Demonic: How the Neoconservative Mob is Endangering America

DISCLOSURE: VT condemns the horrific tragedy committed by the NAZI Party against Jewish Citizens of Europe during Word War II known as the "Holocaust". VT condemns all racism, bigotry, hate speech, and violence. However, we are an open source uncensored journal and support the right of independent writers and commentors to express their voices; even if those voices are not mainstream as long as they do NOT openly call for violence. Please report any violations of comment policy to us immediately. Strong reader discretion is advised.

Rush Limbaugh and Madonna Are Ideologically in Bed with Each Other

“The demon is a mob, and the mob is demonic. It is the nihilistic mob of the French Revolution; it is the revolutionaries who seized control of Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century; it is the Maoist gangs looting villages and impaling babies in China…” …Ann Coulter, Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Engendering America[1]

      … by  Jonas E. Alexis

We saw in the article “Neoconservativism is Trotskyism” that the neoconservative movement was and still is a Jewish political and intellectual movement. It started in the 1930s and 40s with a number of young Jewish intellectuals known as “The New York Intellectuals.”[2]

These people, in a metaphysical sense, were intellectual terrorists and revolutionaries. New York’s City College and other campuses were to a large extent revolutionary cells where the study of the Mishnah and Maimonides’ works were of primary importance among those individuals. Irving Kristol, a Trotskyite at the time, would talk about trying “desperately to manipulate [students] into the ‘right’ position.”[3]

And Irving Howe would talk about how students would change completely after taking philosophy classes with Jewish professor Morris Cohen, who “like a fencing master facing multiple foes…challenged students to his left and to his right, slashing their premises, destroying their defenses…You went to a Cohen class in order to be ripped open and cut down.”[4]

It was Cohen who taught Howe that an intellectual life can be used as “a form of combat.”[5] Jewish historian Howard M. Sachar calls this chapter in American history “The insurrection of the intellectuals.”[6] University campuses, therefore, were bound to create revolutionary cells.

For that very reason, many universities were hesitant to hire Jewish professors. Raised in a Stalinist family, Ronald Radosh tells us in his memoir that many Jews like himself were sent from New York to Wisconsin to take over the university there.[7]

In a nutshell, anti-Jewish reaction at that time was itself a reaction to Jewish revolutionary activities. This has largely been the issue throughout the centuries, even during the rise of Nazi Germany when Jewish revolutionaries began to produce pornography to attack the German culture, which led Hitler to take drastic actions against those revolutionaries.[8]

The German-Jewish writer and sociologist at the time Erwin J. Haeberle wrote an essay in which he declared that “Much early sexological research, indeed the very concept of sexology, was the work of German Jews.”[9] Magnus Hirschfeld, a Jewish physician and sexologist, “founded in Berlin the Institute for Sex Science, which became a mecca for homosexuals throughout Europe and America.”[10]

But Jewish revolutionaries were and still are only a small percentage of the population. Although they have been the main leaders of revolutionary movements, they had to recruit troops—people who support the movement for all sorts of reasons, including money, greed and fame. The movement has never run out of those neoconservative defenders and apologists. Kevin MacDonald of California State University writes,

“There was a smattering of non-Jews among the New York Intellectuals, who, as members of the anti-Stalinist left in the 1940s, were forerunners of the neoconservatives. Prominent examples were Dwight MacDonald (labeled by Michael Wrezin ‘a distinguished goy among the Partisanskies’— i.e., the largely Jewish Partisan Review crowd), James T. Farrell, and Mary McCarthy. John Dewey also had close links to the New York Intellectuals and was lavishly promoted by them; Dewey was also allied closely with his former student Sidney Hook, another major figure on the anti-Stalinist left. Dewey was a philosemite, stating:

“After all, it was the Christians who made them ‘it’ [i.e., victims]. Living in New York where the Jews set the standard of living from department stores to apartment houses, I often think that the Jews are the finest product of historical Christianity…Anyway, the finest living man, so far as I know, is a Jew—[humanitarian founder of the International Institute of Agriculture] David Lubin.”[11]

Our new era is no different. There are enough non-Jewish neoconservative apologists out there who would defend some of the most ridiculous notions ever. Ann Coulter, a leading voice among neoconservatives, declared that in 2003 “Bush uttered the indisputably true fact that British intelligence believed Saddam Hussein had tried to acquire uranium from Africa.”[12]

