Neoconservatism – The Conservative-Patriot Christian Right

If There Is a Neocon Warning – Pay Attention

John R. Houk

© June 26, 2019

The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) in conjunction with the Think Tank American Enterprise Institute (AEI) has put together a report measuring Russia’s potential threat to American interests today.

In the Bush II Presidential years the AEI had a Neoconservative reputation in its policy advocacy. In this day and age Neocons are pretty much castigated by the American Left and American Right.

On a personal level I have been an admirer of Neoconservatism’s American Exceptionalism and a Foreign Policy based on military strength. Traditional Conservatives (sometimes called Paleocons) view this kind of aggressive Foreign Policy as a Big Government budget destroyer. There are those the American Left would label as the racist Right who castigate Neocons as ex-Communist Jews that can’t be trusted.

There is a large amount of truth to the “ex-Communist” association since a large number of early Neocon proponents were indeed Communists or at least Marxist sympathizers, BUT these rebels against Communism woke up to the ideological failures. Socialism (and yes this includes National Socialism aka Nazism) and varieties of Marxism have led to much of history’s oppressive regimes and the genocide of huge groups of human beings.

However, to label a “Communist” a “Jew” is a bit of an oxymoron. Communists are anti-religion atheists by nature and a good Jew practices the religious faith of Judaism. It is true there are people of a Jewish heritage that have repudiated the religious tenets of Judaism and embraced Marxist-Communist ideology. If one embraces Communism one rejects religion. That would make a Jew who became a Communist an ex-Jew. Incidentally, a person of Christian heritage, Islamic heritage, Buddhist heritage or any religious heritage who embraces Communism have rejected their religious heritage and have become an ex-whatever heritage.

Condemning all Jews because a few rejected their religious heritage should logically lead to the same condemnation of other people rejecting their religious heritage. I doubt Jew-haters follow that logic since one rarely hears the label that all Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. are evil because a few accept atheistic One World Government Communism. Hence the hypocrisy of hating Jews because of Communism is just plain racism. (Muslims hate Jews because their revered writings tell them to hate Jews [Percentages]. That’s a whole different kind of racism. One sees that kind of racism among idiot Christians who believe all Jews are responsible for killing Jesus when it was a secret night tribunal of Jewish leaders fearing a rebellion would displace status among their Roman overlords. Human fear and jealousy got Jesus Crucified. God’s love Resurrected the Son of God which offers Saving Redemption to ALL who Believe in the Risen Savior – to the Jew first then to the non-Jew.)

The American Left deride the Neocons’ American Exceptionalism as nationalistic anti-globalist rejectors of Socialism/Marxism.

Have Neocons made mistakes? DEFINITELY! The principle of nation-building based on American Republic Representative-Democracy only works in cultures amenable to the Western heritage. This unfortunate discovery became evident in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those cultures have been brainwashed into Islamic thought for too long for the populace to understand let alone accept Western Representative Democracy.

When Neocons have a warning about Russia in relation to American National Interests and National Security the benefit of the USA is what is in mind.

JRH 6/26/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

**********************

CONFRONTING THE RUSSIAN CHALLENGE

Russian Soldier

By Frederick W. Kagan, Nataliya Bugayova, and Jennifer Cafarella

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (PDF)

Institute for the Study of War

[Institute for the Study of War (ISW) and Critical Threats Project (CTP) at the American Enterprise Institute]

June 2019

Russia poses a significant threat to the United States and its allies for which the West is not ready. The West must act urgently to meet this threat without exaggerating it. Russia today does not have the military strength of the Soviet Union. It is a poor state with an economy roughly the size of Canada’s, a population less than half that of the U.S., and demographic trends indicating that it will lose strength over time. It is not a conventional military near-peer nor will it become so. Its unconventional warfare and information operations pose daunting but not insuperable challenges. The U.S. and its allies must develop a coherent global approach to meeting and transcending the Russian challenge.

