Intellectual Perversity and Zionist Mumbo-Jumbo

“Rudderless and without a compass, the American ship of state continues to drift, guns blazing.” Andrew J. Bacevich, political scientist and military historian

 

 …by Jonas E. Alexis

 

Alfred North Whitehead

Alfred North Whitehead

Noted mathematician and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead once said that “It requires a very unusual mind to undertake the analysis of the obvious.”[1]

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.[2] 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.[3]

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”[4]

Bertrand Russell

Bertrand Russell

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.”[5]

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.”[6]


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.”[7]

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.[8]

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?

netanyahuIf 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.[9] In 1954, Israel Military Intelligence planted bombs in Egypt in American and British-owned territories.[10] 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.[11]

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.”[12]

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.’”[13]

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.[14]

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.”[15]

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.”[16]

uon-usslibertySix years later, though, the truth came out—it was really a Jewish conspiracy that had been “planned behind Lavon’s back.”[17]

“[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.”[18]

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.”[19]


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:

 
YouTube - Veterans Today -

Once caught, the Israelis declared that the attack was a mistake, arguing that they could not positively identify the vessel. But the evidence stacked up against them.[20] Mearsheimer and Walt called the event a “tragic attack” in history.[21]

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.”[22]

uss-liberty-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.’”[23]

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.

letmebeclear“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.”[24]

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.”[25]

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.’”[26]

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.”[27]

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.”[28]

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.”[29]

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.”[30]

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.[31]


YouTube - Veterans Today -

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.”[32]

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.”[33] 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.”[34]


 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.[35]

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.[36]

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.”[37]

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.’”[38]


YouTube - Veterans Today -

There is more:

“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?’”[39]

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.’”[40]


YouTube - Veterans Today -


 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?[41] 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,[42]  also said that “Hamas, to my regret, is Israel’s creation.”[43]

I am exhausted. I have no confidence that Shrimpton will address these issues responsibly and logically, therefore I will refrain from further exchange.

 


[1] Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World (New York: Free Press, 1925), 4.

[2] See for example Amelie Oksenberg Rorty, ed., The Many Faces of Philosophy: Reflections From Plato to Arendt (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 401.

[3] Paul Johnson, The Quest for God: A Personal Pilgrimage (New York: HarperCollins, 1996), 21

[4] Bertrand Russell, Marriage and Morals (New York: Liveright Publishing Corp., 1957), 48.

[5] James Q. Wilson, The Marriage Problem: How Our Culture Has Weakened Families (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2002), 9.

[6] Quoted in Paul Lee Tan, Encyclopedia of 7700 Illustrations (Rockville, MD: Assurance Publishers, 1984), 793.

[7] Daniel J. Flynn, Intellectual Morons: How Ideology Make Smart People Fall for Stupid Ideas (New York: Crown Forum, 2004), 1.

[8] 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.

[9] For a scholarly study on this, see for example Ami Pedahzur and Arie Perliger, Jewish Terrorism in Israel (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011).

[10] Edward Tivnan, The Lobby: Jewish Political Power and American Foreign Policy (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987), 43.

[11] Shabtai Teveth, Ben-Gurion’s Spy (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996), 81

[12] Ian Black and Benny Morris, Israel’s Secret Wars (New York: Grove Press, 1992), 111.

[13] David Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch: The Roots of Violence in the Middle East (New York: Avalon, 2003), 290.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid., 293-294.

[17] Ibid., 295.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Amos Harel, “MI Figures Out What Went Wrong in Lavon Affair—55 Years Later,” Haaretz, November 11, 2009.

[20] 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).

[21] John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2006), 42.

[22] John Crewdson, “New Revelation in Attack on American Spy Ship,” Chicago Tribune, October 2, 2007

[23] James Bamford, Body of Secrets: Anatomy of Ultra-Secret Nation Security Agency (New York: Anchor Books, 2002), 204.

[24] Ibid., 212.

