Instead of a preamble:
"I refuse to be linked to far right websites, any white-power or anti semitic websites.
I am in business, and, believe it or not, here it comes - most of my friends and co-workers ARE Jews. Jewish Americans. And a bunch of wonderful people they are.
I always try to make it a point on my blog to differentiate the neocon Jewish Americans with other American Jews, because (surprise?), most Jews do NOT support the pro Israel Lobby, at least not in all of its actions. And most Jews want the occupation to end, and most Jews want to negotiate with Hamas and others for a lasting, secure peace and safe Israel.
So, I have decided that in my next blog post, I will spotlight the American (and perhaps Israeli) pro peace, (pro sanity really) Jewish organizations and people. I already asked somebody for help in getting a list.
The neocons are marching in lockstep, they are 100% behind everything Israel does, and are shouting the loudest for America to attack Iran and Syria.
But the majority of Jews who are not in power are definitely NOT neocons, and are against the Iraq war, never mind attacking Iran and Syria.
Just like one cannot blame ordinary Americans for this government's actions (well, up to a point), one cannot blame ALL Jews for neocon American-Jewish excesses and actions.
So, next blog post from American Goy will be all about Jews, and will be 110% positive.
Otherwise, you could get the impression that ALL the Jews support the neocon insane policies, and that is NOT the case."
And now the article.
Yesterday, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton announced on Fox News his belief that “the use of military force” against Iranian training camps “is really the most prudent thing to do.” Responding to a Telegraph report on his comments today, American Enterprise Institute scholar Michael Ledeen declared that Bolton is “right.” Adding that he’s “been proposing this for years,” Ledeen also said that “we should do the same thing to the Syrian camps as well.”
We should attack Iran and Syria, according to the American Enterprise Institute "scholar", Michael Ledeen.
First things first.
What is the American Enterprise Institute (AEI)?
It is a think tank. Now, there is the bullshit official definition of a think tank and the real one.
For brevity's sake, I will skip the bullshit.
Here's sourcewatch.org think tank definition:
A Think Tank is an organization that claims to serve as a center for research and/or analysis of important public issues. In reality, many think tanks are little more than public relations fronts, usually headquartered in state or national seats of government and generating self-serving scholarship that serves the advocacy goals of their industry sponsors; in the words of Yellow Times.org columnist John Chuckman, "phony institutes where ideologue~propagandists pose as academics ... [into which] money gushes like blood from opened arteries to support meaningless advertising's suffocation of genuine debate".
Think tanks are PROPAGANDA organizations, public relations specialists. They work to advocate (support) an issue or a policy and work for people who pay them. The fact that they are "non-profit", and hence cheat on their taxes, is an icing on the cake.
The AEI is a right wing propaganda organization. Per Sourcewatch AEI article, it is "the center base for many neo-conservatives" (I agree with that characterization).
What makes me the most mad is that these so called "scholars" from these think tanks are invited on TV "news" shows as "experts" and are asked their opinions.
Think about it - these think tanks are propaganda organizations, advocating an issue or a policy because they are paid to do so. They are asked and go on a TV "news" show, where frequently they are not identified as belonging to a so and so think tank, and only given a name, such as: "and here's Michael Ledeen" (not that 99.99% know or care what think tanks are, but like the sheep they are believe that people on TV are experts, instead of propaganda and public relations specialists). Then they spout their bullshit propaganda and the TV "news" people treat them as if they were subject matter experts.
So, the AEI is the home of the neocons.
Who are the neocons?
Again, lets go to Sourcewatch:
A neo-conservative (abbreviated as neo-con or neocon) is part of a U.S. based political movement rooted in liberal Cold War anticommunism and a backlash to the social liberation movements of the 1960s and 1970s. These liberals drifted toward conservatism: thus they are new (neo) conservatives
Neo-conservatives used to be liberals, but they decided, to hell with it, we are conservatives now.
