“Rudderless and without a compass, the American ship of state continues to drift, guns blazing.” Andrew J. Bacevich, political scientist and military historianhttp://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/09/22/intellectual-perversity-and-zionist-mumbo-jumbo/ …by Jonas E. Alexis
Noted mathematician and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead once said that “It requires a very unusual mind to undertake the analysis of the obvious.”
I certainly did not realize the profundity of this statement until I stumbled upon the writings of some people who pretend to follow logic and reason.
I remember well during my late teens how excited I was to dissect Bertrand Russell’s arguments on why he rejected Christianity. An undergraduate, I was studying mathematics and philosophy, and Bertrand Russell was a good place to start since he was both a mathematician and philosopher.
Russell was also a household name. He was well-versed in his fields, adhering to the rigorous rules of logic and rational conclusions that mathematics is based on.
Based on his reputation, I expected to find those things in Russell’s writing against Christianity. I began to read Why I Am Not a Christian with great enthusiasm and anticipation, hoping to find intellectual and existential meat from a man who should know what he is saying.
Sadly, Russell was a great disappointment, and his arguments could have been refuted by an ordinary student using common sense.
Russell’s work also raised some red flags. His flashes of irrationality and circular arguments made me wonder if this was really the same Bertrand Russell who wrote Logic and Knowledge and Principles of Mathematics, books that are so complex and challenging that the average mind will be at loss trying to figure out what he was saying.
After reading Why I Am Not a Christian, I thought maybe Russell had had a bad day, or maybe he was just smoking (since he loved the pipe).
Then I discovered that this was unfortunately typical as I read many of his other books, particularly Marriage and Morals. Further study showed that Russell was consciously and intellectually dishonest.
Moreover, Russell was never able to settle on any issue, most specifically ideological issues. His constant movement from one position to the next without giving an apology to his readers was quite laughable—and appalling. Even A. J. Ayer, one of his devout disciples, was astonished. Ayer wrote, “It is hard to find a subject—and he [Russell] wrote on most subjects, including those of the highest importance—on which he did not change his mind fundamentally, often more than once, and usually without explanation or apology; indeed his rule was to deny that any change of position had taken place….
“The truth is, Russell could not devise a Promethean alternative to God which convinced even himself for more than a few years; his secular faith was in a state of constant osmosis, like that of Auguste Comte, who occupied the same position of intellectual eminence in the mid-nineteenth century as Russell did in the twentieth and is now simply a joke, if a pathetic one.
What are some of Russell’s illogical leaps? Well, they are too many. We are just going to address two here. Russell wrote, “The Christian view that all intercourse outside of marriage is immoral was based upon the view that all sexual intercourse, even within marriage, is regrettable. The fact that it is embedded in Christian ethics has made Christianity throughout its whole history a force tending towards mental disorders and unwholesome views of life”
Where did he get this idea? Sexual intercourse “within marriage” is “regrettable”? How did he expect Christians to reproduce?
In the following pages Russell went on to say that “we must ask ourselves quite frankly what led the Church to condemn all fornication.”
Poor Russell. Let us ask social scientist James Q. Wilson a similar question and see what he says. Wilson states that “in one study, boys born to unmarried teenage mothers were eleven times more likely to become chronic delinquents than were those born to married mothers who were age twenty or older.”
Wilson concludes by saying that “Money makes a difference, but family structure makes one that is about as big.”
Likewise, Francis Bracelan, former president of the American Psychiatric Association, hardly a Christian organization, added:
“Premarital sex relations growing out of the so-called new morality have significantly increased the number of young people in mental hospitals.”
We will expand on Russell’s irrationality in a future article. Yet it was after studying his writings and others that I began to realize that some people—including so-called “thinking” people—have a predisposition to live and die for palpable and preposterous ideas.
When people reach that point, then you can be sure that logical arguments and sometimes proofs, historical references and facts, and even rational discourse are of no use. As Daniel J. Flinn rightly put it in Intellectual Morons,
“When ideology is your guide, you’re bound to get lost. Ideology deludes, inspires dishonesty, and breeds fanaticism. Facts, experience, and logic are much better at leading you to truth. Truth, however, is not everyone’s intended destination….Ph.D.s, high IQs, and intellectual honors are not antidotes to thickheadedness.”