[25] Yossi Melman, “Israeli Communications Said to Prove IAF Knew Liberty was US Ship,” Haaretz, April 10, 2007.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Crewdson, “New Revelation in Attack on American Spy Ship,” Chicago Tribune, October

2, 2007

[29] Bamford, Body of Secrets, 229.

[30] Melman, “Israeli Communications Said to Prove IAF Knew Liberty was US Ship,” Haaretz, April 10, 2007.

[31] 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).

[32] 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.

[33] Paul R. Pillar, “We Can Live with a Nuclear Iran,” Washington Monthly, March/April, 2012.

[34] Paul R. Pillar, “Deeper into Terrorism,” National Interest, February 9, 2012.

[35] John Mintz, “60 Israelis on Tourist Visas Detained Since Sept. 11,” Washington Post, November 23, 2001.

[36] Ben Fenton, “US Arrested 200 Israelis in Spying Investigation,” Daily Telegraph, March 7, 2002.

[37] Mark Mackay, “Five Israelis were Filming as Jet Liners Ploughed into the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001,” Sunday Herald, November 2, 2003.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Ibid.

[40] “Snowden Reveal Makes Spies’ Protest an American Issue,” National Public Radio, September 21, 2014.

[41] 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?

[42] 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).

[43] Quoted in Andrew Higgins, “How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas,” Wall Street Journal, January 24, 2009.

Related Posts:



The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT, VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians, or the Veterans Today Network and its assigns. LEGAL NOTICE - COMMENT POLICY

Posted by on September 22, 2014, With 4501 Reads Filed under Government & Politics, History. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

FaceBook Comments

52 Responses to "Intellectual Perversity and Zionist Mumbo-Jumbo"

  1. jake gittes  September 25, 2014 at 7:16 pm

    The more I learn, the more I realize official history is as phony as MSM news, and that Communists = Jews. Joe McCarthy rightfully was concerned about Jewish undermining of society. All the whiny stories of “blacklisting” persecution is so overblown and maudlin, especially considering that, meanwhile, they were busy slaughtering 66 millions Russians with designs on the rest of the goy world, including us. This is a good article on the early days of their mewling, criminal undermining and infestation.

    Walt Disney’s War With Hollywood’s Jews — http //www.rense.com/general91/walt.htm

    “Edison and the members of the Trust felt that by producing wholesome movies they were helping to preserve the nation’s morals. However, these Jews were not governed by moral standards. In the book Walt Disney Hollywood’s Evil Prince, Marc Eliot says “Unlike their early East Coast counterparts, the heads of Hollywood’s studios were less interested in artistic experimentation than profit. They put on the screen what sold the most. The public was willing to pay to see films with sex and violence, and Hollywood was more than happy to make them.”

    • OrdinarySerf  September 27, 2014 at 4:50 am

      The Disney link is a very interesting read Jake, many thanks. Of note is the fact that Laemmle (who was trying to steal and exploit Edison’s ideas) was a German born Jew. The German subversive influence and control in relation to America crops up time and again in research – Kissinger and Bush being other notable examples.

    • jake gittes  September 27, 2014 at 1:50 pm

      Thanks, Serf. For those of us old enough to remember, the Walt Disney name used to represent wholesome entertainment with good values. Since THEY took it over, it’s become a smut factory, perpetually defiling his name. The insidious, subversive way they deliberately manufacture child stars then convert them into wanton sluts is one of their disgusting ways they’ve undermined society and culture, targeting innocent children with their perversion and filth.

    • Excalibur  October 5, 2014 at 5:17 pm

      Excellent comment jake. McCarthy was a true hero – and he tried to head off what is happening NOW!