Logically, there must have been an overriding issue that pushed these liberals into becoming hard core conservatives. I mean, a Libertarian does not suddenly turn into a Communist, and vice versa... I will come to that point later on in this article.
Continuing with this Sourcewatch.org article on neocons, we go to the Neoconservative forums and advocates section:
The early leaders of the neoconservative movement were Irving Kristol (author of 1983 book Reflections of a Neoconservative) and Norman Podhoretz, both of whom have served as editors of Commentary Magazine, the flagship publication of the American Jewish Committee, a centrist American-Jewish organization
Other magazines include the Weekly Standard, currently edited by William Kristol and owned by Rupert Murdoch.
Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz are Jewish-Americans. Lets note that and move on.
The section The neoconservatives and the Bush administrations states:
Many neoconservatives found important positions in the Department of Defense under George W. Bush. They had long argued for a preventive war against Iraq in particular, but also several other Middle Eastern countries (Iran, Syria, Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia).
Immediately following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack, they renewed their calls for attack on Iraq. The Bush administration chose to first invade Afghanistan, but the neoconservatives eventually prevailed.
Neo-conservatives have long argued to invade Iran, Syria, Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and after 9/11 they were very vocal about attacking Iraq.
What motivates these neo-conservatives to join think-tanks, and go on TV, radio, write newspaper articles, endless arguments to attack Iraq, bomb Iran, attack Syria, attack attack attack!
Why does Michael Ledeen, after years of America occupying Iraq, and most of America being sick of this war and wanting our troops home, call for yet more wars? More conflicts?
The AEI, the think-tank that is home to the neocons, states its mission is "to defend the principles and improve the institutions of American freedom and democratic capitalism — limited government, private enterprise, individual liberty and responsibility, vigilant and effective defense and foreign policies, political accountability, and open debate."
They are working for the good of America, right?
But since the Iraq war is a costly fiasco, where in reality we are now supporting a pro Iran government (please read the "Iran thanks the brave American soldiers!" article), what gives?
What the hell motivates these neo-cons?
Do they seriously believe that attacking Iran AND Syria now is in the USA's best interest?
Are they this stupid, this dumb, this insane?
Or is there something else here at play that you are missing?
The following is taken from my The Case for Dual Loyalty article; this should help you out a bit to understand just what is going on here. I recommend that you read the WHOLE linked article, but the relevant section is here:
"A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" - (quick Wiki link here with a short explanation) this was a policy paper presented to Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996, then Israeli Prime Minister. The report dealt with Israel's security and how best to achieve it. The writers of this recommendation were American-Jews, of the neocon variety.
Simply put, this policy paper recommended actions necessary to make Israel "more secure" in the future, meaning in the XXI Century. Chief among the recommendations were:
* Removal of Saddam Hussein
* Attack on Iran
* Attack on Syria
* Repudiation of the "land for peace".
If you follow the international news at all, you realize that this plan has been put into motion.
Iraq was attacked and destroyed - it is now not a danger to Israel.
Iran is next - the war drums and mass hysteria is being whipped in the USA to attack Iran, and the neocons are desperate to attack Iran before George W. Bush's presidency ends.
The Oslo accords were repudiated, and new settlements are growing on the West Bank.
The fascinating thing about this is how open this is - these are AMERICAN CITIZENS advocating what is best for Israel. I do not see Zbigniew Brzezinski writing a policy paper "what is best for Poland" before his career as a National Security Advisor - because that would be seen (rightly) as a huge conflict of interest.
This is not a conspiracy - this is right there, in the open - just google it yourself.
The incredible thing is that the people who wrote a policy paper advising Israel on its strategy for the near future (i.e. now), became very powerful figures in American government.
And they were successful in putting this plan to "make Israel more secure" in motion.
Using America's military and moneys.
Why am I the only one seeing this? Is this a forbidden topic, something that you don't talk about in polite company? Can only Jewish newspapers and blogs discuss this world changing topic? (Seems so!).
Here is the actual text of the policy recommendation written for then Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: read it here please.