Michael Shrimpton is a case in point.
For the past few weeks, I have exhaustively responded to his nauseated statements and even shown extensively that his argument simply does not make sense. Instead of addressing those issues responsibly, Shrimpton now comes out and says that “Jonas does not like my book!”
Well, why? Is it because the book is rationally feasible? Or is it because the book is fraught with elementary errors, lies and fabrications?
How can you have a serious interaction with a book when its author starts with the premise that “Sources and evidence must and will remain secret”?
When I immediately read phrases like, “There is no point asking me to disclose my intelligence sources or evidence,” it was an infallible sign that I was dealing with a half-baked ideologue and not a serious writer.
And no, I could not read the entire book because one simply cannot finish one chapter without a torrent of falsifications and colossal hoaxes. Detecting obvious hoaxes in the book was like shooting fish in a barrel.
I made it very clear in a previous article that “I simply had to stop reading Shrimpton’s book because I figured that I was wasting my time.”
Shrimpton knows very well that a serious scholar should read a book very carefully, follow the arguments consistently, and then check out the footnotes and citations—if there are any.
As already suggested, if a writer begins a book with the assumption that “Sources and evidence must and will remain secret,” then you can almost certainly disregard the book as a scholarly exercise.
As a corollary, if a writer keeps positing one extraordinary claim after another without serious scholarly judgment and references, then that should be at least a clear sign and indication that the writer should not be taken seriously.
After reading so many cardinal falsifications and hoaxes, I had to close the Spyhunter for good—particularly when I had put so many serious books on hold.
Furthermore, I have already addressed many of Shrimpton’s cardinal errors and he does not bother to respond to them. He writes that “Perhaps a more thorough read-through would help to convince [Jonas] of the sophistication and cogency of my arguments!”
Well, what would you say to a barrister who posits that Iran “is a terrorist-sponsoring state” without evidence? And to make things even more hilarious, Shrimpton declares that “I would have that proposition to be self-evident. Res ipsa loquitur, as we lawyers say!”
Self-evident? Could there be a more preposterous idea than this—coming from a barrister? How does he seriously expect people to take him seriously by positing claims like that? If Mr. X accuses Mr. Y of a horrible crime, isn’t Mr. X under some obligation to provide some convincing evidence?
If Mr. X simply says, “It is self-evident that you did commit the crime,” shouldn’t any barrister in England throw the joker out of the courtroom for intellectually insulting the judge with words like this?
Furthermore, how would Shrimpton adjudicate competing claims such as “it is self-evident that Israel is a terrorist state”? Would Shrimpton agree? If not, on what basis?
By the way, Israel has been a terrorist state since its inception. In 1954, Israel Military Intelligence planted bombs in Egypt in American and British-owned territories. Why?
Because, according to Shabtai Teveth of Tel-Aviv University, “the Muslim Brotherhood, the Communists, ‘unspecified malcontents’ or ‘local nationalists’” would be responsible and this would force the United States go to war against Egypt.
This incident, which happened during the guardianship of Israel’s Minister of Defense Pinhas Lavon, became known as the Lavon Affair. The Egyptian Jews involved were caught and confessed that it was all a conspiracy.
Jewish and Israeli historians Ian Black and Benny Morris defensively write,
“A bomb went off prematurely in the pocket of one of the group, Philip Natanson, as he was about to enter the Rio Cinema in Alexandria. Natanson was arrested and that night the Egyptian security police arrested the rest of the network:
“Dr. Moshe Marzuk [a surgeon at the Jewish Hospital in Cairo], Shmuel Azzar [an engineering professor from Alexandria], Marcelle Ninio, Victor Levy, Robert Dassa, Meir Za’afran, Meir Meyuhas, Eli Ya’akov and Azzar Cohen. Ninio attempted to commit suicide but failed.”
Yet Prime Minister Moshe Sharett managed to spin the incident as a conspiracy against Jews, saying that it was a “‘wicked plot hatched in Alexandria…the show trial which is being organized there against a group of Jews who have fallen victims to false accusations and from whom it seems attempts are being made to extract confessions of imaginary crimes, by threats and torture.’”
One Jewish newspaper claimed that the Egyptian police force “seems to take its inspiration from the Nazis” and predicted that the arrest itself would cause “deterioration in the status of Egyptian Jews in general” and others such as Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post concurred.
