Hitler or Stalin in Syria?
“If every single cell in a Jewish body entails divinity, and is thus part of God, then every strand of DNA is a part of God. Therefore, something is special about Jewish DNA…The Jewish life has an infinite value. There is something more holy and unique about Jewish life than about non-Jewish life.”—Rabbi Ido Elba 
In his article “When in Doubt, Say ‘Hitler,’” &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;img class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-268005" alt="jewish" src="http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/jewish-200x320.jpg" width="200" height="320" /&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; journalist and radio co-host J. P. Sottile cogently brings up the fact that whenever the Zionists want to overthrow a new country, they do not invoke Joseph Stalin, who butchered more than twenty million people,  but they invoke Adolph Hitler. As Sottile documents:
“Saddam Hussein? Say ‘
“Slobodan Milosevic? Say ‘
“Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Say ‘
“And now, as if on cue, Secretary of State John Kerry said ‘
“Evoking Hitler is the foreign policy equivalent of yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. Comparisons to Hitler are meant to spark an immediate, visceral reaction and designed to ‘clear out the building.’ Once the dissent leaves the room, the debate has effectively ended. It also demarcates a rhetorical red line. If you cross it, you are siding with Hitler.”
What we are seeing here is that summoning Hitler to pursue Talmudic interest has become a Jewish virtue. It is a virtue largely because, as Jewish scholars Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky point out, “Jews killing non-Jews does not constitute murder according to the Jewish religion and that killing of innocent Arabs for reasons of revenge is a Jewish virtue.”
Since this is the premise upon which Zionist terrorism thrives and has destroyed sovereign nations such as Iraq and Afghanistan, the Zionists have and will continue to pay a large number of the goyim and even Jewish double agents thousands of dollars to say some of the dumbest things in the media.
Here are some of those dumb things the neo-Bolsheviks/neoconservatives have repeated
ad nauseam: One: There is no evidence showing that by supporting the Syrian rebels, the Obama administration ends up supporting Al-Qaeda.  Two: If someone shows that there is evidence which indicates that the Syrian rebels and Al-Qaeda are two sides of the same coin, then that person is a conspiracy theorist.  Three: America is planning to invade Syria because it is a matter of national security.  Four: The Assad government has used chemical weapons.  Five: America is not tired of perpetual wars in the Middle East. 
All four are complete hoaxes and colossal fabrications deliberately cooked up by the Zionist regime to continue their Mephistophelian attack on the Middle East and to send much of the Western world into a Jewish bloodbath.
The neo-Bolsheviks/neoconservatives keep propounding that Assad has used chemical weapons as if it is a brute fact. But repeating an idea without evidence is not a serious argument. It is a circular argument.
My dear and esteemed colleague here at
Veterans Today Michael Shrimpton recently declares,
“It is perfectly clear however that Assad
was behind the gas attack in East Damascus on August 21 st. Of course many people are refusing to accept that fact, but it is a fact nonetheless.” 
Perfectly clear? How did that opinion suddenly become a fact? Is it because it is backed by rigorous laboratory testing, or is it because it is repeated over and over? Well, it seems to be the latter, since Shrimpton gives us no serious evidence for the claim. It is a fact because Shrimpton tells us so.
Shrimpton, as a lawyer, knows that his statement here would not stand up in a court of law precisely because it is free of evidence. Even Robert Spencer—of all people!—makes it very clear that
“Obama said that Assad used chemical weapons, but still has not produced compelling enough evidence to convince our closest allies, the British. What he has produced is a series of YouTube videos of dubious provenance, establishing nothing conclusive.”
“Desperate efforts to suggest that Israel, or the rebels, or the Saudis carried out this war crime have failed, miserably. None of the rebel groups has the capability or anywhere near it.”
As one commentator, Tyron Parsons, rightly pointed out, Assad would have to be completely stupid to use chemical weapons on his own people when he knows very well that “it would bring about his complete destruction. Obama had already issued the ‘red line’ for him not to cross.”
As we saw in previous articles, a growing number of intelligence officials do not buy into the idea that Assad has used chemical weapons.
More importantly, it is demonstrably and categorically false to say or even remotely suggest that the rebels have not had access to chemical weapons. The
Washington Post itself declared last December:
“U.S. officials are increasingly worried that Syria’s weapons of mass destruction could fall into the hands of Islamist extremists, rogue generals or other uncontrollable factions.