Note the authors of this manifesto (source:
Richard Perle - American Enterprise Institute, Study Group Leader (Come on now - you KNOW who that guy is by now, right?).
James Colbert, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Johns Hopkins University/SAIS
Douglas Feith, Feith and Zell Associates
Robert Loewenberg, President, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Jonathan Torop, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
David Wurmser, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Meyrav Wurmser, Johns Hopkins University
Lets play a game called - spot the non-Jew in that bunch (hint: odds are you cannot win that game).
Some of these names should be familiar to you if you paid attention to the news."
Neo-cons, who were American Jews, wrote a policy paper advising Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996, then Israeli Prime Minister. The report dealt with Israel's security and how best to achieve it. The paper advocated:
* Removal of Saddam Hussein
* Attack on Iran
* Attack on Syria
* Repudiation of the "land for peace".
This is easy to understand, right?
This policy paper was written by American citizens, for a foreign prime minister, the head of state of Israel, in 1996. The whole tone and every recommendation made in this policy paper can be summed up in two phrases: "Fuck peace!" and "Attack every Arab country that Israel does not like!".
So what happened next?
The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was established, exactly a year later, in 1997.
Continuing with my Dual Loyalty article:
"Nobody but me finds it odd that people who make recommendations in a policy paper on what's best for Israel in 1996 are given Department of Defense positions in the USA? Anybody see the conflict of interest?
To put the plan for a "more secure Israel" into motion, the neocons (which is really a code word for pro-Israel activists in the USA government) organized themselves into PNAC, or the 'Project for the New American Century'. I am always reacting with laughter (really, I find it very funny) that the people who fist recommended "What's best for Israel" have the chutzpah to next write "What's best for America in the New Century", which incidentally includes everything that is best for Israel (i.e. removing Saddam, attacking Iran, Syria etc.)."
Did you follow the narrative?
In 1996, a policy paper is written by prominent neo-cons, all American-Jews, advocating among other things an attack on Iraq, Iran, Syria, to make Israel safer.
The PNAC was founded by two prominent American Jews, Robert Kagan and William Kristol.
The PNAC was founded in 1997, exactly a year after the "Clean Break" paper.
The PNAC was and is a think-tank (you should learn to understand this term to mean "propaganda and public relations" organization by now) created in 1997, whose members go on TV, radio, write newspaper columns all agreeing... that AMERICA should attack Iraq, Iran, Syria, NOW! IMMEDIATELY! ASAP! ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK - BOMB BOMB BOMB!
See, the "Clean Break" policy paper wrote about the need to attack Iraq, Iran, Syria, but it did not specify exactly WHO should attack these countries.
Details, details... this one seemed unimportant to Perle and company...
This is where our poor, deluded, retarded president "W" Bush got the idea that to combat terrorism, America must attack, take over and change Arab countries, and switch them from undemocratic regimes to American style democracies - which, coincidentally, would just happen to NOT hate Israel.
Of course this whole thing does NOT make sense!
Only somebody as retarded as "W" Bush could believe this shit seriously AND allow these neo-cons this much power and to have so many positions filled in American government!
What did Colin Powell call these neocons? Oh, that's right - he called them "fucking crazies!"
The whole plan was and is bogus, a mirage, a stupidity that any person, never mind a scholar, familiar with the region, having the common sense to know that most Arabs hate Israel (and vice versa!) would laugh at.
But this was always the point - to somehow make America attack and "de-fang", disarm, throw into chaos different Arab countries so that they will not be a danger to Israel anymore. While Iraq, after America pulls out, will be a spawning ground of terrorism and a fantastic base for al Kaida, hey, Saddam won't launch any more Scuds at Israel - and also, Iraq will not be able to threaten Israel at all - their military power was eviscerated by the US air power.
Now it is Iran's and then Syria's turn...
Interestingly, the Iraqis themselves understand all that.
You probably know what the American troops call Iraqis: "hadjis".
But do you know what the Iraqis call American troops?
They call American soldiers the "Jews".