[Download the full report here and the Executive Summary here.]

The Russian Threat

President Vladimir Putin has invaded two of his neighbors, Georgia and Ukraine, partly to stop them from aligning with NATO and the West. He has also illegally annexed territory from both those states. He has established a military base in the eastern Mediterranean that he uses to interfere with, shape, and restrict the operations of the U.S. and the anti-ISIS coalition. He has given cover to Bashar al Assad’s use of chemical weapons, and Russian agents have used military-grade chemical weapons in assassination attempts in Great Britain. Russia has threatened to use nuclear weapons, even in regional and local conflicts. And Moscow has interfered in elections and domestic political discourse in the U.S. and Europe.

The Russian threat’s effectiveness results mainly from the West’s weaknesses. NATO’s European members are not meeting their full commitments to the alliance to maintain the fighting power needed to deter and defeat the emerging challenge from Moscow. Increasing political polarization and the erosion of trust by Western peoples in their governments creates vulnerabilities that the Kremlin has adroitly exploited.

Moscow’s success in manipulating Western perceptions of and reactions to its activities has fueled the development of an approach to warfare that the West finds difficult to understand, let alone counter. Shaping the information space is the primary effort to which Russian military operations, even conventional military operations, are frequently subordinated in this way of war. Russia obfuscates its activities and confuses the discussion so that many people throw up their hands and say simply, “Who knows if the Russians really did that? Who knows if it was legal?”—thus paralyzing the West’s responses.

Putin’s Program

Putin is not simply an opportunistic predator. Putin and the major institutions of the Russian Federation have a program as coherent as that of any Western leader. Putin enunciates his objectives in major speeches, and his ministers generate detailed formal expositions of Russia’s military and diplomatic aims and its efforts and the methods and resources it uses to pursue them. These statements cohere with the actions of Russian officials and military units on the ground. The common perception that he is opportunistic arises from the way that the Kremlin sets conditions to achieve these objectives in advance. Putin closely monitors the domestic and international situation and decides to execute plans when and if conditions require and favor the Kremlin. The aims of Russian policy can be distilled into the following:

Domestic Objectives

Putin is an autocrat who seeks to retain control of his state and the succession. He seeks to keep his power circle content, maintain his own popularity, suppress domestic political opposition in the name of blocking a “color revolution” he falsely accuses the West of preparing, and expand the Russian economy.

Putin has not fixed the economy, which remains corrupt, inefficient, and dependent on petrochemical and mineral exports. He has focused instead on ending the international sanctions regime to obtain the cash, expertise, and technology he needs. Information operations and hybrid warfare undertakings in Europe are heavily aimed at this objective.

External Objectives

Putin’s foreign policy aims are clear: end American dominance and the “unipolar” world order, restore “multipolarity,” and reestablish Russia as a global power and broker. He identifies NATO as an adversary and a threat and seeks to negate it. He aims to break Western unity, establish Russian suzerainty over the former Soviet States, and regain a global footprint.

Putin works to break Western unity by invalidating the collective defense provision of the North Atlantic Treaty (Article 5), weakening the European Union, and destroying the faith of Western societies in their governments.

He is reestablishing a global military footprint similar in extent the Soviet Union’s, but with different aims. He is neither advancing an ideology, nor establishing bases from which to project conventional military power on a large scale. He aims rather to constrain and shape America’s actions using small numbers of troops and agents along with advanced anti-air and anti-shipping systems.

Recommendations

A sound U.S. grand strategic approach to Russia:

Aims to achieve core American national security objectives positively rather than to react defensively to Russian actions;

Holistically addresses all U.S. interests globally as they relate to Russia rather than considering them theater-by-theater;

Does not trade core American national security interests in one theater for those in another, or sacrifice one vital interest for another;

Achieves American objectives by means short of war if at all possible;

Deters nuclear war, the use of any nuclear weapons, and other Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD);

Accepts the risk of conventional conflict with Russia while seeking to avoid it and to control escalation, while also ensuring that American forces will prevail at any escalation level;

Contests Russian information operations and hybrid warfare undertakings; and

Extends American protection and deterrence to U.S. allies in NATO and outside of NATO.

