Shuuuooooo! Verboten Subject: The Power of the Jewish Lobby and Jewish NeoCons

I had two extended and interesting exchanges with a Jewish woman, a strong "conservative" by all appearances, who claims to be an "America First" loyalist, yet she defended violently the so-called wisdom of allowing Dual American-Israeli Citizenship.

You see, I am against Dual Citizenship period, no matter what nation is on the other end of that hyphenation "America- *.*

This person, who in every way in years of FB friendship seemed perfectly reasonable and intelligent, suddenly turned "tribal" when I DARED to express my objection to dual citizenship and stated what is absolutely true, that since the Jewish population of the U.S. is about 1.5 percent, it is OBVIOUS from even a cursory observation that Jews are over-represented in every "influential" area of American life, including publishing, all of the media, the FAKE NEWS, the NeoCon Conspirators, the Marxist-Radical-Left, etc., etc. This is not anti-Jewish, merely making the obvious observation of FACT, yet her reaction to me - the reason I call it violent - was to label me an ignorant anti-Semite.

Those of you who know me know how ridiculous this charge is, but at the risk of enduring more opprobrium from the tribal mentality, it is not inappropriate for Americans to be concerned about the disproportionate power of the Jewish/Israeli Lobby. It is real and it is NOT America First, anything but, it was/is the driving force (the NeoCon force) that has created the last years of American Perpetual War.

So what is the reaction when you dare to state some things about the power of AIPAC, the Jewish Lobby will come after you like the Marxist, and using Saul Alinsky methods, you are a racist and a bigot, by simply stating the REALTY of the disproportionate representation and power of the Jewish/Israeli Lobby.  Whenever this happens, you know that the force coming against you is EVIL. Were it not OF THE LIAR, reasonable and rational dialog would be possible. But when histrionics seeks to silence FACT, what Alinsky called "Jamming" the evidence is too clear to be denied.

I spoke with my Jewish friend with measured politeness and reason, explaining that my concern was "generic" and would be the same caution were so many of our government officials and "thought manufacturers" dual citizens American-Russian, American-British, American-German, American-Japanese. This reasonable position was met with:

"The "Zionist" lobby? I have no idea what you think happened in Jerusalem, but you should check the source of your information, because, whether you're aware of it or not, you're regurgitating anti-Semitic talking points from 'The Protocols." (Actually, I was referencing the pages of the New Testament and Jewish Roman Historian, Josephus.) Israel is the only Middle Eastern country where Christians are thriving under the same rights and laws as Israelis. When you attack Israel with the lies and vitriol that you have here, you're attacking the Jews, and I don't have the time, energy, or desire anymore to debate you based on century's old lies, jeolousy, fear, and hatred that you're hell bent on harboring and defending."

So what were the lies and vitriol told against the modern state of Israel? The historical fact that Israel acts in its own self-interest without exception up to and including conducting massive spying operations upon the U.S., for which over the years multiple people have been charged, convicted and imprisoned (some of the worse security breaches in our history) and that they attacked one of our Navy Ships, KNOWING it was a U.S. ship, knocking out its communications and hoping to sink it before anyone could stop it. (Reference "The U.S.S. LIBERTY.")  These are facts NOT lies, NOT jealousy, NOT fear, NOT hatred, NOT vitriol.  What it is, is history the Jewish lobby and those whose primary loyalty is to Israel DO NOT want to be told and rehearsed in public debate. The entire question of the viability of the policy of dual-citizenship, America's reasonable responsibility to and for Israel, and the disproportionate representation of Jews in the public square, the halls of governance etc., is a Verboten Subject.

I use the word VERBOTEN, (the German word) instead of forbidden since it is the specter of the Holocaust that is used as the 911 psyop, to keep the world treating Jews as eternal victims. Tens of millions more died in the Holodomor, another genocide that occurred in the same time frame and most of you have NEVER HEARD OF the Holodomor where mostly Christians died.

Why is this? The logical answer is, let us investigate who writes and publishes the history books to discover the reason for this breach of historical reality.  But the mere suggestion is "Jew Hating", that is anti-Semitic.  BTW, the term anti-Semitic is a term created by the Marxists-Leftist Jewish Hate Group called the "Anti-Defamation League."  As all things Marxist, its name represents the opposite of what it is. Its purpose and function, historically provable and CURRENTLY VISIBLE, (as in last week's attack on Valerie Plame Wilson and the perpetual attack upon Ex-CIA whistleblower Philip Giraldi), is to RITUALLY DEFAME anyone who Dares challenge the Jewish/Israeli Lobby and the Jewish Tribal influence over American foreign policy.