Coulter is a lawyer, and she knows pretty well that repeating a statement so many times does not make it true. Paul R. Pillar, a 28-year old CIA veteran and a visiting professor at Georgetown University, declares in his recent book Intelligence and U.S. Foreign Policy that U.S. intelligence agencies have repeatedly told Bush that there was no evidence supporting the claim that Saddam was getting uranium from Africa.[13]

What Coulter probably did not know was that Bush told the American people that he also got his source from the NIE,[14] but Pillar declared that the NIE repeatedly told Bush not to tell the American people that Saddam was acquiring uranium from Africa.[15]

Then Coulter moves on to declare that “Liberals are now pretending that their position all along was that Saddam had secretly disarmed in the last few years without telling anyone.”[16] Is Pillar a liberal? Are the U.S. intelligence agencies all liberals? Are John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard liberals?

The liberal-versus-conservative dichotomy ceases to have its political force when the neoconservatives themselves do not want to take responsibility for their own mess. Tony Blair, after years of evidence to the contrary, declared in 2012,

“To repeat the old canard that we lied about the intelligence is completely wrong as every single independent analysis of the evidence has shown. And to say that the fact that Saddam (deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein) massacred hundreds of thousands of his citizens is irrelevant to the morality of removing him is bizarre.”[17]

By 2012, Coulter had enough evidence to at least tell some truths about the war in Iraq. For example, the man who supplied Bush the false information that Iraq had WMDs was none other than Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, known as Curveball. To use the words of one British newspaper, the U.S. “sexed up” Curveball’s lies and presented them to the U.N.[18]

Curveball himself declared, “They gave me this chance. I had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime. I and my sons are proud of that and we are proud that we were the reason to give Iraq the margin of democracy. I had a problem with the Saddam regime. I wanted to get rid of him and now I had this chance.”[19]

When Curveball was asked, “The fact is we went to war in Iraq on a lie. And that lie was your lie.” Without hesitation, Curveball responded, “Yes.”[20]

Yet, instead of recognizing the neoconservative’s weakness, Coulter never mentions Curveball in any of her books. Coulter declares that it is the liberals who are saying that “there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.”[21]

Then Coulter repeats the Zionist mantra that Bush “begun to create the only functioning democracy in the Middle East other than Israel.”[22]

With all due respect to Coulter, that is the zenith of nonsense. The American people had to get a six-trillion dollar bill in order to get the neoconservative version of “democracy” in Iraq?[23] We know that explosions are continuing to happen almost every single day in Iraq.[24] Just on the tenth anniversary of the war, sixty people were dead in car bomb attacks.[25] We also learned that “sectarian strains pit some Iraqis against their own leaders.”[26]

More importantly, it has been pointed out that the cost and consequence of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan can hang around for more than one hundred years.[27] Should that be part of democracy as well?  In a nutshell, what Coulter ends up telling us is that thousands upon thousands of Iraqis and Americans had to die for a lie which to Coulter is “democracy.”

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared, “10 yrs ago began the long, difficult work of liberating 25 million Iraqis. All who played a role in history deserve our respect & appreciation.”[28]

[youtube 7abu9a0xtNI]

Coulter, Rumsfeld and others are within their own right to believe whatever nonsense they want to believe, but American families who have lost love ones in Iraq, Iraqi families who are still mourning for their sons and daughters and for their heritage, the average American taxpayer who is still struggling to make ends meet in a fragile economy, deserve to know the truth at last so that they can stop the neoconservative torment.

As the late General Bill Odom of National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan once put it, “The Iraq War may turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in American history.”[29] But how does the neoconservative mob celebrate the war after ten years? Listen to Alan W. Dowd of FrontPage Magazine:

“The war liberated 24 million Iraqis. Iraq is anything but perfect today, but its people are free—free from tyranny, free from being required to pledge their ‘souls and blood…for Saddam,’ free from the vast torture chamber Saddam turned Iraq into, free from his omnipresent terrors.”[30] Dowd moves on to tell us: “The world is better—and America more secure—without Saddam Hussein.”[31]

Dowd admitted that Bush did make mistakes, but “The major mistake President Bush made was not in going to war, but in how he went to war. By not going heavy into Iraq and by disbanding the Iraqi military, a postwar insurgency became inevitable.”[32]

Dowd finally tells us that the war was indeed good for America:

“Like a Rorschach inkblot, to some Americans, the Iraq War looks like a necessary but costly effort to protect U.S. interests—and to others, like a fiasco. The war’s critics cannot overlook the costs: 4,500 Americans killed and $880 billion spent. The defenders of the war counter that the success or failure of America’s wars is not determined by casualty counts.”[33]

Human casualties certainly cannot be the primary factor for determining success or failure of a war, but it is a factor nevertheless. For example, if a person dares say only five million Jews died in Nazi Germany, that person will go to jail in Europe for his alleged crime. Why? According to the Holocaust establishment, any deviation from the accepted figure is a crime in itself.