“Last week, fighters from a group that the Obama administration has branded a terrorist organization were among rebels who seized the Sheik Suleiman military base near Aleppo, where research on chemical weapons had been conducted. Rebels are also closing in on another base near Aleppo, known as Safirah, which has served as a major production center for such munitions, according to U.S. officials and analysts… “A former Syrian general who once led the army’s chemical weapons training program said that the main storage sites for mustard gas and nerve agents are supposed to be guarded by thousands of Syrian troops but that they would be easily overrun. “The sites are not secure, retired Maj. Gen. Adnan Silou, who defected to the opposition in June, said in an interview near Turkey’s border with Syria. “Probably anyone from the Free Syrian Army or any Islamic extremist group could take them over,” he said.” 
Post quoted a retired Army officer saying that the rebels could have easily gained access to those chemical weapons sites. According to the Wall Street Journal, chemical weapons were also made available to the anti-Gadhafi military units.  The Telegraph also reported that Al Qaeda could have access to chemical weapons. 
And we know that the Syrian rebels and Al Qaeda are two sides of the same coin. And many Syrians testify that it was the rebels, not Assad, who actually used chemical weapons.
In debunking the global warming myth, my highly esteemed colleague here at
Veterans Today and former physics professor at the University of Ottawa Denis Rancourt declares that proponents of the idea “look for comfortable lies that they can settle into and feel good about themselves and alleviate the guilt that they have from being on the privileged end of the planet…If you tell a scientist, ‘Look, why are you making this stuff up? Can’t you just stick to the data?’ They get very, very upset…Someone’s going to make a lot of money from these schemes.” 
This is very similar to what the Zionist regime is doing with America and much of the West. In August of 2002, Fred Barnes of the
Weekly Standard invoked the comfortable lie that Saddam Hussein and Mohammed Atta met in Prague, which to Barnes was an indication that Saddam was part of the 9/11 attack. 
That lie was comfortable then, but it was still a lie, and Atta never met with Hussein’s men in Prague.
 The lie was so obvious that one 9/11 Commission investigator told one Jewish neoconservative who was propounding the nonsense, “Are you sure Elvis wasn’t there also?”  Comfortable Lies Busted People like John McCain are no dummies. McCain has been told time and again that the Syrian rebels are terrorists, but he still supports them largely because that keeps him in power and that also brings him and other warmongers financial gains. The &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;img class="alignright size-medium wp-image-268006" alt="McCain" src="http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/McCain-320x198.jpg" width="320" height="198" /&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; Daily Mail just recently came out with an article entitled, “Senators who backed Syria resolution got 83 percent more defense lobby money than those who voted against it, campaign finance numbers show.” 
These issues obviously got the American people upset. Recently, a number of McCain’s supporters got so upset that they declared, “We didn’t send you to make war for us. We sent you to stop the war.”
What is more interesting is that while Obama is campaigning for war against Syria, he went to a synagogue in Stockholm to honor alleged Holocaust victims.
 Maybe he was praying in the synagogue so that the West will not see that it was the rebels, not Assad, who used chemical weapons. 
The Zionist regime will never listen or pay attention to evidence and reason precisely because virtually nothing is reasonable about Zionism. Even when the
New York Times itself gave concrete and video evidence that incontrovertibly shows how the Syrian rebels brutally executed their captives,  not a single Jewish neoconservative has come up and admitted that he was wrong about the rebels/terrorists. Not one!
Chuck Hagel, who was “Jewified” right before he landed on his new position, declared that he cannot trust the Syrian rebels.
 But we Americans still have to send millions upon millions of dollars to people we do not trust!
And while virtually every single poll shows that the vast majority of Americans do not want a war with Syria,
 and while a growing number of U.S. military officers categorically reject a war with Syria,  one of the traditional enemies of the truth, Robert J. Samuelson of the Washington Post, marshals the completely irresponsible argument that Americans are not weary of wars. 
Moreover, when millions upon millions of people are dead, when families are mourning for their babies and love ones because of the Jewish bloodbath, the neoconservatives will respond by saying that they have spread freedom and democracy in the Middle East.
 This “present revolution” is Jewish
While those comfortable lies are still in the air,
Business Week itself has recently reported:
“Al-Qaida-linked rebels launched an assault Wednesday on a regime-held Christian village in the densely populated west of Syria and new clashes erupted near the capital, Damascus — part of a brutal battle of attrition each side believes it can win despite more than two years of deadlock.
“As the world focused on possible U.S. military action against Syria, rebels commandeered a mountaintop hotel in the village of Maaloula and shelled the community below, said a nun, speaking by phone from a convent in the village. She spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.
“The attack came hours before a Senate panel voted to give President Barack Obama authority to use military force against Syria — the first time lawmakers have voted to allow military action since the October 2002 votes authorizing the invasion of Iraq….
“Maaloula, a mountain village some 40 miles (60 kilometers) northeast of Damascus, is home to about 2,000 residents, some of whom still speak a version of Aramaic, the ancient language of biblical times believed to have been spoken by Jesus.”