Now, if you take exception to me using the term TRIBAL as relating to Jews, let me share with you my Jewish friend's description of this Tribalism, many of which I have witnessed in the past, To WIT:

"Lisa Michelle Goldstein:
Yes, G-d certainly did disproportionately endow the Jewish people with special qualities that enabled them to survive thousands of years of persecution. It's unprecedented in history. In fact, Jewish survival is a miracle, but we can't help it if it's in our DNA. Just because people don't understand it, doesn't mean there's a conspiracy behind it.

With that said, this post was not directed to you, Butch, but you chose to weigh in here. I do not deny that a majority of those who happen to be born Jewish worship a Leftist ideology, but that IS their religion. It in no way is a reflection of Judaism and actually conflicts with it. History will not look kindly upon them. They have betrayed their own people, but Judaism has nothing to do with the human tendencies towards power and greed. It's not an exclusively Jewish condition.

Either way, Zionism dates as far back as Abraham and the Babylonian Conquest. We pray for our return to Zion every single day, just as most Christians do. It's in our daily prayers.

And to answer your question, no. I am second-generation American born, but that should be irrelevant. All Jews should be Zionists. Religious practicing Jews who pray for the Jewish return to Zion and believe in the Jewish right to self-determination - or even Israeli-Americans with dual citizenship - lean to the right and tend to be loyal to Conservative Constitutional values and principles. It's the majority of Leftist Jews, who have no loyalty or connection to Judaism, Israel, and the Jewish people, who you and I have to worry about."

That is a perfect definition of Tribalism, she stated it clearly, a SUPREMACY of DNA.

What prompted this conversation was the Ritual Defamation of Valerie Plame Wilson for DARING against Tribal Taboo, (Valerie is Jewish) to re-tweet an article by Philip Giraldi, outlining the correlation between the Jewish Lobby and the American NeoCon movement, so many being DUAL American-Israeli Citizens. If we look at the piece of American foreign policy that has been most damaging to the U.S. and to the WORLD, it was conceived by the Masters of a Temporary Think Tank, that produced a plan, a document, a conspiracy, for America in the 21st Century, called, "the Project for the New American Century" (PNAC) which was in reality, the Project for ZIONIST GOALS.  The original document, (scrubbed from the internet) called for "a New Pearl Harbor" incident to galvanize public opinion around their conquest plan. Many have speculated that 911 was that incident and created in the manner of Machiavelli. (A False Flag Event for psyops purposes)

Here is General Wesley Clark expressing his amazement having stumbled upon the plan post 911.

+++

+++

I take exception to the idea that this perpetual war in the Middle East is about Oil, or even economics. Didn't he name in this list of seven countries Libya (minimal oil producer) and Somalia? Is Somalia an oil producer?  (I could be wrong here - but I think that ideology and not economic is the driver here.)

Here is the article by Philip Gilraldi re-tweeted by Valerie Plame, causing the dogs of hell to attack.
Linked here and mirrored below:
http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/americas-jews-are-driving-americas-wars/
Scroll down past this article for a definitive Video on the Subject:
Mirror Transcript in case the original is ever scrubbed from the media:

America’s Jews Are Driving America’s Wars

Philip Giraldi • September 19, 2017 • 1,600 Words • 1,271 Comments • Reply

9-11 minutes

---

UPDATE: On the morning of September 21st Phil Giraldi was fired over the phone by The American Conservative, where he had been a regular contributor for fourteen years. He was told that “America’s Jews Are Driving America’s Wars” was unacceptable. The TAC management and board appear to have forgotten that the magazine was launched with an article by founder Pat Buchanan entitled “Whose War?” which largely made the same claims that Giraldi made about the Jewish push for another war, in that case with Iraq. Buchanan was vilified and denounced as an anti-Semite by many of the same people who are now similarly attacking Giraldi.

I spoke recently at a conference on America’s war party where afterwards an elderly gentleman came up to me and asked, “Why doesn’t anyone ever speak honestly about the six-hundred-pound gorilla in the room? Nobody has mentioned Israel in this conference and we all know it’s American Jews with all their money and power who are supporting every war in the Middle East for Netanyahu? Shouldn’t we start calling them out and not letting them get away with it?”