But Dowd can deviate from other figures without facing repercussions because the modern age again is Jewish. While Dowd was triumphantly saying that the six trillion dollar war was good, the Wall Street Journal just recently came out with an article entitled, “Workers Savings Too Little to Retire.”[34] In other words, when things are good for the neoconservatives, the average American pays the price.

Moreover, “While those who entered military service after 9/11 generally have a more positive attitude toward the US role in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pew Research Center reported Wednesday, ‘only one-third (34%) of these recent veterans say that both wars have been worth fighting.’ The report also says, ‘Nearly as many (33%) say neither conflict has been worth the costs.’”[35]

So I am really confused here. Should I believe Ann Coulter, who is making millions of dollars propagating nonsense? Or should I believe the soldiers who have been in the war zone and who declared that the war was not worth it? Let us bring in Robert W. Philbrook, who got enlisted in the Army National Guard. In a conversation with his six-year old son, Philbrook found himself in a moral dilemma:

“Sitting in the car that day, he looked at me and said, “Can I ask you a question, Daddy?

“I told my son, yes, he could ask me anything. After a moment, he said: “You said you might have to kill someone in the war, right?”

“I nodded and said to him that is what soldiers sometimes have to do.

“He looked at me with his big blue eyes and muttered, “Will any of them be a daddy like you?”

“His question was devastating. I didn’t know how to tell him that the answer could well be “yes.” I thought for a moment and then reminded him about Mom and Dad’s rule [that] he and his brothers shouldn’t be mean to each other and that Daddy didn’t like it when they fought over toys.

I told him I was going to Iraq to try to keep the Iraqis from fighting and being mean to each other and doing bad things. That if they listened and got along, I could come home soon. But if they didn’t, I was going to have to fight them until they stopped. This seemed to make some sense to him, but to this day his question haunts me.”[36]

Philbrook prayed, “Don’t let me get any of my fellow soldiers killed, don’t let me kill anyone who doesn’t have it coming and get me back home to my wife and children.”[37]

While 90 percent of the soldiers said that they were proud of their service, the net result is still imbalanced: “Forty-eight percent of Iraq and Afghanistan vets report strains in family relationships, 47 percent frequently feel irritable or angry, and 37 percent said they’ve experienced post-traumatic stress…The Pew poll also finds that ‘84% of these modern-era veterans say that the American public has little or no understanding of the problems that those in the military face.’”[38]

Recently, Brown University scholars found out that

“More than 70 percent of those who died of direct war violence in Iraq have been civilians – an estimated 134,000. This number does not account for indirect deaths due to increased vulnerability to disease or injury as a result of war-degraded conditions. That number is estimated to be several times higher… Terrorism in Iraq increased dramatically as a result of the invasion and tactics and fighters were exported to Syria and other neighboring countries. Iraq’s health care infrastructure remains devastated from sanctions and war.

More than half of Iraq’s medical doctors left the country during the 2000s, and tens of thousands of Iraqi patients are forced to seek health care outside the country. The $60 billion spent on reconstruction for Iraq has not gone to rebuilding infrastructure such as roads, health care, and water treatment systems, but primarily to the military and police. The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction has found massive fraud, waste, and abuse of reconstruction funds.”[39]

Monitor correspondent Jane Arraf from Baghdad lamented, “Ten years after the US-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein, talk swirls in government circles of Sunni protesters planning to destabilize the country. While many discount the possibility of a coup, rising sectarian tension and an ongoing political crisis have raised fears that there is a new battle looming between Baghdad and the provinces.”[40]

Thomas Young, a veteran, recently wrote a letter declaring,

“The Iraq War is the largest strategic blunder in U.S. history. It obliterated the balance of power in the Middle East. It installed a corrupt and brutal pro-Iranian government in Baghdad, one cemented in power through the use of torture, death squads and terror. And it has left Iran as the dominant force in the region.”[41]