Such an approach involves four principal lines of effort.

Constrain Putin’s Resources. Russia uses hybrid warfare approaches because of its relative poverty and inability to field large and modern military systems that could challenge the U.S. and NATO symmetrically. Lifting or reducing the current sanctions regime or otherwise facilitating Russia’s access to wealth and technology could give Putin the resources he needs to mount a much more significant conventional threat—an aim he had been pursuing in the early 2000s when high oil prices and no sanctions made it seem possible.

Disrupt Hybrid Operations. Identifying, exposing, and disrupting hybrid operations is a feasible, if difficult, undertaking. New structures in the U.S. military, State Department, and possibly National Security Council Staff are likely needed to:

Coordinate efforts to identify and understand hybrid operations in preparation and underway;

Develop recommendations for action against hybrid operations that the U.S. government has identified but are not yet publicly known;

Respond to the unexpected third-party exposure of hybrid operations whether the U.S. government knew about the operations or not;

Identify in advance the specific campaign and strategic objectives that should be pursued when the U.S. government deliberately exposes a particular hybrid operation or when third parties expose hybrid operations of a certain type in a certain area;

Shape the U.S. government response, particularly in the information space, to drive the blowback effects of the exposure of a particular hybrid operation toward achieving those identified objectives; and

Learn lessons from past and current counter-hybrid operations undertakings, improve techniques, and prepare for future evolutions of Russian approaches in coordination with allies and partners.

The U.S. should also develop a counter-information operations approach that uses only truth against Russian narratives aimed at sowing discord within the West and at undermining the legitimacy of Western governments.

Delegitimize Putin as a Mediator and Convener. Recognition as one of the poles of a multipolar world order is vital to Putin. It is part of the greatness he promises the Russian people in return for taking their liberty. Getting a “seat at the table” of Western-led endeavors is insufficient for him because he seeks to transform the international system fundamentally. He finds the very language of being offered a seat at the West’s table patronizing.

He has gained much more legitimacy as an international partner in Syria and Ukraine than his behavior warrants. He benefits from the continuous desire of Western leaders to believe that Moscow will help them out of their own problems if only it is approached in the right way.

The U.S. and its allies must instead recognize that Putin is a self-declared adversary who seeks to weaken, divide, and harm them—never to strengthen or help them. He has made clear in word and deed that his interests are antithetical to the West’s. The West should therefore stop treating him as a potential partner, but instead require him to demonstrate that he can and will act to advance rather than damage the West’s interests before engaging with him at high levels.

The West must not trade interests in one region for Putin’s help in another, even if there is reason to believe that he would actually be helpful. Those working on American policy in Syria and the Levant must recognize that the U.S. cannot afford to subordinate its global Russia policy to pursue limited interests, however important, within the Middle East. Recognizing Putin as a mediator or convener in Syria—to constrain Iran’s activities in the south of that country, for example—is too high a price tag to pay for undermining a coherent global approach to the Russian threat. Granting him credibility in that role there enhances his credibility in his self-proclaimed role as a mediator rather than belligerent in Ukraine. The tradeoff of interests is unacceptable.

Nor should the U.S. engage with Putin about Ukraine until he has committed publicly in word and deed to what should be the minimum non-negotiable Western demand—the recognition of the full sovereignty of all the former Soviet states, specifically including Ukraine, in their borders as of the dates of their admission as independent countries to the United Nations, and the formal renunciation (including the repealing of relevant Russian legislation) of any right to interfere in the internal affairs of those states.

