Zionist Appetite for Destruction (Part I)
by Jonas E. Alexis on December 18, 2014
Zionism cannot exist without the blood of the Goyim
Zionism never stops looking for blood. In fact, it was born out of blood and violence. Even before it was actualized in the Middle East and America by the middle of the twentieth century, the Dreadful Few were already preaching the overthrow of Western Civilization and Talmudic ascension. For example, Baruch Levy, one of Karl Marx’s correspondents, wrote that
“in this new organization of humanity, the sons of Israel now scattered over the whole surface of the globe…shall everywhere become the ruling element without opposition…
“The government of the nations forming the Universal or World-Republic shall all thus pass, without any effort, into Jewish hands thanks to the victory of the proletariat…
“Thus shall the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled, that, when the Messianic epoch shall have arrived, the Jews will control the wealth of all the nations of the earth.”
In order for the “Messianic epoch” to take place, the old tradition—and that is Western Civilization in all its manifestations in art, music, science, history, philosophy, politics, economics, international law, etc.—must be pushed aside and supplanted by essentially Talmudic ideology. This cannot happen without the shedding of blood—most specifically the blood of the Goyim.
But this has to be done in a sophisticated or covert way, which means that sometimes the dumb Goyim do not even know what is happening. Sometimes they are just actors in the Zionist play. Let us look at some examples.
When Zionism looked for blood (through the Allies) right after World War I, it ran into a resistance force—Nazi Germany. As we have documented in the past, Nazi Germany would have been almost impossible without Bolshevism and other Jewish subversive movements. Even Jewish historian Arno J. Mayer of Princeton argues that Bolshevism drove Hitler into a bloody conflict with the Soviet Russia.
There were indeed ideological forces on both sides, but the average student who has been seduced by the Holocaust establishment simply would not understand why Germany for example attacked Poland:
As we have seen in the past, Nazi Germany was quite complicated and there is certainly more to World War II than meets the eye and ear. The Third Reich quickly saw that Judaism wanted German blood by any means. In fact, it was widely known that Judea declared war on Germany by 1933.
But not every single German wanted to be juiced by the Zionist Vampires, which were manifested in the Allied Forces at the time.
To make a long story short, the aftermath of World War II has been known by Zionist historians or by those who abide by the Holocaust narrative as “Bloodlands” or “Savage Continent.”
Both innocent and guilty people ended up losing their lives at the end of the war, which ended up catapulting the Zionist movement. When the ideological dust was largely removed from Germany, the Dreadful Few (through the Allied Forces) ended up liquidating and dislocating and starving and sexually raping ethnic Germans by the millions.
A few decades later, Germany was again taken captive by another Zionist force. Germany was “haunted by the six million,” as Nicolas Kellerstrom put it. In a similar way, James Fetzer has rightly argued that Germany and much of the academic Western world have been trapped in “fuzzy math.” Why? Because the “six million figure” simply cannot work if one uses serious historical and rational inquiry.
This “six million” figure is still bleeding Germany economically.
“Germany plans to finance part of the cost of four new corvette warships for the Israeli navy made by German firm Thyssen Krupp under a deal struck with the Jewish state in November…
“As part of its atonement for the Nazi Holocaust, Germany is committed to Israel’s security and has often helped pay for the cost of military equipment such as submarines.
“The mass-circulation Bildam Sonntag newspaper reported on Sunday that Berlin had earmarked up to 115 million euros for the warships — which would cost around 1 billion euros in total.”
What is equally worse is that the history of the Germans who were brutally tortured, slaughtered, humiliated and sexually raped, were quickly forgotten in the minds of the public, thanks to the Holocaust establishment.
The war also largely and indirectly provided the Zionist basis for the terrorist state of Israel. We must keep in mind that thousands of Jews and other people did suffer and die during Nazi Germany.
But the Dreadful Few eventually harnessed only the blood of Jewish suffering and used it to largely create the Zionist and terrorist state of Israel. To cite again Israeli historian Benny Morris:
“A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population.
“It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on.”
But Zionism does not want just a piece of land. The movement wants to conquer it all. It is still looking for fresh blood.And there is plenty of that in the West Bank. As Robert Fantina has pointed out,
“It is with increasing frustration that one hears about Israeli atrocities in the West Bank, only through the skewed lens of the corporate-owned media.
