper Illustrated Sunday Herald entitled “Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People.”

The United States had document after document in archives (particularly at the Yale Law School) on Bolshevik Revolution. One of those documents is entitled “Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States 1918 Russia Vol. I – The Bolshevik ‘Coup d’Etat’ November 7, 1917.” Virtually no one wanted to tolerate Bolshevism.

Noted Australian economist John Quiggin declares in his recent work Zombie Economics that “Ideas are long lived, often outliving their originators and taking new and different forms. Some ideas live on because they are useful. Others die and are forgotten. But even when they have proved themselves wrong and dangerous, ideas are very hard to kill. Even after the evidence seems to have killed them, they keep on coming back.

These ideas are neither alive nor dead; rather…they are undead, or zombie, ideas.” Bolshevism or Trotskyism is one of those zombie ideas that keeps coming back in different forms. It has ideologically reincarnated in the political disputations of the neoconservative movement.

If this sounds like an exaggeration and if you think the projectile motion of Trotskyism is over, listen to Gabriel Schoenfeld, senior advisor to the Mitt Romney for President campaign, as to why he supported Romney for president:

“My support for Mitt Romney has something to do with a ship called the Serpa Pinto and with an American Marxist revolutionary. Schoenfeld later declared that his father was a Trotskyist in the revolutionary sense, and that Obama was too soft on the Middle East, and Romney was the better choice to take care of Iran. Schoenfeld was an editor for the neoconservative magazine Commentary."

As it turns out, neoconservative think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute are largely extensions of Trotskyism with respect to foreign policy. Other think tanks such as the Bradley Foundation were overtaken by the neoconservative machine back in 1984.

Some of those double agents have been known to have worked with Likud-supporting Jewish groups such as the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, an organization which has been known to have “co-opted” several “non-Jewish defense experts by sending them on trips to Israel. It flew out the retired general Jay Garner, now slated by Bush to be proconsul of occupied Iraq.”


Philo-Semitic scholars Stephen Halper of Cambridge University and Jonathan Clarke of the CATO Institute agree that the neoconservative agendas “have taken American international relations on an unfortunate detour,” which is another way of saying that this revolutionary movement is not what the Founding Fathers signed up for, who all maintained that the United States would serve the American people best by not entangling herself in alliances with foreign entities.

As soon as the Israel Lobby came along, as soon as the neoconservative movement began to shape U.S. foreign policy, as soon as Israel began to dictate to the U.S. what ought to be done in the Middle East, America was universally hated by the Muslim world.

Moreover, former secretary of defense Robert Gates made it clear to the United States that the Israelis do not and should not have a monopoly on the American interests in the Middle East. For that, he was chastised by neoconservative Elliott Abrams.

In that sense, the neoconservative movement as a political and intellectual movement represents a fifth column in the United States in that it subtly and deceptively seeks to undermine what the Founding Fathers have stood for and replace it with what the Founding Fathers would have considered horrible foreign policies—policies which have contributed to the demise of the respect America once had.

Halper and Clarke move on to say that the neoconservative movement is “in complete contrast…to the general cast of the American temperament as embodied by the Declaration of Independence.”

The neoconservative persuasion is horrible in the sense that much of the war in the Middle East has been based on colossal hoaxes and fabrications.

"This point became more interesting when it was discovered that Israel has maintained covert operations against the U.S. on multiple levels, including smuggling illegal weapons for years, while the neoconservative machine says nothing about this issue and keeps propounding that Israel is a model of Western values in the Middle East."

Israel has been spying on the United States for years using various Israeli or Jewish individuals, including key Jewish neoconservative figures such as Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, who were under investigation for passing classified documents to Israel.

The FBI has numerous documents tracing Israel’s espionage in the U.S., but no one has come forward and declared it explicitly in the media because most political pundits value mammon over truth.

For example, when two top AIPAC officials—Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman—were caught passing classified documents from the Pentagon to Israel, Gabriel Schoenfeld defended them.

In the annual FBI report called “Foreign Economic Collection and Industrial Espionage,” Israel is a major country that pops up quite often. This is widely known among CIA and FBI agents and U.S. officials for years.

"One former U.S. intelligence official declared, “There is a huge, aggressive, ongoing set of Israeli activities directed against the United States. Anybody who worked in counterintelligence in a professional capacity will tell you the Israelis are among the most aggressive and active countries targeting the United States. They undertake a wide range of technical operations and human operations. People here as liaisons… aggressively pursue classified intelligence from people. The denials are laughable.”

In 1991, the Israelis tried to recruit a former U.S. intelligence official, but he declined. “I had an Israeli intelligence officer pitch me in Washington at the time of the first Gulf War. I said, ‘No, go away,’ and reported it to counterintelligence.” Covert operations were done by the Israelis in “a 1997 case in which the National Security Agency bugged two Israeli intelligence officials in Washington discussing efforts to obtain a sensitive U.S. diplomatic document.


Israel denied wrongdoing in that case and all others, and no one has been prosecuted.” Yet this has rarely seen the light of day in the popular media. Pointing these facts out, according to the reasoning of Omri Ceren of the fifth column magazine Commentary, is tantamount to anti-Semitism.