It was a question combined with a comment that I have heard many times before and my answer is always the same: any organization that aspires to be heard on foreign policy knows that to touch the live wire of Israel and American Jews guarantees a quick trip to obscurity. Jewish groups and deep pocket individual donors not only control the politicians, they own and run the media and entertainment industries, meaning that no one will hear about or from the offending party ever again. They are particularly sensitive on the issue of so-called “dual loyalty,” particularly as the expression itself is a bit of a sham since it is pretty clear that some of them only have real loyalty to Israel.

Most recently, some pundits, including myself, have been warning of an impending war with Iran. To be sure, the urging to strike Iran comes from many quarters, to include generals in the Administration who always think first in terms of settling problems through force, from a Saudi government obsessed with fear over Iranian hegemony, and, of course, from Israel itself. But what makes the war engine run is provided by American Jews who have taken upon themselves the onerous task of starting a war with a country that does not conceivably threaten the United States. They have been very successful at faking the Iranian threat, so much so that nearly all Republican and most Democratic congressmen as well as much of the media seem to be convinced that Iran needs to be dealt with firmly, most definitely by using the U.S. military, and the sooner the better.

And while they are doing it, the issue that nearly all the Iran haters are Jewish has somehow fallen out of sight, as if it does not matter. But it should matter. A recent article in the New Yorker on stopping the impending war with Iran strangely suggests that the current generation “Iran hawks” might be a force of moderation regarding policy options given the lessons learned from Iraq. The article cites as hardliners on Iran David Frum, Max Boot, Bill Kristol and Bret Stephens.

Daniel Larison over at The American Conservative has a good review of the New Yorker piece entitled “Yes, Iran Hawks Want Conflict with Iran,” which identifies the four above cited hawks by name before describing them as “…a Who’s Who of consistently lousy foreign policy thinking. If they have been right about any major foreign policy issue in the last twenty years, it would be news to the entire world. Every single one of them hates the nuclear deal with Iran with a passion, and they have argued in favor of military action against Iran at one point or another. There is zero evidence that any of them would oppose attacking Iran.”

And I would add a few more names, Mark Dubowitz, Michael Ledeen and Reuel Marc Gerecht of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies; Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum; John Podhoretz of Commentary magazine; Elliot Abrams of the Council on Foreign Relations; Meyrav Wurmser of the Middle East Media Research Institute; Kimberly Kagan of the Institute for the Study of War; and Frederick Kagan, Danielle Pletka and David Wurmser of the American Enterprise Institute. And you can also throw into the hopper entire organizations like The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) and the Hudson Institute. And yep, they’re all Jewish, plus most of them would self-describe as neo-conservatives. And I might add that only one of the named individuals has ever served in any branch of the American military – David Wurmser was once in the Navy reserve. These individuals largely constitute a cabal of sanctimonious chairborne warriors who prefer to do the heavy thinking while they let others do the fighting and dying.

So it is safe to say that much of the agitation to do something about Iran comes from Israel and from American Jews. Indeed, I would opine that most of the fury from Congress re Iran comes from the same source, with AIPAC showering our Solons on the Potomac with “fact sheets” explaining how Iran is worthy of annihilation because it has pledged to “destroy Israel,” which is both a lie and an impossibility as Tehran does not have the resources to carry out such a task. The AIPAC lies are then picked up and replayed by an obliging media, where nearly every “expert” who speaks about the Middle East on television and radio or who is interviewed for newspaper stories is Jewish.

One might also add that neocons as a group were founded by Jews and are largely Jewish, hence their universal attachment to the state of Israel. They first rose into prominence when they obtained a number of national security positions during the Reagan Administration and their ascendancy was completed when they staffed senior positions in the Pentagon and White House under George W. Bush. Recall for a moment Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, and Scooter Libby. Yes, all Jewish and all conduits for the false information that led to a war that has spread and effectively destroyed much of the Middle East. Except for Israel, of course. Philip Zelikow, also Jewish, in a moment of candor, admitted that the Iraq War, in his opinion, was fought for Israel.

Add to the folly a Jewish U.S. Ambassador to Israel who identifies with the most right-wing Israeli settler elements, a White House appointed chief negotiator who is Jewish and a Jewish son-in-law who is also involved in formulating Middle East policy. Is anyone providing an alternative viewpoint to eternal and uncritical support for Benjamin Netanyahu and his kleptocratic regime of racist thugs? I think not.