“For example, The New York Times reported that two Israelis were stabbed to death in an act of terrorism by Palestinians, and a Palestinian was shot to death by Israeli soldiers in an act of self-defense.
“It is vitally important to look beyond the biased viewpoint of the corporate media. The West Bank is part of Palestine, and is occupied illegally by Israel, and has been for forty years.
“According to international law, an occupied people have the right and responsibility to resist their occupiers. The half-million Israelis settlers living in the West Bank are there illegally, as part of the occupation, and so should be aware that their personal safety is in jeopardy.
“Equally frustrating are the stories coming out of the Gaza Strip, recently decimated by U.S.-provided bombs, dropped by Israel. Incredibly, Israel still seems to believe that by chanting the mantra of ‘national security’ it can kill men, women and children by the thousands, and the world will say nothing.
“Prime Murderer Benjamin Netanyahu stated that what he refers to as the ‘terror tunnels’, actually used mainly to smuggle into Gaza much-needed supplies that Israel forbids, needed to be destroyed, and that is why he had to bomb the entire strip.
“This brings up an interesting question: if Israel has the right to invade Palestine, why doesn’t Palestine have the right to invade Israel?
“… Change is happening; Israel is becoming more and more isolated as its horrific cruelties are exposed, and its lame excuse of ‘national security’ is seen as the blatant lie that it is. The U.S. can only protect it for so long, and time seems to be running out”
Blood of the Goyim in Germany, blood of the Goyim in the West Bank, blood of the Goyim in Guantanamo, blood of the Goyim at Abu Ghraib, and blood of the Goyim in America in a sophisticated way.
The recent debate about torture is another classic example which illustrates that the Dreadful Few (and some Goyim) do not have a moral leg to stand on. They complain about torture in Nazi Germany but produce silly arguments rationalizing torture in the “Jewish Century.” If you think that this is a joke, just hang on. According to Michael Shrimpton,
“The CIA has never tortured anyone. The idea that it does is just a left-wing conspiracy theory, recycled by the Senate without ever taking evidence from anyone in the program. What the media are calling torture is nothing of the sort.
“I have friends in the intelligence community who have been waterboarded. Many readers will have too – in the past it has been used in training. It’s not quite a drinks break, but it does not meet any sensible definition of torture.”
I did say that I would not touch on Shrimpton’s irresponsible claims, since this man seems to have no respect for truth and serious matters. But since I have written on torture in previous articles, I thought it would be interesting to read another “entertaining” and “humorous” idea.
Let us ask some serious questions here: what would it take for this man to even reconsider his preconceived notions? How in the world can he seriously say that waterboarding is not torture?
Again, why did the United States—not Britain, where the self-congratulated and self-referential barrister resides—have to execute Japanese who waterboarded American POWs?
Why does the Geneva Convention have to condemn the practice? And why did the American torturers have to suspend international law—and most specifically the Geneva Convention itself—in order to maintain literal barbarism?
Did Shrimpton know that Christopher Hitchens himself, an ardent proponent of the war in Iraq, tried “firsthand experience” and finally realized that waterboarding is indeed torture? Was Hitchens lying?
Hitchens just experienced the lenient form of waterboarding because “I knew I could stop the process at any time and that when it was all over I would be released into happy daylight rather than returned to a darkened cell”! What if he couldn’t stop the process? Well, let us watch Hitchens:
Right before he went through the experience, Hitchens signed a document which explicitly said,
“‘Water boarding’ is a potentially dangerous activity in which the participant can receive serious and permanent (physical, emotional and psychological) injuries and even death, including injuries and death due to the respiratory and neurological systems of the body.”
Hitchens expanded on what he went through in a later article this way:
“You may have read by now the official lie about this treatment, which is that it “simulates” the feeling of drowning. This is not the case. You feel that you are drowning because you are drowning—or, rather, being drowned, albeit slowly and under controlled conditions and at the mercy (or otherwise) of those who are applying the pressure.”
Hitchens did not want to rely on his own assessment too much. In fact, it is not wise to build an entire theory upon one experiment. Hitchens then asked Malcolm Nance, a man who “has been involved in the SERE program since 1997.” Nance
“speaks Arabic and has been on al-Qaeda’s tail since the early 1990s. His most recent book, The Terrorists of Iraq, is a highly potent analysis both of the jihadist threat in Mesopotamia and of the ways in which we have made its life easier.”