In 2003, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon made the declaration that the United States had already conquered Iraq, and it was time that the U.S. marched against Iran, Syria, and Libya.

Under Obama, Sharon’s prediction became a reality in Libya, and now the U.S. is destabilizing Syria by covertly supporting the Syrian rebels, while the war drum is being beaten against Iran.

In the process, Iran has been blamed for a cyber attack in the Middle East with little evidence. By the fall of 2012, the United States and Israel were even considering a “surgical strike” against Iran.

At the same time, the “democracy” which the neocons dreamed of establishing in Iraq has become “increasingly authoritarian and narrowly sectarian,” according to twenty-eight-year CIA veteran and Georgetown University professor Paul R. Pillar. In his inaugural speech for his second term, President Obama suggested that the perpetual war has come to an end.

But by that time the U.S. was already marshalling  some of our precious men in Mali, and British Prime Minister David Cameron has recently declared that the war in Mali will more than likely last for decades, which is another way of saying that perpetual wars are here to stay. And the people who will be paying for this are the American taxpayers, decent people who are trying to put food on the table and generational children who will be drown in massive debt and student loans.

What, then, are some of the outcomes of the neoconservative movement? What are some of its revolutionary or subversive offshoots? We will explore these questions in the upcoming articles, but one of the indirect by-products of this movement is that no person, democrat or republican, can be elected as president without being a Zionist or at least favoring Israel over the Founding Fathers. This point became clear when Obama won the presidential election in 2012.

Months before election, both Romney and Obama were competing as to who was going to give the biggest tribute to Israel. Romney went to Israel and declared that Iran was the biggest threat in the world, and Obama sent Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to Israel right after Romney’s departure to tell Israel that his administration is in agreement with Israeli officials with respect to Iran. Both Romney and Obama supported deploying troops to Syria if Assad, they said, used chemical weapons.

For Alan Dershowitz of Harvard, it was the Jews in Florida who helped reelect Obama. This is not without evidence, since it has been reported that at least 70 percent of Jewish voters sided with Obama. Dershowitz continues to say that Jews like himself “must now realize that our support for the president will be good for Israel over the next four years…Jews vote for both parties.

Nobody is ignoring us. Every rational candidate knows that they and their party must earn our votes in every election.” One would say that this absolutely means nothing, since Jews are less than five percent of the population. But as we shall show in the next article, Jewish billionaires were largely the main vehicles supporting both Democrats and so-called Republicans.

Dershowitz then declared something that would have been a shock to the Founding Fathers: “Most Americans, regardless of religion, are united in support of Israel’s security, but divided about social and economic issues. It is critically important that support for Israel’s security remains a bipartisan issue, and never becomes a wedge issue that divides voters along party lines, as it has in some European countries.”

In other words, even though the economy is a dismal failure, even though Americans are out of work, even though people are being cheated out of their retirement plans, even though student loans have been skyrocketed, Americans must support Israel (it has been at least $3 billion a year). Just like the Pharisees and rabbis who had to tell Pilate what to do in the first century, Dershowitz declares, “I and others who support [Obama] will have his ear over the next four years.”

Almost two months before he won the presidential election, Obama invited Dershowitz to the White House and told him, “I don’t bluff.” Obama also invited Edgar Bronfman, former president of the World Jewish Congress, to the White House and told him, “My commitment to Israel’s security is bone deep.” What would George Washington, Thomas Edison and others say? Let us hear them.

George Washington: “The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns.

Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.” Thomas Jefferson: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations—entangling alliances with none,” Grover Cleveland: “It is the policy of Monroe and of Washington and Jefferson: Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliance with none.”

Does any president have the courage to pronounce these statements today? The answer is a resounding no. The only former presidential candidate who tried to implement that foreign policy was Ron Paul, but he was castigated as “a vicious anti-Semite” for doing so.

In a nutshell, if you are a follower of the Founding Fathers when it comes to foreign policy, you are a “vicious anti-Semite.” Moreover, if the Founding Fathers were alive today, they would be all anti-Semites! Over the past few weeks, more than 60 articles have been written against Chuck Hagel by two neoconservative magazines alone, Commentary and the Weekly Standard (not to mention the Washington Post, National Review, the Wall Street Journal, etc.).

This brings us to an essentially critical point that will be explored in more details later in the series: the word anti-Semitism has carelessly been applied in the political landscape to shut down rational arguments and important issues. It has become a weapon in the blessed hands of those who seek to destabilize thoughtful discussion.

You either support the neoconservative ideology, or else…


Jonas E. Alexis graduated from Avon Park High School, studied mathematics and philosophy as an undergraduate at Palm Beach Atlantic University, and has a master's degree in education from Grand Canyon University. 

Some of his main interests include the history of Christianity, U.S. foreign policy, the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the new book ,Christianity & Rabbinic Judaism: A History of Conflict Between Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism from the first Century to the Twenty-first Century.  He is currently teaching mathematics in South Korea.