  2. moneytalks  September 25, 2014 at 4:49 pm

    Old Jules — you make a very astute observation about humans being generally dishonest ; ergo their ideologies are also generally dishonest . You must consider a more complete view of humanity to understand the reason for their habitual dishonesty . Humans are generally predatory if not outright predators ( ie. some are more predatory than others ) . A very tiny percentage of humanity could be said to be totally nonpredatory . Worldwide integrationism assures that the more predatory ones are mixed in with the less predatory ones in most populations . It is nowhere in the animal kingdom unusual for predators to kill other predators when the circumstances are favorable . Such killings reduce the competitions for life-sustaining resources ( including control over others where they are a resource ) and assures an adequate abundance of resources for the survivors . Convenient is it not ? Human dishonesty is a tactical defensive habit in the absence of other securities against any particular human predatory agenda — either personal or ideological . The Ten Commandments are flawed in so far as it makes no sense to be honest with someone who would harmfully exploit or even kill you . What kind of god would ask you to offer yourself , by being honest , as a sacrifice to a human predator ? Both Islam and Talmudic Jadism in their holy scriptures reject unconditional honesty ; and Christianity does not .

    • moneytalks  September 25, 2014 at 4:53 pm

      It should also be noted that all predators except humans have no choice in their predatory lifestyles — their survival depends on predations . Humans have freewill so that nonpredatory ones can at any time choose to be predators — or be more predatory than ususal ; and also remember that you cannot exterminate predators without being a predator ; even God cannot do that .

  3. Old Jules  September 25, 2014 at 8:05 am

    drbhelthi Goebbels wasn’t a general.

  4. Excalibur  September 24, 2014 at 4:11 pm

    Steady on Cojito – calm down. I am not against logic at all – far from it. You obviously did not read my comment or did not understand it. My point was that an atheist writing a book on logic would need to first of all write a foreward addressing the extremely peculiar and ILLOGICAL positioning of our very existence as ‘beings’on this Earth – before launching into lofty dictats about logical reasoning. This is because our EXISTENCE here does not make any logical sense. Otherwise their logical conclusions would just about stand scrutiny in a genial after dinner conversation but would turn into puffs of smoke somewhere between human consciousness and the outer Universe. This especially when the ultimate conclusion of all their logical analyses was always a return to nothingness and oblivion. A person who is anchored in Faith already has the foundation and basis from which everyone understands their logical reasoning begins. You are entitled to disagree with me if you want. Try to keep a civil tongue.

  5. John Kirby  September 23, 2014 at 8:30 pm

    THE JEWS CALL THEM PROPHETS, WE CALL THEM SCHIZOPHRENICS

    The comic-tragedy we live with is that the biblical descriptions of Abraham, Moses, Ezekial etc clearly indicate that these people were mad as hatters.

    So the greatest problem the world faces now, Isreal, is based on the ramblings of schizophrenics.

    • John Kirby  September 23, 2014 at 9:15 pm

      It is off-subject, but I would add that the other great problem the world is facing is the myth of man-made global warming. It is, like religion, a gigantic and harmful mistake.

    • Old Jules  September 23, 2014 at 9:49 pm

      John Kirby the inclusive ‘we’ in the sentence, “We call them schizophrenics” suggests you and similarly trained and educated diagnosticians of mental illness have examined these patients, carefully interviewed them and discovered all to be possessed of identical maladies. Evidently you are all delusional and based on the fact you blame so many of your concerns on others, probably paranoid.. I hope you can find some professional help, though it probably won’t do any good unless they prescribe medications with serious side effects leading to sterility and kidney stones.

    • John Kirby  September 24, 2014 at 12:35 am

      Thanks for the kind thought Jules. I have already had the kidney stone, and I’m not sure now about the sterility

    • moneytalks  September 25, 2014 at 5:28 pm

      If we assume that they were schizoids then we must conclude that the sheeple masses of this world are incurably feeble-minded .

  6. Cold Wind  September 23, 2014 at 7:40 pm

    Some might recall Russell’s “The Atomic Bomb and the Prevention of War” article published in the Sept. 1946 issue of “The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists”. Here the “nuclear pacifist” Russell proposes to everyone’s horror using nuclear blackmail–a preemptive nuclear attack on the Soviet Union–in order to frighten the Russians into accepting a British/American led totalitarian World Government. Russell’s idea for a world government is layed out in his book ‘The Scientific Outlook’. This is fascism with a not so human face. Given a US First Strike doctrine is now operative, I think we are close to a Russell moment for the second time in my lifetime.
    And thanks Jonas for the reminder of the USS Liberty assault. We must not forget.