After the trial, however, it was clear that “the bombings had been carried out by an Israeli espionage and terrorist network. This was headed by Colonel Avraham Dar—alias John Darling—and a core of professionals who had set themselves up in Egypt under various guises. They recruited a number of Egyptian Jews.”
Marzuk and Azzar were sentenced and hung, provoking an outcry in Israel.
“Israel reacted with a great show of grief and anger. So did some Western Jews. Marzuk and Azar ‘died the death of martyrs,’ said Sharett in the Knesset, whose members stood in silent tribute…
“Israel went into official mourning the following day. Israeli delegates to the Egyptian-Israeli Mixed Armistice Commission refused to attend its meeting, declaring that they would not sit down with representatives of the Cairo Junta.
“In New York there were bomb threats against the Egyptian consulate and a sniper fired four shots into its fourth-floor window.”
Six years later, though, the truth came out—it was really a Jewish conspiracy that had been “planned behind Lavon’s back.”
“[It was] a frame-up—not, however, by the Egyptians, but by [Prime Minister David] Ben-gurion and his proteges. Giving evidence in a forgery trial in September 1960, a witness divulged en passant that he had seen the faked signature of Lavon on a document relating to a 1954 ‘security mishap…’
“[Lavon’s] signature had been forged, and the bombing had actually begun long before his approval—which he withheld—had been sought. He was a scapegoat pure and simple.
“But Lavon was not the only real victim. There were also those misguided Egyptian Jews who paid with their lives or long terms of imprisonment…“the real victims were the great mass of Egyptian Jewry. Episodes like the Lavon Affair tended to identify them, in the minds of ordinary Egyptians, with the Zionist movement.
“When, in 1956, Israel invaded and occupied Sinai, feeling ran high against them. The government, playing into the Zionist hands, began ordering Jews to leave the country.
“Belatedly, reluctantly, 21,000 left in the following year; more were expelled later, and others, their livelihood gone, had nothing to stay for. But precious few went to Israel.”
Finally, in 2009, the Israel newspaper Haaretz admitted during the attack, secret “agents were told ‘to undermine the West’s trust in the [Egyptian] government by causing public insecurity’ while concealing Israel’s role in the sabotage. However, the agents were caught. One committed suicide in prison, two were hanged and four got long prison terms.”
The Lavon Affair is was nothing compared to what happened in June 8, 1967, during the Six Day War, a war between the Israeli army and the armies of Syria, Egypt, and Jordan.
During the conflict, Israel attacked the United States Navy Technical Research ship USS Liberty, hoping to blame their enemies and force the United States into war. The attack cost thirty-four American lives and wounded hundreds of others.
A few years ago, I happened to contact Retired U.S. Navel Officer James N. Ennes, author of Assault on the Liberty, and one of the crew members aboard the ship at the time of the attack. He declared unambiguously that the attack was done intentionally. Here is his short assessment:
 Mearsheimer and Walt called the event a “tragic attack” in history.
Bryce Lockwood, “a Marine staff sergeant, Russian-language expert, recipient of the Silver Star for heroism, ordained Baptist minister,” was aboard the USS Liberty.
“For Lockwood and many other survivors, the anger is mixed with incredulity: that Israel would attack an important ally, then attribute the attack to a case of mistaken identity by Israeli pilots who had confused the U.S. Navy’s most distinctive ship with an Egyptian horse-cavalry transport that was half its size and had a dissimilar profile.
“And they’re also incredulous that, for years, their own government would reject their calls for a thorough investigation. ‘They tried to lie their way out of it!’ Lockwood shouts.
“‘I don’t believe that for a minute! You just don’t shoot at a ship at sea without identifying it, making sure of your target!’ Four decades later, many of the more than two dozen Liberty survivors located and interviewed by the Tribune cannot talk about the attack without shouting or weeping.”
United States officials largely accepted the claims that the attack was an accident. Yet Secretary of State Dean Rusk and Admiral Thomas Moorer saw no evidence for this whatsoever; documents show that the Israelis knew exactly who they were attacking. James Bamford writes, “By 10:55 A.M., senior Israeli officials knew for certain that they had an American electronic spy in their midst. Not only was the ship clearly visible to the foes at El Arish, it had been positively identified by Israeli naval headquarters.”