They understand all too well what is going on, even if the poor, deluded, retarded president and the American citizens, who are never, ever given enough hard data and actual news in their TV "news" shows, do not.
When you find the time, really read the The case for dual loyalty of the Jewish Diaspora article on this blog.
Yes, I know it is long.
Find the time. Spend an hour.
The "Dual Loyalty" begins with a short section that has links to many of my previous articles which prove my case. Make it iron-cast. You should explore these articles also, there is a wealth of information there.
The whole thing - the Iraq war, the calls to bomb Iran, the desire to attack Syria - when looked upon from the perspective of "do what's best for Israel" starts to make sense, whereas before you thought that the neocons and "W" Bush were crazy, insane, unfathomable.
This explains why even NOW, a Michael Ledeen from the American Enterprise Institute is calling for MORE war, for America to attack Iran, Syria...
Or you can go back into your cocoon, vote for a Democrat or a Republican, and call these neocons "fucking crazies!", while posting on liberal blogs and conservative blogs and libertarian blogs: "Hey, this whole Iraq war makes no sense and now they want us to attack Iran? WTF, this does not make any sense!".
Up to you.
I can only open your eyes - but you must make a conscious choice to see, understand and act.
Let me leave you with this.
This is not a conspiracy, so no need to call me a crazy, tin foil wearing nut job. The information, the data is right there, all around you, and the puzzle was very, very simple, and anybody - me, you, anybody - can quickly assemble all the relevant pieces to fit.
Because the authors of the "Clean Break", the founders of PNAC, the members of AEI, are not hiding. They write papers, go on TV shows, go on radio shows, write newspaper articles, all with two themes:
* Israel is our friend and ally
* We must attack Iran, Syria (and then possibly other Arab countries).
So, it is up to you.
Put your head in the sand, refuse to see, to understand, and go on in your simple "Libs bad, Republicans good!" (or vice versa, makes no difference) world.
It is up to you.
Inevitably, all people who come to the same conclusion as myself, for example professors John J. Mearsheimer professor Stephen M. Walt in their book "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy", are smeared, laughed at, called anti-semites, bigots, racists.
Hell, even Jimmy Carter, the Nobel Peace prize winner, was called a bigot by the Israeli ambassador to America! Interestingly, he got the Nobel Peace Prize for helping Israel and Egypt end 30 years of war with an historic peace treaty brokered by the United States - see the BBC article here. So for Jimmy Carter, who did SO MUCH for Israeli security, to be called a bigot by an Israeli ambassador is... is... well, I am beyond words.
So, if I am called a bigot, a racist, an anti-semite - I am in good company!
Also, and this cannot be stated too many times, or ever understated - the neocons are only one segment of the American Jewish society. Many, many Jews here in America and in Israel disagree with the direction Israel and America are taking in their foreign policy, and question the benefit of the pro-Israel Lobby as it currently exists in America.
Chief among them are two fantastic bloggers: Phillip Weiss and Richard Silverstein.
I heartily recommend you read their blogs, as they are two of the most brilliant bloggers on the internet these days (If you notice, they are given number 1 and number 2 spot on my American Goy's Essential Web Resources box on the right hand side).
Check them out!
Going back to my little, obscure blog...
This blog is focused on many things, but one of the major themes of this blog is my view that the pro-Israel Lobby and the pro-Israel are a threat to America.
I am NOT taking the side of the Arabs - far from it (look at my Hamas article, for example).
I look at the world as an American patriot, so, whereas (in my view) the pro-Israel Lobby crowd like Perle, Kristol, Perle, look at the world and ask themselves "What is best for Israel?", I ask myself, always, "What is best for America?".
That does not mean that I am pro Palestinian, or anti-Israel.
What that means is that, always, I look at the world through the prism of being an AMERICAN PATRIOT.
And right now, the pro-Israel Lobby is BAD for my country.
Instead of an ending, a very good argument can be made that the pro Israel Lobby here in the United States is also bad... for Israel. And guess who will make this argument later on, and on whose blog you will read it?.