    • moneytalks  September 24, 2014 at 10:22 pm

      “” a US First Strike doctrine is now operative “”

      a.k.a Satan’s Nuke Gambit . The ruling World Zionists Satanics would never insist on a proof that an attack was imminent before executing a first strike .

  7. forthurst  September 23, 2014 at 4:17 pm

    Bertrand Russell, a lifelong pacifist went to prison and lost his Cambridge tenure when (WWI) war fever gripped the British nation. He was a great analytical philosopher and writer who won the Nobel Prize for Literature. However, Russell was not independently wealthy despite his illustrious ancestry and did rely on his earnings as professional philosopher and author, in which later role he was oft inclined deliberately to court controversy.

    I myself read his many of his books as a callow youth, and if they did not affect my longstanding beliefs, they at least provided a template for the construction of English prose. Bertrand Russell was a brilliant man with many redeeming qualities, but no paragon nor any desire to become one.

    With regard to Shrimpton, his pose as an Englishman is transparently false, and as an real Englishman I do not have his obsessions with Germans or Iranians nor will occasional references to cricket persuade me otherwise, consequently I do not read his articles.

  8. JS  September 23, 2014 at 2:00 pm

    Mr Shrimpton’s article this week provides further evidence that he and Mr Duff’s views of the problem are converging. Mr Shrimpton revealed (while discussing a Bond film) that Senator Prescott Bush, George Bush Sr’s father, was a notorious Abwehr/DVD agent, who Ian Fleming called Shady Tree. This is extremely important new information, with enormous implications.
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/09/19/united-kingdom-is-staying-united/
    Quote “Laurence Naismith is good value as the De Beers man and Leonard Barr’s performance as Shady Tree could hardly have been bettered. Fleming named Shady Tree after the notorious German (Abwehr/DVD) agent, Senator Prescott Bush, by the way.”

    • Jonas E. Alexis  September 23, 2014 at 4:19 pm

      JS,

      How genius of you! First of all, if Shrimpton would agree that al-Qaeda is the creation of the CIA, why doesn’t he attack the CIA for creating al-Qaeda in the first place? Why do we keep reading one article after another about getting “boots on the ground”? You’ve got spider web in your house and to solve the problem, you clean the spider web as opposed to getting rid of the spider that created the problem in the first place? That’s not smart.

      Second, if Shrimpton agrees that al-Qaeda is the creation of the CIA, I can assure you that any law student will tear his arguments to pieces. I cannot take time to discuss this here.

      Lastly, I find it puzzling that you would skip all the arguments that I have mentioned in the article and jump to this issue to make a point. You don’t want to address Shrimpton’s frivolous and demonstrably false statements that Assad used chemical weapons on his own people, that Iran is a state-sponsoring terrorist, etc., but you just want to amuse us with minor issues.

    • JS  September 24, 2014 at 8:42 pm

      Jonas, your bio says that you have no patience for name-calling or ad hominem attacks. (Against you, I assume?) But apparently you don’t mind dishing it out to your readers who might even slightly disagree with you. For example, these phrases in your reply to me above ‘how genius of you’, ‘not smart’, ‘you just want to amuse us with minor issues’. That pretty much IS name-calling. Those phrases are dripping with condescension, not scholarly at all. Your bio also says that you like it when readers point out errors. But that’s not true either. Maybe it was true when you first wrote it, but it’s not true anymore. Name-calling is the last refuge of someone who has nothing else left. Maybe that’s why you called Mr Shrimpton’s statements frivolous? Btw, Iran IS a state sponsor of terrorism; he was correct, not frivolous, to say that. But I will add to that, that Iran has a lot of company.

    • Jonas E. Alexis  September 24, 2014 at 8:59 pm

      JS,

      I attacked the argument you presented, not JS as a person. A person is within his own right to call my argument stupid or irrational, so long that rigorous evidence is presented. That would not be an attack on me personally at all. That certainly means that I would have to present more rigorous evidence.