Before the incident, U.S. Commander Pinchas Pinchasy “sent a report to the acting chief of naval operations at Israeli navy headquarters in Haifa. The report said that the ship cruising slowly off El Arish was ‘an electromagnetic audio-surveillance ship of the U.S. Navy, named Liberty, whose marking was GTR-5.
“Not only did the ship have ‘GTR-5 painted broadly on both sides of its bow and stern, it also had its name painted in large, bold, black letters: ‘USS Liberty.’”
Everyone aboard the ship believed that the Israelis knew what they were doing.
“[At 2:09, the American aircraft carrier USS Saratoga, operating near Crete, acknowledged Liberty’s cry for help. ‘I am standing by for further traffic,’ it signaled.
“After taking out the gun mounts, the Israeli fighter pilots turned their attention to the antennas, to sever the Liberty’s vocal cords intercepts. ‘It was as though they knew their exact locations,’ said Senior Chief Stan White.
“Lieutenant Commander Dave Lewis, in charge of the NSA operation in the ship, agreed. ‘It appears to me that every tuning section of every HF antenna had a hole in it,’ he said. ‘It took a lot of planning to get heat-seeking missiles aboard to take out our entire communications in the first minute of the attack…’
“As the Israelis continued their slaughter, neither they nor the Liberty crew had any idea that witnesses were present high above. Until now.
“According to information, interviews, and documents obtained for Body of Secrets, for nearly thirty-five years NSA has hidden the fact that one of its planes was overhead at the time of the incident, eavesdropping on what was going on below.”
Haaretz reported that “the Israel Air Force warplanes and Israel Navy warships that attacked the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967, at the height of the Six-Day War, were aware that the vessel was an American spy ship… “The report stated that the U.S. National Security Agency—to which the intelligence gathering ship belonged—was able to intercept IAF communications according to which, at some stage, the pilots identified the ship as American but were nonetheless instructed to push ahead with the attack.”
Some of these transcripts are in U.S. government archives and prove that the Israelis knew exactly what they were doing.
“Oliver Kirby, the NSA’s deputy director for operations at the time of the Liberty attack, is quoted by the Tribune as confirming the existence of the transcripts, saying he personally read them.
“‘They said, ‘We’ve got him in the zero,’ Kirby was quoted as saying, ‘whatever that meant—I guess the sights or something.’ And then one of them said, “Can you see the flag?” They said ‘Yes, it’s U.S., it’s U.S..’ They said it several times, so there wasn’t any doubt in anybody’s mind that they knew it.’”
Kirby went so far as to say that the attack was “something that’s bothered me all my life. I’m willing to swear on a stack of Bibles that we knew they knew.”
Yet in light of all of these facts, “the U.S. government, anxious to spare Israel’s reputation and preserve its alliance with the U.S., closed the case with what even some of its participants now say was a hasty and seriously flawed investigation.”
Bamford notes, “Despite the overwhelming evidence that Israel had attacked the ship and killed the American servicemen deliberately, the Johnson administration and Congress covered up the entire incident.
“Johnson was planning to run for president the following year and needed the support of pro-Israel voters.”
Q. “Tony” Hart, who was a First Class Petty Officer stationed in Morocco at the time of the attack, declared after much reflection on the incident, “President Johnson is not going to go to war or embarrass an American ally over a few sailors.”
Could Iran manage to get away with a deliberately terrorist act like that? Furthermore, who terrorized and assassinate Iranian scientists? Cuba? Russia? North Korea?
The answer is pretty simple: the terrorist state of Israel.
The sad part is that instead of sanctioning the terrorist state for such a wicked act, the U.S. only urged “Israel to stop assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists and focus on the Palestine peace process.”
In short, Iran is not the “state-sponsoring terrorist”—Israel is. In fact, former CIA officials such as Paul R. Pillar have argued that the West “can live with a nuclear Iran.” Pillar argued elsewhere that Israel,
“unlike Iran, has never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty or admitted an international inspector to any of its nuclear facilities.
“Even though it has had a sizable arsenal of nuclear weapons for decades, it has kept its nuclear weapons program completely out of reach of any international scrutiny or arms control regime and does not even acknowledge the program’s existence.
“It also is so intent on maintaining its regional nuclear weapons monopoly that it is using terrorism to strike at the nuclear program of a country that doesn’t even have one nuclear weapon and probably hasn’t made a decision to make one.”