The rebels, in a widely seen video, beheaded two Syrians who were said to be Christians.
 Noted historian Philip Jenkins of Pennsylvania State University recently declares that the United States seems “determined to eradicate Christianity in one of its oldest heardlands [Syria]…” 
“Sadly, Westerners tend to assume that Arabs are, necessarily, Muslims, and moreover, that Muslims are a homogeneous bunch. Actually, 10 percent of Syrians are Alawites, members of a notionally Islamic sect that actually draws heavily from Christian and even Gnostic roots: they even celebrate Christmas.
“Locally, they were long known as
Nusayris, ‘Little Christians.’ Syria is also home to several hundred thousand Druze, who are even further removed from Sunni orthodoxy.” 
Syria, continues, Jenkins, has largely maintained a decent balance between religious groups:
“Those communities have survived very successfully in Syria for centuries, but the present revolution is a threat to their continued existence.” 
What Jenkins did not point out is that this “present revolution” is Jewish at its ideological and political core. It is the Jewish neoconservatives who desperately want to obliterate the Christian and Muslim populations for Israel, and they will not be satisfied until their goal has become a
From a Christian perspective, since Syria has been one of the historical and intellectual centers of Christian developments, Jewish revolutionaries will seek to destroy that center as well, since theologically they are known as the “synagogue of Satan.” Jenkins again declares:
“If Christianity began in Galilee and Judea, it very soon made its cultural and intellectual home in Syria. St. Paul famously visited Damascus, and for centuries Antioch was one of the world’s greatest Christian centers. (The city today stands just over the Turkish border.)
“A sizable Christian population flourished under Islamic rule, and continued under the Ottomans. Muslim and Christian populations always interacted closely here. A shrine in Damascus’s Great Mosque claims to be the location of John the Baptist’s head.
“Christian numbers fluctuated dramatically over time. A hundred years ago, “Syria,” broadly defined, was home to a large and diverse Christian population, including Catholics, Orthodox, and Maronites.”
Christian churches also faced the same persecutions in Egypt as well.
 The Zionist version of Syria
But, according to the Zionist reading of things, The United States still needs to use the rebels to get rid of Assad. AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League, and the Republican Jewish Coalition have already been pushing the U.S. to strike Syria aggressively.
For the legendary Alan Dershowitz, Obama should not only ask Congress for a strike on Syria but he also needs to get an approval to strike Iran!
 Sheldon Adelson, the Jewish mogul who spent millions upon millions of dollars to defeat Obama, has recently allied with his foe in order to strike Syria. 
At the end of last month, Obama in turn told 1,000 rabbis that a strike on Syria is a good thing. And William Kristol continues to sound the alarm that Assad must go, though in a subtle way.
 The Jerusalem Post admits that AIPAC is indeed “powerful” and has the ability to challenge the United States on Syria.
“Politico quoted officials as saying some 250 Jewish leaders planned to make the case to lawmakers next week that failure to act in the face of Syrian President Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons would serve to embolden Iran in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. IPAC was expected to lobby ‘virtually every member of Congress,’ according to the report.”
Once again, all these issues go all the way back to what Jewish intellectual Maurice Samuel has propounded in the 1920s,
 that Jewish revolutionaries are bent to destroy the cherished tradition that has kept the West alive and well for thousands of years.
Kerry recently declared that “With respect to Arab countries offering to bear costs and to assess, the answer is profoundly yes. They have. That offer is on the table.”
If they offer to bear the cost, why do they need the U.S. to get involved? As the Syrian opposition leader Haytham Al-manna recently declares, a plan for military intervention in Syria is “Satanic.”
Moreover, the Zionists will give a large number of the goyim a decent platform so that they can do Israel’s dirty work. How else would America even talk about invading Syria when poverty in the U.S. has taken an epic proportion?
As Paul R. Pillar rightly points out,
“Israel has, of course, long rejected any international cooperation, transparency, or honesty when it comes to its arsenal of nuclear weapons. As for chemical weapons, 189 states are parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention;
Israel is one of only seven states (along with Syria) that is not.” 
Pillar, as a cogent scholar, asked two important questions that need much reflection:
“Does the United States want to follow its powerful and privileged Israeli client on a path that not only brushes aside international law, international organization, and the peaceful pursuit of international objectives but also entails perpetual warfare, much isolation, and all of the costs and risks that go with that? The current Israeli government has chosen that path for itself; why would the United States want to take the same path?”
 The decline of America is Jewish
William Deresiewicz of the
American Scholar recently wrote,
“This will not be pretty. I mean our national decline, and yes, it’s going to happen, sooner or later, one way or another.”
This is what the Jewish Century has actually produced. When virtually everyone is progressively becoming Jewish,
 as Yuri Slezkine argues, virtually every cherished ideal that has kept the West strong for thousands of years has progressively become almost obsolete.