      If you say that Iran is a state-sponsoring terrorist without the slightest evidence and despite all the evidence to the contrary (and I have thoroughly presented them in previous articles), then I have every right to say that this argument is frivolous or irrational or preposterous or even stupid. Did you know that there are some scientists and philosophers who call the multi-verse theory “creasy”? And do you think they are personally attacking the other scientists who propose the theory?

      Frankly, JS, I do not know why you are defending Shrimpton on this point at all—assuming that you are not Shrimpton.

  9. JS  September 23, 2014 at 12:51 pm

    Jonas, you laud Gordon Duff’s articles about ISIS and Al Qaeda, and disparage Mr. Shrimpton’s. But what you fail to realize, is that there is NO real contradiction in their views. As you point out, Mr. Duff has said that both Al Qaeda and ISIS are creations of the CIA. Mr. Shrimpton has said that they are DVD creations. Both are correct, but stating it differently. It is absolutely necessary to realize that the secret is the COREA wing of CIA, which is DVD within the CIA, as Mr Shrimpton keeps pointing out. Mr Shrimpton also sees the same problem in the UK, with GO2 as the DVD wing of British intel. I don’t know why it’s so hard for you to grasp that, as it’s elementary. Yes, both countries are horribly penetrated. Israel has a similar problem, btw. Essentially, we have internal wars going on.

    • captain obvious  September 24, 2014 at 2:10 pm

      IMHO, the worst of the nazi mindset were brought to the US with operation paperclip, and were wardens and guards in the open concentration camp that has been named izrahell.. where the shrimp doesnt get it and is stuck on blaming Germany, defending izrahell even just after 11,000+ casualties! blames Germany for creating Hamas, and what would Germany gain? izrahell creating Hamas to thwart a PLO sure makes a LOT more sense, then saw to it their “Yessir” man took the helm, until they disposed of him.

      then theres izrahell’s support of mercenary thugs posing as “rebels” in Syria, lighting off a nuke near Damascus, and more, and worse, “those nice IDF boys arent murderers”.. gimmeafuggenbreak!

  10. OrdinarySerf  September 23, 2014 at 6:54 am

    A battle of words (of which you are personally 15,000 words down the line, which if spoken would clearly constitute verbal diarrhoea) against an ‘esteemed colleague’ (your phrase) who just happens to write a different style of column here on VT and who didn’t even pick a fight with you in the first place….. and now you are ‘exhausted’. Well Jonas (from a reader mostly supportive of your work)…..diddums !

    • Jonas E. Alexis  September 23, 2014 at 6:39 pm

      OrdinarySerf,

      I kept scratching my head while I was reading your response because you flagged me down in the early days because I did not cite the sources in my articles (even though I promised anyone that they could be made available), but you seem to be giving Shrimpton a lee way. Why don’t you ask him to do the same?

      Second, just because you esteem a person as a human being or colleague does not mean that the person is not producing lies and fabrications and that you ought to agree with those hoaxes. And it is ridiculous to say that Shrimpton “just happens to write a different style of column…”
      Again, to say that Assad used chemical weapons on his own people is not a different style of writing. It is just plain false. And Shrimpton didn’t pick a fight? Saying that Iran is a “state-sponsoring terrorist” without evidence is not a fight? And about amusing people by saying that the statement itself is “self-evident”? Doesn’t that insult your intelligence? And doesn’t that even stun you that the statement came from a barrister? I am not debating Shrimpton; I am examining his colossal hoaxes.

    • Bartered  September 24, 2014 at 12:30 am

      I think I understand the problem here. Their arguing style and you Mr. Alexis are talking facts and trying to address them when Shrimp ton muddies the waters with fiction and even worse, lies, regarding Syria, Iran, and any other country on the US dung list. Too simple?

    • OrdinarySerf  September 24, 2014 at 6:14 am

      Yes Bartered, (with the greatest of personal respect to you)……too simple.

    • JS  September 24, 2014 at 4:28 pm

      Serf, you might want to check out my new comment about Shady Tree and ST.