Finally, let us throw out some basic and incontrovertible facts about the 9/11 attack. After the attack, the Washington Post reported that at least sixty Israelis were detained by the FBI; but no one dared prosecute them, lest they be accused of anti-Semitism.
By March 2002, it was estimated that the U.S. had arrested some two hundred Israelis in espionage investigations, some of whom “had used cover stories to gain access to sensitive government buildings and the homes of American officials”; others were disguised as art students.
In 2003, the Sunday Herald stated that “five Israelis were seen filming as jet liners ploughed into the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001.” The newspaper also claimed that “Israeli intelligence had been shadowing the al-Qaeda hijackers as they moved from the Middle East through Europe and into America where they trained as pilots and prepared to suicide-bomb the symbolic heart of the United States. And the motive? To bind America in blood and mutual suffering to the Israeli cause.”
The men filming the attack were eventually caught with their van:
“In the car was $4700 in cash, a couple of foreign passports and a pair of box cutters—the concealed Stanley Knife-type blades used by the 19 hijackers who’d flown jetliners into the World Trade Centre and Pentagon just hours before.
“There were also fresh pictures of the men standing with the smouldering wreckage of the Twin Towers in the background.
“One image showed a hand flicking a lighter in front of the devastated buildings, like a fan at a pop concert.
The driver of the van then told the arresting officers:
“‘We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem.’”
“The respected New York Jewish newspaper, The Forward, reported in March 2002, however, that it had received a briefing on the case of the five Israelis from a U.S. official who was regularly updated by law enforcement agencies. This is what he told The Forward:
“‘The assessment was that Urban Moving Systems [of which the men were employees] was a front for the Mossad and operatives employed by it.’ Back in Israel, several of the men discussed what happened on an Israeli talk show. One of them made this remarkable comment:
“‘The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event.’ But how can you document an event unless you know it is going to happen?’”
Can Shrimpton seriously dismiss all these allegations without serious thought? Perhaps the following will raise his ideological blood pressure sky high. National Public Radio has recently reported,
“Last Friday, 43 veteran and reserve members of Israel’s secretive spy organization, Unit 8200, claimed they’d been directed to spy on Palestinians for coercion purposes.
“The group signed an open letter of protest to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and to the head of the Israeli army, accusing the spy agency of targeting innocent Palestinians and collecting data for political purposes, not national security.”
“Dubbed the ‘refusniks,’ the veterans declared that they had a ‘moral duty’ to no longer ‘take part in the state’s actions against Palestinians….’
“According to the veterans’ letter, ‘A lot of it was simply being used for political reasons. It was given to politicians for their individual use. They felt that they were involved in political operations as opposed to defense operations.’”
There is no doubt that Shrimpton understands what I am saying, for he certainly had some training in logic and jurisprudence. Yet it seems that his weltanschauung does not allow him to put his legal training to practice.
Finally, instead of responding to the real and fundamental issues I have exhaustively addressed in previous articles, Shrimpton concludes that I seem “to be unhappy with my idea that we need to get boots on the ground in Iraq.”
Didn’t I explain why “boots on the ground in Iraq” is not really addressing the real issue? Shrimpton, because he seems to have been programmed by the Zionist narrative, cannot see that the Syrian “moderates” are terrorists and are therefore largely the source of ISIS. He cannot see that the U.S. actually funded ISIS in 2012.
And if Shrimpton has a problem with that, I guess he also needs to address Gordon Duff’s article entitled, “ISIL, another bogeyman created by US.” Duff also said that “al-Qaeda was always the creation of the CIA.”
This isn’t far-fetched. Avner Cohen, who has written serious work on Israel’s nuclear history and strategic policy, also said that “Hamas, to my regret, is Israel’s creation.”
I am exhausted. I have no confidence that Shrimpton will address these issues responsibly and logically, therefore I will refrain from further exchange.
 Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World (New York: Free Press, 1925), 4.
 See for example Amelie Oksenberg Rorty, ed., The Many Faces of Philosophy: Reflections From Plato to Arendt (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 401.
 Paul Johnson, The Quest for God: A Personal Pilgrimage (New York: HarperCollins, 1996), 21
 Bertrand Russell, Marriage and Morals (New York: Liveright Publishing Corp., 1957), 48.