There are a couple of simple fixes for the dominant involvement of American Jews in foreign policy issues where they have a personal interest due to their ethnicity or family ties. First of all, don’t put them into national security positions involving the Middle East, where they will potentially be conflicted. Let them worry instead about North Korea, which does not have a Jewish minority and which was not involved in the holocaust. This type of solution was, in fact, somewhat of a policy regarding the U.S. Ambassador position in Israel. No Jew was appointed to avoid any conflict of interest prior to 1995, an understanding that was violated by Bill Clinton (wouldn’t you know it!) who named Martin Indyk to the post. Indyk was not even an American citizen at the time and had to be naturalized quickly prior to being approved by congress.

Those American Jews who are strongly attached to Israel and somehow find themselves in senior policy making positions involving the Middle East and who actually possess any integrity on the issue should recuse themselves, just as any judge would do if he were presiding over a case in which he had a personal interest. Any American should be free to exercise first amendment rights to debate possible options regarding policy, up to and including embracing positions that damage the United States and benefit a foreign nation. But if he or she is in a position to actually create those policies, he or she should butt out and leave the policy generation to those who have no personal baggage.

For those American Jews who lack any shred of integrity, the media should be required to label them at the bottom of the television screen whenever they pop up, e.g. Bill Kristol is “Jewish and an outspoken supporter of the state of Israel.” That would be kind-of-like a warning label on a bottle of rat poison – translating roughly as “ingest even the tiniest little dosage of the nonsense spewed by Bill Kristol at your own peril.”

As none of the above is likely to happen, the only alternative is for American citizens who are tired of having their country’s national security interests hijacked by a group that is in thrall to a foreign government to become more assertive about what is happening. Shine a little light into the darkness and recognize who is being diddled and by whom. Call it like it is. And if someone’s feelings are hurt, too bad. We don’t need a war with Iran because Israel wants one and some rich and powerful American Jews are happy to deliver. Seriously, we don’t need it.


http://www.ipsnews.net/2004/03/iraq-war-launched-to-protect-israel-bush-adviser/
+++
I DO NOT endorse "End Times News Report"  (I don't know them and do not have the knowledge to endorse) but I know from YEARS of study, experience in real life and thousands of books read, and hundreds of thousands of "articles" there is not a single lie in this presentation.

+++
Below is the article just referenced:

Monday, October 9, 2017

IRAQ: War Launched to Protect Israel – Bush Adviser

By Emad Mekay Reprint |      | Print | Send by email

Emad Mekay

WASHINGTON, Mar 29 2004 (IPS) - Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States but it did to Israel, which is one reason why Washington invaded the Arab country, according to a speech made by a member of a top-level White House intelligence group.

IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 – the 9/11 commission – in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East.
Zelikow’s casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of President George W. Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its concern for Israel’s security.
The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States.
Zelikow made his statements about "the unstated threat" during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president.
He served on the board between 2001 and 2003.

"Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I’ll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 – it’s the threat against Israel," Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation.
"And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don’t care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell," said Zelikow.
The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington’s desire to defend the Jewish state.
The administration, which is surrounded by staunch pro-Israel, neo-conservative hawks, is currently fighting an extensive campaign to ward off accusations that it derailed the "war on terrorism" it launched after 9/11 by taking a detour to Iraq, which appears to have posed no direct threat to the United States.
Israel is Washington’s biggest ally in the Middle East, receiving annual direct aid of three to four billion dollars.
Even though members of the 16-person PFIAB come from outside government, they enjoy the confidence of the president and have access to all information related to foreign intelligence that they need to play their vital advisory role.
Known in intelligence circles as "Piffy-ab", the board is supposed to evaluate the nation’s intelligence agencies and probe any mistakes they make.
The unpaid appointees on the board require a security clearance known as "code word" that is higher than top secret.
The national security adviser to former President George H.W. Bush (1989-93) Brent Scowcroft, currently chairs the board in its work overseeing a number of intelligence bodies, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the various military intelligence groups and the Pentagon’s National Reconnaissance Office.
Neither Scowcroft nor Zelikow returned numerous phone calls and email messages from IPS for this story.
Zelikow has long-established ties to the Bush administration.
Before his appointment to PFIAB in October 2001, he was part of the current president’s transition team in January 2001.
In that capacity, Zelikow drafted a memo for National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on reorganising and restructuring the National Security Council (NSC) and prioritising its work.
Richard A. Clarke, who was counter-terrorism coordinator for Bush’s predecessor President Bill Clinton (1993-2001) also worked for Bush senior, and has recently accused the current administration of not heeding his terrorism warnings, said Zelikow was among those he briefed about the urgent threat from al-Qaeda in December 2000.
Rice herself had served in the NSC during the first Bush administration, and subsequently teamed up with Zelikow on a 1995 book about the unification of Germany.
Zelikow had ties with another senior Bush administration official – Robert Zoellick, the current trade representative. The two wrote three books together, including one in 1998 on the United States and the "Muslim Middle East".
Aside from his position at the 9/11 commission, Zelikow is now also director of the Miller Centre of Public Affairs and White Burkett Miller Professor of History at the University of Virginia.
His close ties to the administration prompted accusations of a conflict of interest in 2002 from families of victims of the 9/11 attacks, who protested his appointment to the investigative body.
In his university speech, Zelikow, who strongly backed attacking the Iraqi dictator, also explained the threat to Israel by arguing that Baghdad was preparing in 1990-91 to spend huge amounts of "scarce hard currency" to harness "communications against electromagnetic pulse", a side-effect of a nuclear explosion that could sever radio, electronic and electrical communications.
That was "a perfectly absurd expenditure unless you were going to ride out a nuclear exchange – they (Iraqi officials) were not preparing to ride out a nuclear exchange with us. Those were preparations to ride out a nuclear exchange with the Israelis", according to Zelikow.
He also suggested that the danger of biological weapons falling into the hands of the anti-Israeli Islamic Resistance Movement, known by its Arabic acronym Hamas, would threaten Israel rather than the United States, and that those weapons could have been developed to the point where they could deter Washington from attacking Hamas.
"Play out those scenarios," he told his audience, "and I will tell you, people have thought about that, but they are just not talking very much about it".
"Don’t look at the links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, but then ask yourself the question, ‘gee, is Iraq tied to Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the people who are carrying out suicide bombings in Israel’? Easy question to answer; the evidence is abundant."
To date, the possibility of the United States attacking Iraq to protect Israel has been only timidly raised by some intellectuals and writers, with few public acknowledgements from sources close to the administration.
Analysts who reviewed Zelikow’s statements said they are concrete evidence of one factor in the rationale for going to war, which has been hushed up.
"Those of us speaking about it sort of routinely referred to the protection of Israel as a component," said Phyllis Bennis of the Washington-based Institute of Policy Studies. "But this is a very good piece of evidence of that."
Others say the administration should be blamed for not making known to the public its true intentions and real motives for invading Iraq.
"They (the administration) made a decision to invade Iraq, and then started to search for a policy to justify it. It was a decision in search of a policy and because of the odd way they went about it, people are trying to read something into it," said Nathan Brown, professor of political science at George Washington University and an expert on the Middle East.
But he downplayed the Israel link. "In terms of securing Israel, it doesn’t make sense to me because the Israelis are probably more concerned about Iran than they were about Iraq in terms of the long-term strategic threat," he said.
Still, Brown says Zelikow’s words carried weight.
"Certainly his position would allow him to speak with a little bit more expertise about the thinking of the Bush administration, but it doesn’t strike me that he is any more authoritative than Wolfowitz, or Rice or Powell or anybody else. All of them were sort of fishing about for justification for a decision that has already been made," Brown said. (END/2004)
Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

NOTE: I have been in sincere prayer for nearly three decades that the "conspirators" no matter who they are, would be exposed by their own hubris.  This is the case with  Valerie Plame Wilson who has capitulated and sacrificed her intellect, thrown it completely on the altar of Tribal Loyalty.  Who knows why she dared to publish TRUTH?

Now in context, since we understand that the "Globalist controlled MEDIA, will do anything, ANYTHING, to control the narrative, to be the thought manufacturers (all other thoughts VERBOTEN) what is the date of the Plame revelation and the Las Vegas Massacre.  I'll be honest I don't know. I was otherwise occupied with my daughter's life and death struggle with cancer.  But my GUT tells me that there is a correlation here.
 
http://www.ipsnews.net/2004/03/iraq-war-launched-to-protect-israel-bush-adviser/

____________________________________________
Written and compiled by-
ARCHPRIEST SYMEON ELIAS - The Orthodox Christian Philosopher.