But when it comes to waterboarding, Nance did not mince words. Summarizing Nance’s assessment, Hitchens wrote:
Waterboarding is a deliberate torture technique and has been prosecuted as such by our judicial arm when perpetrated by others.
If we allow it and justify it, we cannot complain if it is employed in the future by other regimes on captive U.S. citizens. It is a method of putting American prisoners in harm’s way.
“It may be a means of extracting information, but it is also a means of extracting junk information. (Mr. Nance told me that he had heard of someone’s being compelled to confess that he was a hermaphrodite. I later had an awful twinge while wondering if I myself could have been ‘dunked’ this far.) To put it briefly, even the C.I.A. sources for the Washington Post story on waterboarding conceded that the information they got out of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was ‘not all of it reliable.’ Just put a pencil line under that last phrase, or commit it to memory.
It opens a door that cannot be closed. Once you have posed the notorious “ticking bomb” question, and once you assume that you are in the right, what will you not do? Waterboarding not getting results fast enough? The terrorist’s clock still ticking? Well, then, bring on the thumbscrews and the pincers and the electrodes and the rack.”
Then Hitchens quoted Nance contextually:
“Torture advocates hide behind the argument that an open discussion about specific American interrogation techniques will aid the enemy.
“Yet, convicted Al Qaeda members and innocent captives who were released to their host nations have already debriefed the world through hundreds of interviews, movies and documentaries on exactly what methods they were subjected to and how they endured.
“Our own missteps have created a cadre of highly experienced lecturers for Al Qaeda’s own virtual sere school for terrorists.”
It is really intellectually embarrassing to see that a lawyer would make the following argument—if you are nice enough to call it an argument:
“There are several reasons why no one sensible would ever ask the CIA to do torture. For starters, you guys are the Good Guys. The CIA are just too nice to torture people.”
In logic, this is known as begging the question or circular reasoning (petitio principii), and a freshman in law should be able to dismiss this with no serious mental exercise.
Circular reasoning usually occurs when one’s argument is already assumed as one of the premises in the argument itself. Shrimpton already begins with what he is trying to end with (“For starters, you guys are the Good Guys. The CIA are just too nice to torture people”), and he knows (or should know) that this is literally worthless in logic.
Shrimpton moves on to marshal an argument that should not be used to insult even children:
“Torture is a skilled art – an unpleasant art, admittedly, like politics, but a necessary one. The tricks are not to kill the suspect before he answers your questions and not to leave too many marks…
“There is no doubt that the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques introduced as a response to 9-11 were effective. They saved lives and property, which at the end of the day is the only ethical and moral justification for them. They worked. On this I back the CIA and Vice-President Cheney 100%.”
The evidence? Well, it is nowhere to be found. Shrimpton left his readers completely adrift.
Shrimpton really reminds me of Sigmund Freud, who would literally tell serious researchers to “go to hell” when they asked for evidence for his sexual insult and subversion of Western culture.
I did not even know that “The Senate Silly So-called ‘Torture’ Report” was written by Shrimpton. I saw the titled and that quickly caught my attention. As soon as I saw the author, I thought to myself, “Oh boy. Here we go again. Another trip to a fictional world.”
Shrimpton chooses to live in this fictional world not because there is no incontrovertible and scholarly evidence to refute his cherished belief, but because he simply would not accept certain facts in his weltanschauung.
It is really disappointing precisely because you would think that a barrister would go by the evidence, not by circular reasoning. On this point, one is forced to ask: What kind of evidence will he accept? Does serious evidence matter at all?
A few days ago, Dick Cheney was confronted with the facts that some prisoners were indeed tortured in the brutal way. Things such as “rectal feeding” and “rectal rehydration” were quite frequent. Cheney’s response? Hear this:
“I believe it was done for medical reasons.”
Yes! Those prisoners needed medical attention, and Cheney was one of the person to see this! I simply could not hold my laughter. I immediately showed Cheney’s statement to one of my historian friends and colleagues, who is a staunch Zionist. He jokingly responded,
“You know, maybe those prisoners needed some water. Maybe they needed to stretch their backs and that the guards were trying to help them out.”
We both had a good laugh over Cheney’s silly proposition here, and this was the first time that my colleague and I agree that monsters like Cheney need to spend time behind bars—perhaps forever. My friend even agreed with me that nearly all the leading lights in the Bush administration ought to be put on trial for torture.