Historian Andrew Bacevich, a West Point graduate who served in Vietnam and who was a U.S. Army First Lieutenant for 27 years, is not very happy about he war in Iraq.[42] After 10 years, we are told that “Iraq remains dangerously divided.”[43]

Can Coulter, then, be taken seriously? Is Coulter a member of the party of death and destruction in the Middle East? If she is not, then she is an ardent apologist for it. Listen to Dick Cheney as he was describing the events surrounding the Iraq war: “If I had to do it over again, I’d do it in a minute.”[44]

In other words, if Cheney had a chance to kill more than 70 percent civilians (which have estimated to be more than 134,000), waste $8 billion U.S. taxpayer’s money,[45] send another $6 trillion to the American people, create esthetic terrorism in the Middle East, he’d do it in a minute! If this is strange, keep in mind that Cheney approved Obama’s drone program.[46] In other words, Obama and Cheney are in bed with each other when it comes to drones.

Cheney continues, “Making up a reason to invade a country is the easy part. Sticking to a pretend story for ten years—that is the stuff of valor.”[47] Indeed summoning fabrications to invade Iraq was easy. The administration needed two colossal lies in order to convince the American people that Saddam had to go.

Lie number 1: Saddam was evil. Condoleezza Rice declared at the time, “This is an evil man who, left to his own devices, will wreak havoc again on his own population, his neighbors and, if he gets weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them, on all of us. There is a very powerful moral case for regime change.”[48]

If that were sufficient reason to invade Iraq, why doesn’t the United State invade every “evil” government in the Middle East and elsewhere? Saudi Arabia in particular has been reported to have been one of the most repressive regimes in the Middle East, and yet America partnered with the regime for years. President Obama called it “the strongest partnership between the United States in Saudi Arabia” and “the importance of our bilateral relationship,” and the U.S. will “continue cooperating closely on a range of issues.”[49]

Lie number 2: Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, a complete fabrication. Condoleezza Rice again declared before the invasion, “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”[50] If that were true, then the United States would go to war against Israel, for Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons. As we saw in a previous article, Israeli historian Martin van Creveld made it clear that those “smoking guns” can reach even Rome.

In an indirect way, Max Boot of the neoconservative magazine Commentary approved Cheney’s great insight by saying that “no need to repent for support of Iraq war.”[51] Listen to Boot once again:

“I should make clear that, unlike some supporters of the war effort, I would not have backed the invasion if I had known what we now know—that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction. There were, to be sure, secondary reasons to act, in particular the desire to implant a democracy in the middle of the Middle East. But, while I am a firm believer in democracy promotion, I don’t believe that its spread justifies exposing our soldiers to danger unless there is an overriding threat to our own security.

In the case of Iraq, it was almost universally believed prior to the invasion that such a threat existed: not just the CIA but the Mossad, MI6, and every other allied intelligence agency agreed that Saddam had WMD. Heck, even his own generals believed it—Saddam out-bluffed himself.”[52]

Right. Boot would not back the invasion if he had known what we now know but Boot cannot utter even one single sentence of repentance to the American and Iraqi people. And all of a sudden he and others cannot understand why anti-Jewish reactions are big in the Middle East and elsewhere!

Moreover, it has been revealed just this week that MI6 and the CIA knew very well that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. “Saddam’s foreign minister, told the CIA’s station chief in Paris at the time, Bill Murray, through an intermediary that Iraq had ‘virtually nothing’ in terms of WMD.”[53] But who can trust those Muslims? They are all terrorists!

If Boot is really serious, why is he telling the American people that we need to wage a war against Iran without a shred of evidence?

Cheney, Boot, and sadly Coulter, just prove that the neoconservative ideology with respect to the Middle East is morally depraved. And this is not just Cheney.

When it became clear to some that Abu Ghraib was another version of Marquis de Sade’s sexualized ideology as articulated in 120 Days of Sodom,[54] fire-breathing talk show host Rush Limbaugh said that the soldiers were “having a good time,” which served as an “emotional release.”

