…by Jonas E. Alexis
David Brooks of the New York Times has recently humiliated himself in an article entitled “The Murder-Suicide of the West.” According to Brooks, Donald Trump should never have met Putin because Putin is “the biggest moral and political enemy of the Euro-American relationship.”
Charles J. Sykes of the Neocon flagship the Weekly Standard felt the same way, going further to say that Trump “insulted” America by falling into “Putin’s thugocracy.” Sykes added that Putin and his allies are “the world’s most thuggish and violent dictators.”
Both Brooks and Sykes obviously think that everyone was born yesterday. They want us all to forget the entire cannon of history and adopt their essentially Talmudic ideology as the basis for foreign policy. One can argue that by continuing to allow in the Zionist mud, which Brooks and Sykes presumably find politically fulfilling and financially alluring, they are invariably drinking themselves into oblivion.
There is no doubt that Trump, as former CIA Philip Giraldi has recently put it, is “Israel’s useful idiot.” And there is no doubt that he and Putin should have addressed the deeper questions in the Middle East, most specifically Israel’s relentless attack in Syria without regard to international law. But Trump should never have met Putin in the first place? Is that a serious logical move?
Let’s take Brooks’ assumption to its “logical” conclusions and plug it into the historical landscape. Why did Franklin Roosevelt meet Joseph Stalin, “the biggest moral and political enemy” of the West during World War II? As we have documented over the past three years or so, wasn’t Stalin grabbing the peasants by the hair of their heads and sending them to the slaughter house by the millions?
Why doesn’t Brooks pick up a copy of The Black Book of Communism or The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine or even the Red Holocaust, three scholarly and independent studies which meticulously document the brutal atrocities of the Bolshevik and Communist regime in the Soviet Union?
If Brooks has read those studies, then why is he bastardizing history in the New York Times? Why is he attempting to delude or mislead his thousands upon thousands of readers?
Roosevelt could meet Stalin and could even call him “Uncle Joe,” but for Trump to meet Putin is an unpardonable sin? Could it be that Brooks is a member of the war machine which never ceases to drink the blood of innocent people from all over the world? Well, Brooks tells us who he is working for when he continues to say:
“Trump could have gone to last week’s NATO summit and taken credit only for increased European military spending… His embrace of Putin Monday was a victory dance on the Euro-American tomb.”
Brooks would have been less depressed if Trump had bragged about increasing NATO’s military spending. He still can’t get his head around the fact that Vladimir Putin, however imperfect he may be as a human being, is logically a reaction to the Neoconservative ideology in the Middle East and its aggressive expansion around the world.
Right after the Iraq debacle in 2003, virtually every serious politician began to have a second thought about US military coup in the Middle East. Then you had the debacles in Afghanistan and Libya. Putin, as we all know, has been critical of all these diabolical activities. The war in Iraq produced both sodomy and waterboarding, not to mention a six-trillion dollar bill.
Keep also in mind that NATO has been antagonizing countries around the world since the beginning of time. Libya is a case in point. As E. Michael Jones put it,
“NATO acted as the enforcement arm of international finance and attacked Libya to steal Libya’s natural resources from the Libyans (‘What’s our oil doing under their sand?’) and, more importantly, crush any alternative to Capitalism, which is state-sponsored usury.”
So Brooks doesn’t really want to touch on the real issues at all. In order to support his thesis, he quotes approvingly one of his brethren Robert Kagan, another warmonger and ethnic cleanser. But that only weakens Brooks’ own agenda because Kagan himself was involved in destabilizing Ukraine. As journalist Neil Clark put it back in 2014:
“Ukraine was where the neocons thought they would get their revenge. The US sponsored regime change in Kiev, an enterprise in which the State Department’s Victoria Nuland the wife of the Project for a New American Century co-founder Robert Kagan played a prominent role, finally enabled the hawks to get what they been dreaming of for over ten years – the sanctioning of Russia.”
To put it bluntly, the Kagans have been advancing perpetual wars since the beginning of time. So Brooks undermines his own mine by appealing to people who have a history of deconstructing the Middle East. Brooks ends his article by saying:
“Today, Europe and America face common perils and common problems — including the rise of ravenous strongmen who want to remake the world order. We’ve lost the bonds that might enable us to fight them together. Worse, the wolves are not only in the henhouse; they are in the Executive Mansion.”
Brooks’ statement here is completely misplaced. As our friend and colleague Mark Dankof has put it:
“Brooks seems to miss the obvious: that the ‘Murder-Suicide of the West’ has nothing to do with the Trump-Putin summit. It has everything to do with Zionist Central Banking, the American and NATO military expeditions on behalf of World Government and Likud Land Theft in Palestine, an American National Debt of $40 trillion in the next decade, and the Culturally Marxist cesspool of abortion, pornography, and the LGBTQ agenda in the West brought about on a disproportionate basis by Jewish money and activism as underscored by Joseph Biden himself. Don’t expect Brooks or anyone else at the New York Times to utter a peep about it either.”
Dankof has a point. The interesting thing is that Neocons are still scared to death that the “midterms will be hacked,” but those same people are still writing dissertations defending the NSA’s covert activities all over the world! The NSA has a metadata collection, and the Neocons aren’t willing to give that up at all. But they want to make Russia, Iran and Syria responsible for every single debacle in much of the world. If that is not the zenith of stupidity, what is?
Perhaps this is one reason why Russia continues to humiliate these political blood suckers and nihilists.
-  David Brooks, “The Murder-Suicide of the West,” NY Times, July 16, 2018.
-  Charles J. Sykes, “A New Servility,” Weekly Standard, July 16, 2018.
-  Ibid.
-  Jean-Louis Panné and Andrzej Paczkowski, The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999); Robert Conquest, The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987); Steven Rosefielde, Red Holocaust (New York: Routledge, 2010).
-  Randy Dotinga, “’Roosevelt and Stalin’ details the surprisingly warm relationship of an unlikely duo,” Christian Science Monitor, March 5, 2015.
-  E. Michael Jones, “Arab Spring,” Culture Wars, June 2011.
-  Neil Clark, “Putin demonized for thwarting neocon plan for global domination,” Russia Today, November 8, 2014.
-  Brooks, “The Murder-Suicide of the West,” NY Times, July 16, 2018.
-  Alice B. Lloyd, “Yes, The Midterms Will Be Hacked,” Weekly Standard, July 18, 2018.