    • Bartered  September 24, 2014 at 4:44 pm

      Serf,
      Not a problem. Style is personal attribute that can have influence over any reader but it shouldn’t be used to confuse the facts in order to create a hypothesis the writer can claim for attention, or lay blame on the innocent.
      I don’t see Alexis insulting Shrimpton. I see a corrections to lies regarding Shrimpton’s work that is confusing the reader into a lull by entertaining them with material that does not justify being manipulated.

    • OrdinarySerf  September 24, 2014 at 8:06 am

      Not sure why you would be scratching your head Jonas, because (as usual) you half quote me for convenience. I said that he ‘did not pick a fight WITH YOU in the first place’. By implication, that means you are the aggressor here (and have been for 15,000 words). By contrast, Mr Shrimpton did not actually need to respond to you at all if he did not wish to….there is nothing which formally requires him to take the bait.

      Really sorry Jonas, but with respect I laughed out loud at the rationale behind your esteem comment here. Pick any definition of esteem you like. Here is one from ***oxforddictionaries.com*** (noun and verb) defined as ‘respect and admire’. Do you seriously think anybody of sound mind would take you seriously on that one ?

      You haven’t read carefully any of the responses I have given you on previous articles. Indeed in your own reply to me on September 4th 2014 (Zionist Bloodbath and Irrationality 7.59 / 8.01pm) you seemed not only ‘exhausted’ but also somewhat confused. Have a look at your second point in reply to JS above….does it read correctly and what are the wider implications if it does ?

      Clearly I only have 1500 characters per reply box, but I am happy to go over the salient points again if you wish…..just let me know. Thanks for responding and (as always) very kind regards, Serf.

    • Jonas E. Alexis  September 24, 2014 at 4:07 pm

      Ordinary Serf,
      I am again flabbergasted by some of your statements. Do you seriously think that other scientists who criticize Stephen Hawking do not respect him? For example, if Stephen Hawking starts saying things like the earth is flat, don’t you think it is properly right to say that the statement is stupid while at the same time respect Hawking as a scientist? Once again, I would have to remind you of the intense debate between Rene Descartes and Thomas Hobbes. Let me say it again, I highly esteem Shrimpton as a person and a colleague, but I find many of his statements ridiculous.
      Second, you never address the issue that I pointed out earlier. Why don’t you ask Shrimpton to reveal his sources? Weren’t you ridiculing some of my statements in the early days because I didn’t have the proper citations? Why the double standard?

    • OrdinarySerf  September 25, 2014 at 12:34 am

      I don’t think I ridiculed your statements, I simply asked politely for some references because you write philosophical tomes once or twice a week, not a short and topical weekly commentary column. As JS has pointed out to you in a previous article, if you are going to be balanced you need to also criticise other VT writers who do not supply sources to support their opinions.

      The factors as to why Mr Shrimpton does not supply sources were addressed by me in the article referred to above on 4th September and that is the same comment to which I received from you an embarrassingly irrational and inaccurate reply.

      So Jonas, tell us all what it is that you so admire and respect about your esteemed colleague Mr Shrimpton.

      As Bamber Gascoigne used to say, here’s your starter for 10

      “I respect and admire Michael Shrimpton because…..”

      (no need for 15,000 words – 1,500 characters may help me to take you seriously on the esteem front).

  11. potai  September 23, 2014 at 6:18 am

    Israel attacked US(S) Liberty. It’s a meaningful metaphor as well as a historical event. I am encouraged that some folks see what it means, more than merely what it meant. Godspeed to you Jonas.

  12. Old Jules  September 23, 2014 at 4:09 am

    Shrimpton doesn’t need debunking. Responding to him is a waste of time because he wouldn’t make a freckle on your left cheek. He’s worth reading as a means of seeing how the supposed ‘thinking’ folk with educations justify and rationalize buying into obvious lies. No rebuttals required because his mind is composed of a matrix of interconnected embraded falsehoods.

  13. Martin Maloney  September 23, 2014 at 2:30 am

    Arguing with an idiot is like playing chess with a pigeon.

    He will kick over all of the pieces, shit on the board and then waddle away as the victor.