 Quoted in E. Michael Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2008), 1066.
 Arno J. Mayer, Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?: The “Final Solution” in History (New York: Pantheon Books, 1988).
 See for example Timothy Snyder, Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin (New York: Basic Books, 2012); Keith Lowe, Savage Continent: Europe in the Aftermath of World War II (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2012).
 See for example Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, A Terrible Revenge: The Ethnic Cleansing of the East European Germans (New York: Palgrave, 2006); Giles MacDonogh, After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation (New York: Basic Books, 2009); James Bacque, Crimes and Mercies: The Fate of German Civilians Under Allied Occupation, 1944-1950 (Vancouver: Talonbooks, 2007); Thomas Goodrich, Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944-1947 (Sheridan, CO: Aberdeen Books, 2010); R. M. Douglas, Orderly and Humane: The Expulsion of the Germans after the Second World War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010).
 Nicholas Kollerstrom, Breaking the Spell: The Holocaust, Myth & Reality (Uckfield, East Sussex: Castle Hill Publishers, 2014).
 Ibid., 10.
 For a recent study on this, see Ulrich Merten, Forgotten Voices: The Expulsion of the Germans from Eastern Europe after World War II (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2012).
 See for example Gideon Levy, The Punishment of Gaza (New York: Verso, 2010).
 Robert Fantina, “Palestine, Israel and ‘Rockets,’” Counter Punch, November 14-16 edition, 2014.
 For a recent debacle, see for example Carl Hulse, “On Torture Report, Colorado’s Udall Leaves Subtlety at Door on the Way Out,” NY Times, December 13, 2014; Dominic Rushe, “CIA torture: health professionals ‘may have committed war crimes’, report says,” Guardian, December 16, 2014; Steven Miles, “The US paid torture doctors millions. Why is it last in the world in punishing them?,” Guardian, December 16, 2014; Spencer Ackerman, “Torture victims will bear psychological scars long after CIA report scandal fades,” Guardian, December 13, 2014; Steven Reisner, “CIA on the Couch,” Slate, December 12, 2014; Jonathan S. Landay, “Did CIA torture violate Nuremberg ban on human experimentation?,” Sun Herald, December 16, 2014; Glenn Greenwald, “U.S. TV Provides Ample Platform for American Torturers, But None to Their Victims,” The Intercept, December 16, 2014.
 Christopher Hitchens, “Believe Me, It’s Torture,” Vanity Fair, August 2008.
 For further study on this issue, see for example Karen J. Greenberg and Joshua L. Dratel, ed., The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005); Mark Danner, Torture and Truth: America, Abu Ghraib, and the War on Terror (New York: New York Review of Books, 2004); David Cole, Torture Memo: Rationalizing the Unthinkable (New York: The New Press, 2009); Joshua E. Phillips, None of Us Were Like This Before: American Soldiers and Torture (New York: Verso, 2012); Phillip Sands, Torture Team: Rumsfeld’s Memo and the Betrayal of American Values (New York: Palgrave, 2008); Jane Mayer, The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned into a War ono American Ideals (New York: Anchor Books, 2009); Seymour M. Hersh, Chain of Command: The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib (New York: Harper, 2004).
 Quoted in Scott Shane, “Backing C.I.A., Cheney Revisits Torture Debate From Bush Era,” NY Times, December 14, 2014.
About the Author
Jonas E. Alexis studied mathematics and philosophy as an undergraduate at Palm Beach Atlantic University and has a master's degree in education from Grand Canyon University.
Some of his main interests include the history of Christianity, U.S. foreign policy, the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the new book ,Christianity & Rabbinic Judaism: A History of Conflict Between Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism from the first Century to the Twenty-first Century.
He is currently teaching mathematics in South Korea. He plays soccer and basketball in his spare time. He is also a cyclist. He is currently writing a book tentatively titled Zionism and the West.
Alexis welcomes comments, letters, and queries in order to advance, explain, and expound rational and logical discussion on issues such as the Israel/Palestine conflict, the history of Christianity, and the history of ideas.
In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, Alexis asks that all queries be appropriately respectful and maintain a level of civility. As the saying goes, “iron sharpens iron,” and the best way to sharpen one’s mind is through constructive criticism, good and bad.
However, Alexis has no patience with name-calling and ad hominem attack. He has deliberately ignored many queries and irrational individuals in the past for this specific reason—and he will continue to abide by this policy.