 James Q. Wilson, The Marriage Problem: How Our Culture Has Weakened Families (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2002), 9.
 Quoted in Paul Lee Tan, Encyclopedia of 7700 Illustrations (Rockville, MD: Assurance Publishers, 1984), 793.
 Daniel J. Flynn, Intellectual Morons: How Ideology Make Smart People Fall for Stupid Ideas (New York: Crown Forum, 2004), 1.
 To be quite frank, I do not usually discuss books like that. I usually ignore and just avoid them. Shrimpton was an exception for obvious reasons.
 For a scholarly study on this, see for example Ami Pedahzur and Arie Perliger, Jewish Terrorism in Israel (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011).
 Edward Tivnan, The Lobby: Jewish Political Power and American Foreign Policy (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987), 43.
 Shabtai Teveth, Ben-Gurion’s Spy (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996), 81
 Ian Black and Benny Morris, Israel’s Secret Wars (New York: Grove Press, 1992), 111.
 David Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch: The Roots of Violence in the Middle East (New York: Avalon, 2003), 290.
 Ibid., 293-294.
 Ibid., 295.
 Amos Harel, “MI Figures Out What Went Wrong in Lavon Affair—55 Years Later,” Haaretz, November 11, 2009.
 See A. Jay Cristol, The Liberty Incident: The 1967 Attack on the U.S. Navy Spy Ship (Dulles, VA: Brassey’s, 2002); James Scott, The Attack on the Liberty; James M. James M. Ennes, Assault on the Liberty: The True Story of the Israelis on the American Intelligence Ship (New York: Random, 1979).
 John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2006), 42.
 John Crewdson, “New Revelation in Attack on American Spy Ship,” Chicago Tribune, October 2, 2007
 James Bamford, Body of Secrets: Anatomy of Ultra-Secret Nation Security Agency (New York: Anchor Books, 2002), 204.
 Ibid., 212.
 Yossi Melman, “Israeli Communications Said to Prove IAF Knew Liberty was US Ship,” Haaretz, April 10, 2007.
 Crewdson, “New Revelation in Attack on American Spy Ship,” Chicago Tribune, October
 Bamford, Body of Secrets, 229.
 Melman, “Israeli Communications Said to Prove IAF Knew Liberty was US Ship,” Haaretz, April 10, 2007.
 See for example “Western Intelligence: Israel Behind Iran Bombs,” Jerusalem Post, January 4, 2012; “Israel Aiding Terror Group to Kill Iran Scientists,” Jerusalem Post, February 9, 2012; Dan Raviv and Yossi Melman, Spies Against Armageddon: Inside Israel’s Secret Wars (New York: Levant Books, 2012).
 Ryan Gorman, “US urges Israel to stop assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists and focus on the Palestine peace process,” Daily Mail, March 3, 2014; “Report: U.S. Pressures Israel to Halt Assassinations of Iranian Nuclear Scientists,” Haaretz, March 2, 2014.
 Paul R. Pillar, “We Can Live with a Nuclear Iran,” Washington Monthly, March/April, 2012.
 Paul R. Pillar, “Deeper into Terrorism,” National Interest, February 9, 2012.
 John Mintz, “60 Israelis on Tourist Visas Detained Since Sept. 11,” Washington Post, November 23, 2001.
 Ben Fenton, “US Arrested 200 Israelis in Spying Investigation,” Daily Telegraph, March 7, 2002.
 Mark Mackay, “Five Israelis were Filming as Jet Liners Ploughed into the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001,” Sunday Herald, November 2, 2003.
 “Snowden Reveal Makes Spies’ Protest an American Issue,” National Public Radio, September 21, 2014.
 I simply could not help but laugh a bit when Reuters reported that Washington is now seeking to cooperate with Russia in order to fight ISIS! Jewish neocons like Victoria Nuland spent at least five billion dollars to destabilize Russia, but now they need help from their perceived enemy! Isn’t that an indication that Zionists are actually psychopaths?
 Avner Cohen, Israel and the bomb (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998); The Worst-Kept Secret: Israel’s Bargain with the Bomb (New York: Columbia University Press, 2010).
 Quoted in Andrew Higgins, “How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas,” Wall Street Journal, January 24, 2009.