And how did Limbaugh defend this total nonsense? The pictures at Abu Ghraib, Limbaugh told us, were no different from what Madonna is doing on stage. Here’s Limbaugh at his best:

“ You know, if you look at — if you, really, if you look at these pictures, I mean, I don’t know if it’s just me, but it looks just like anything you’d see Madonna, or Britney Spears do on stage. Maybe I’m — yeah. And get an NEA grant for something like this. I mean, this is something that you can see on stage at Lincoln Center from an NEA grant, maybe on Sex in the City — the movie. I mean, I don’t — it’s just me.”[55]

This is what I call moral craziness and perversity. Limbaugh is defending Abu Ghraib because it is no different from Madonna’s sexual acts! In other words, the “Left” gives us Madonna, and the “Right” gives us Abu Ghraib. The “Left” worships Madonna, and the “Right” indirectly defends sexual perversion in Abu Ghraib. Different paths—same sexual perversion.

In other words, you don’t like Madonna’s or Lady Gaga’s sexual orgies on stage? Welcome to Abu Ghraib. You don’t like Abu Ghraib? Welcome to Madonna and Lady Gaga. You either vote for the party of death in the Middle East (so-called Republican Party) or vote to support Madonna and Lady Gaga (Democratic Party). Take your pick.

And instead of admitting their shortcomings, neoconservative apologists such as Ann Coulter and Thomas Sowell blame the liberals and the media for releasing the Abu Ghraib pictures.[56]

Sowell himself wrote, “In an age when some in the media are gross enough to release photographs of Princess Diana’s dying moments, perhaps it is too much to expect forbearance about releasing photos that can only help our enemies around the world.”[57]

Donald Rumsfeld declared that “what has been charged thus far is abuse, which I believe technically is different from torture. And therefore I’m not going to address the ‘torture’ word.”[58]

So, is Rush Limbaugh the neoconservative version of Madonna? And are neoconservatives such as Coulter defending this? Is modernity, as E. Michael Jones puts it, a rationalized version of sexual ideology?[59] We should ask the Israeli military forces that question.

Right after they took over Palestinian TV stations in Ramallah in the West Bank back in 2002, the Israeli forces immediately started broadcasting pornography.[60]

It is common knowledge that pornography destroys lives, and certainly the Israelis knew what they were doing. As we shall see in a future article, Jewish revolutionaries such as Wilhelm Reich found out pretty quickly that one quick way to destroy a society is through sexual perversion, and Hollywood quickly harnessed Reich’s philosophy and slowly but surely unleashed it in the American culture.

And by the time that sexual perversion reaches a critical mass, Jewish director and actor Eli Roth changes the name of the game by giving us what is now known as “torture porn”[61] in films such as Hostel, 2001 Maniacs, etc.

Roth put the issue into proper perspective when he declared that “The Jews are more angry now about [expletive] from seven thousand years ago than we were seven thousand years ago. We never forget, and we do not forgive.”[62]

In other words, for Roth directing films is another way to pronounce his revenge on the Germans in particular and indeed Western culture at large. With respect to Inglorious Basterds, Roth declared,

“It’s every Jewish boy’s dream, to grow up and kill Hitler! My parents were crying when we watched that scene. It was really amazing. The whole movie is a fantasy and for me I felt like I got to live out the most wonderful, fantastic part of that fantasy.”[63]

In Christianity, hatred toward people is evil and must be despised and rejected. Christianity goes out of its way to declare that though enemies must be confronted with the truth, Christians have the duty to pray for their enemies.

In contrast, hatred is a Jewish virtue. Elie Wiesel himself declared, “Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone for hate—healthy, virile, hate—for what the Germans personifies and or what persists in the German. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of the dead.”[64]

How far can this go? Should every Russian, somewhere in his being, set apart a zone for hate because the Jewish Bolsheviks and Communists were responsible for the lives of one hundred million people?[65]

Should the Armenian Christians hate Jews because Jewish revolutionaries obliterated at least 1.5 million Christians at the dawn of the twentieth century in Turkey?

The answer is a resounding no. People of all background should fight against evil and its consequences, but they should never espouse or even remotely suggest actions of hatred toward other people. That would be my suggestion to Wiesel.

And if he cares enough about justice, he would fight against all evils, not just one particular evil. He should fight against the systematic brutality toward the Palestinians as well.

Jonas E. Alexis, Assistant Editor

Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the new book Zionism vs. the West: How Talmudic Ideology is Undermining Western Culture. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.

• Read Jonas Alexis’s latest posts here >>>