  14. Martin Maloney  September 23, 2014 at 2:24 am

    “Well, what would you say to a barrister who posits that Iran “is a terrorist-sponsoring state” without evidence?”

    Jonas, you just don’t get it.

    Israelis are “the good guys.”
    Good guys don’t lie.
    Israelis claim that Iran “is a terrorist-sponsoring state.”
    Therefore, Iran “is a terrorist-sponsoring state.”

    In Shrimpton’s mindset, in his ideology, it is logically consistent.

    No evidence required.

    Or try this one;

    The United States is the greatest country on Earth, and its government is benificent.
    9/11 was a evil act.
    Therefore, the government of the United states could not have been involved in the perpetration of 9/11.

    Ideology is a mind-trap.

  15. Anzario  September 23, 2014 at 2:21 am

    ‘I am exhausted. I have no confidence that Shrimpton will address these issues responsibly and logically, therefore I will refrain from further exchange’

    I hope you stick to your word Alexis. It does not befit a lion roaring back to a dog’s bark.

    On the subject of US and Israel relationships, isn’t if feasible that LJ (and all the subsequent elected members) was in cohorts with the Israelis in all their crimes and knew well in advance that the attack on Liberty (literally and virtually) is going to happen? But who is going to educate the drugged out masses of America?

  16. franktalk  September 22, 2014 at 7:26 pm

    It helps to understand the time and the social thought that Russell came to age in. He was providing, a flippant evaluation of the Victorian era of England and the protestants and catholic church of the time. He obviously had some disagreement with their position. It would be an error to not understand British intelligence support and tavistock institutes mission with Russell to understand the man and his role in promoting the so called ‘counterculture’ movement of the Jewish left. His discourses were more like McKenna’s where his narcissism was obscured, but obvious to the trained observer. But then, in a world of people looking for entertainment rather than insight, it was just fine. Though we are often asked to come to conclusions based on slanted, often tainted data, The world is way bigger than anyone coming out of the systems we call education and the facts are often incredibly skewed.

    Now Shrimpton. that is a different kettle all together. But the game should be recognizable. References are valuable, but only so far as the facts presented there are correct. . . that often comes down to another opinion rather than a fact.

    Great work Alexis,

  17. John Kirby  September 22, 2014 at 7:17 pm

    The elephant in the living room is Israel’s power over America.

    • Charlotte NC Bill  September 22, 2014 at 7:44 pm

      Yes, but according to Shrimpy the power is really Germany…even though the Zionists don’t allow them to discuss the real history of WWII…..and they comply with that….how is anyone supposed to take Shrimpy seriously?

    • captain obvious  September 24, 2014 at 2:18 pm

      very carefully, to a psychiatric facility maybe?

  18. Excalibur  September 22, 2014 at 5:10 pm

    Anyone – especially if they are an atheist – with the bravery (I was going to say arrogance) to write a book on ‘logic’ needs to first discipline themselves somewhat by writing a brief foreward. It should point out the following –

    ‘We don’t really know WHY we exist. We are apes that have become sentient for reasons that we also do not really understand. We have four major limbs, a protruding head that detects light, vibrations and essences. We consume fuel material which we then excrete. We reproduce ourselves, fight among ourselves and calculate. We exist intellectually in something we call consciousness – but do not really understand that either. We are all clinging to a rock that orbits a sun star in space – that in turn spins around a galaxy at thousands of miles per hour. Our Universe is continually exploding and imploding on itself. We can barely explain (let alone understand) the infinite nature of the outer space which encases us – or our conscious and unconscious being. So – where was I – ah yes ……… logic ….’

    • Jack Martin  September 23, 2014 at 12:12 am

      French mathematician and philosopher René Descartes said
      “It is truth most certain that, when it is not in our power to determine what is true, we ought to follow what is most probable.”
      … and what is manifestly most probable is that the complexity and order evident in our universe point overwhelmingly to the probability of “intelligent design” as the explanation for life and our physical universe and the laws that govern and sustain it.
      Atheism is not based on science or sound reason… Atheism is itself a religion rejecting, a priori, the concept of God… not because of the evidence, but in spite of it.