One of the strong pillars that has kept the West strong is reason in all of its manifestations. In the Western mind, you do not embrace or dismiss an idea based on personal feelings; you dismiss or embrace an idea based on reason and on logically defendable positions.
Unfortunately, when the “Jewish Century” began to take a toll on the West, ideas and people are dismissed because they do not embrace an ideological worldview. This is exactly what happened to Denis Rancourt. Rancourt was a tenured physics professor at the University of Ottawa and one of the leading experts in his field, publishing more than one hundred articles in peer reviewed scientific journals. Rancourt’s scholarship is impeccably impressive:
“As a professor of physics, he was a member of the Ottawa-Carleton Institute for Physics and member of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre His most cited works are in the area of
Mössbauer spectroscopy where he developed a spectral lineshape analysis algorithm. This formed a basis for a now commercial spectral analysis software developed in his laboratory.
“His laboratory has worked on the iron oxide hematite and has been cited in recent works on the remote measurements of the soil mineralogy on Mars. He worked on the physics of Invar for twenty years and in his last papers on the subject he claims to have solved the 100-year-old Invar problem of identifying the mechanistic origin of the alloy’s thermal expansion anomaly.”
After teaching for more than two decades, it was widely recognized that Rancourt was indeed no crackpot scientist. But he was eventually fired in 2009 because, well, he questioned the powers that be. As he told me,
“I did many, many things that they [University of Ottawa] did not like at all but I think the main reason for my firing was my blog ‘U of O Watch’ which was started in 2007. On this blog I was very critical of the administration, including its ties with Israel, but also all its power politics schemes.
“When a student was screamed at by [Allan] Rock [president of the university] in the president’s office, I went on TV, the producer played the student’s recording of the abuse, and I gave a lengthy comment that if this was outrageous and that if a professor did that, the professor should be fired, on live television. The student was in one of my classes. Days later I and all my graduate students were locked out of my laboratory without notice. The incredible
story is here [ and here].
“In the end, if I had connection with the Israel lobby and was a defender of Israel, then I don’t believe Rock would have fired me. They would have taken the usual careful route of ‘progressive’ discipline. They would have acted within the rules.”
Here is one essential point that readers need to keep in mind. Jewish neoconservative hawks like David Horowitz keep complaining that there is not enough “diversity” on college campuses,
 but when people like Rancourt produce a little diversity, they get fired!
As it turns out, you get fired because you do not buy into the Zionist ideology. This was exactly what happened to other academics such as Norman Finkelstein.
The university, Rancourt told me, invited Stanley Fish to play a part in his dismissal.
Fish basically argued that the university had every right to fire Rancourt because Rancourt seemed to violate the principles of the school. But the simple fact is that Fish himself sophistically indoctrinated his own students into his own worldview for decades and he never got fired or reprimanded.
E. Michael Jones, who took one of Fish’s literature classes, later wrote that Fish’s course was “heavily teleological in its orientation. That means that it started off by demolishing critics Fish disagreed with and moved inexorably toward the Truth, or, as Stanley would have put it, the writings of Stanley Fish himself.”
At one point, Fish praised Jones in the class for making a brilliant point, which seemed to support Fish’s own “truth.” In Jones’ words,
“when a professor says you are brilliant, you reciprocate. Stanley, I learned from other students, was interested in reciprocal relationships. He would say you were brilliant and use his connections to get you a job, perhaps, if you would go off to that job promoting him in your own way, by mentioning his books in your articles, by inviting him to speak, etc., etc. It is the way academic reputations are made these days, but I had to learn the hard way.”
But Jones made the mistake of challenging Fish during a class session. All hell broke loose.
“Not only was I not brilliant anymore, but I found that I could not get recognized to ask questions any more….One day after I had held my arm up in the air for what seemed like hours, Fish finally called on me, but he prefaced his remarked by saying, Mr. Jones, you’ve wasted enough of this class’ time; now, what is it?’
I found myself remembering this incident while reading an article in a recent issue of
Newsweek on ‘Thought police on Campus.’ There right in the middle of the discussion was a picture of a now-wizened Stanley Fish telling the Newsweek reporter that ‘Disagreement can be fun.’ That’s not the way I remember it. It was not fun to disagree with Stanley Fish, at least not when you were a student in his class.” 
This ought not to be that way. If the neo-Bolsheviks are bent to destroy the West ideologically, academically and politically, then the vast majority of Americans should say enough is enough.
We are the majority, and they are the minority. They ought not to have political power over us. Once their political power is diminished, fruitful dialogue and relationship between the East and the West will certainly take place. With one accord, let us all thrive and work until that happens.