    • Excalibur  September 23, 2014 at 3:09 am

      Thank you Jack – Perhaps I have touched on a nerve here?. Goodness in thought and deed actually exists. Evil in thought and deed actually exists. We humans DO exist – and uniquely have the ability to CHOOSE which of those paths (good or evil) to follow on a daily basis. Once this uncomfortable realisation is thrown into the mix it changes EVERYTHING in the Universe. There are those who like to construct a protective and comforting bubble for their lives – inside of which they can quantify and explain everything. They will attack you, of course, if you pop the bubble. In the meantime they are quite entitled to believe in nothing and follow what is essentially the cult of oblivion. You wisely point out, Jack, that oblivion theory is even more preposterous than belief in the Divine.

    • Bartered  September 24, 2014 at 12:39 am

      That sounds like a proverb, almost. It might actually be put in a binder with other such proverbs from famous mathematicians, engineers, and archetics who like to view their world as a mystical place that may be understood if properties of physics could be viewed at a spiritual level. Wasn’t Plato a mathematician? The first book of Plato chapter whatever, verse the same, “blah blah blah”. Look I invented a new religion based on atheism. Simple fact. People worship stuff, even if it contradicts worshiping, (believing in) God because we have to use our spiritual side or become numb. Some worship their income because they believe its more important than life itself. Without it, their life is over. Simple.

    • Jonas E. Alexis  September 23, 2014 at 7:58 am

      CogitoMan,

      In any serious issue, the worse thing to do is to trivialize a point and then ridicule it with nice words like “Who’s God has bigger dick?” If you want people to take you seriously–and if you want us to respond to a sincere question–then you’ve got to do a little better. But far be it from me to tell you how to behave in a civil manner.

      You wrote, “You reduce yourself to say that he was wrong without giving facts that are the base of your critic.” Did you actually read the essay?

      Furthermore, have you come across the debates between Russell and Mortimer Adler, and then Russell and Frederick Copleston? Do you know why many serious philosophers do not occasionally cite him today? Did you know that it was Russell’s inconsistencies that led his own daughter to drop atheism?

  19. joe chuy-medina  September 22, 2014 at 4:29 pm

    Yes, you are wasting time trying to have intelligent discussions with the phony barrister -the pompous, arrogant blowhard with the mind of a jelly donut.
    I believe that the Sunday Herald coverage of the Israelis dancing, in possession of box cutters, etc, was intended to give credence to the OCT, official conspiracy theory, of planes flying into the towers, by Arabs with box cutters. You recall that the only cell phone call that mentioned this was Barbara Olson’s alleged call to her husband, which has been denied as having taken place, by the FBI. NO calls above 3,000 ft.
    As for shrimpy, I totally agree. He makes statements and alludes to sources never mentioned, totally out of character for a trained lawyer. I don’t believe anything he says.
    Interesting article, as usual, Jonas.
    joe

    • Charlotte NC Bill  September 22, 2014 at 7:41 pm

      According to USTS flts. 11 and 77 weren’t even scheduled to be in the air that day, When Flt. 175 was supposedly flying into the S. Tower it was being tracked over Harrisburg, Pa. When Flt. 93 was supposedly crashing into the Pa. countryside it was tracked over Urbana, Illinois, According to IAEA inspectors and the findings of the USGS the soil samples prove conclusively that 9-11 was a nuclear event involving mini-nukes on at least WTC 1, 2 and 6…No plane flew into the Pentagon, confirmed by Gen. Stubblebein and many actual witnesses….Mossad job with a little help fm their friends.

    • captain obvious  September 23, 2014 at 3:20 am

      totally agree with the majority of your first sentence, with exception to the insulting of jelly donuts, which I like and are probably much more intelligent or valuable. when cooking it is customary to cut out the shrimp excrement, too politely referred to as de-veining.. if VT were a restaurant, wouldnt recommend ordering the shrimp platter, it seems they may have the process entirely backwards..

You must be logged in to post a comment Login


TOP 50 READ ARTICLES THIS MONTH
From Veterans Today Network