Defend NATO. The increased Russian threat requires increased efforts to defend NATO against both conventional and hybrid threats. All NATO members must meet their commitments to defense spending targets—and should be prepared to go beyond those commitments to field the forces necessary to defend themselves and other alliance members. The Russian base in Syria poses a threat to Western operations in the Middle East that are essential to protecting our own citizens and security against terrorist threats and Iran. Neither the U.S. nor NATO is postured to protect the Mediterranean or fight for access to the Middle East through the eastern Mediterranean. NATO must now prepare to field and deploy additional forces to ensure that it can win that fight.

The West should also remove as much ambiguity as possible from the NATO commitment to defend member states threatened by hybrid warfare. The 2018 Brussels Declaration affirming the alliance’s intention to defend member states attacked by hybrid warfare was a good start. The U.S. and other NATO states with stronger militaries should go further by declaring that they will come to the aid of a member state attacked by conventional or hybrid means regardless of whether Article 5 is formally activated, creating a pre-emptive coalition of the willing to deter Russian aggression.

Bilateral Negotiations. Recognizing that Russia is a self-defined adversary and threat does not preclude direct negotiations. The U.S. negotiated several arms control treaties with the Soviet Union and has negotiated with other self-defined enemies as well. It should retain open channels of communication and a willingness to work together with Russia on bilateral areas in which real and verifiable agreement is possible, even while refusing to grant legitimacy to Russian intervention in conflicts beyond its borders. Such areas could include strategic nuclear weapons, cyber operations, interference in elections, the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty, and other matters related to direct Russo-American tensions and concerns. There is little likelihood of any negotiation yielding fruit at this point, but there is no need to refuse to talk with Russia on these and similar issues in hopes of laying the groundwork for more successful discussions in the future.

READ THE FULL REPORT HERE.

________________________

If There Is a Neocon Warning – Pay Attention

John R. Houk

© June 26, 2019

_______________________

CONFRONTING THE RUSSIAN CHALLENGE

1400 16th Street NW, Suite 515 Washington, DC 20036
ph. (202) 293-5550

Erroneous Vilification of Neocons & Zionists

John R. Houk

© April 28, 2017

Futuret left a comment to my post “Trump Profits, Deep State, Jews Run America & Neocons” with only a link: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/04/26/the-satanists-who-destroyed-the-middle-east-are-back-in-washington/

The link’s title: “The Satanists who destroyed the Middle East are back in Washington”. The article is a hit piece against Neocons and Israel. Why? Prominent Neocons got caught passing classified info to Israel pertaining to the USA’s plans toward Iran’s nuclear program under the Bush Administration.

Jonas E. Alexis caption for Wolfowitz: Satanist Paul Wolfowitz

I do not find too much to condemn since I am a Christian Zionist as far as motive goes. President Bush took zero action to hamper Iran nuke aspirations in his lame duck year before the end of his second term in Office. And hindsight tells us that President Obama did nothing either other than a fake deal that enabled Iran to weaponize nukes after a period of time long after Obama would be gone from the geopolitical scene.

The Neocon accused had pure motives yet broke the law and were prosecuted. The accused received light sentences obviously because there was little damage to American National Security. The largest damage was knowing how Bush was going to deal with Iran which was do NOTHING. And Israel still withheld military action against Iran similar to their actions against Saddam Hussein’s nuclear plant at Osirak.

Paul Wolfowitz was not even prosecuted and went on to lead the World Bank until lust busted him for nepotism toward his girlfriend. Wolfowitz resigned from the World Bank and again not prosecuted. (See HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE.)

Being a Neocon and a Zionist Jew are not crimes, particularly when the politics is Conservative rather than Marxist. Sadly, many Jewish Zionists are secular and Marxist oriented abandoning the faith of their fathers. Abandoning the Jewish faith is what has troubled Jews since Moses first led the Hebrew tribes out of Egyptian captivity. Jews have paid a price for abandoning God every time. But that is a different blog post.

Vilifying Wolfowitz for being a Neocon and a pro-Israel Zionist smacks of the kind of Antisemitism that falsely accuses all Jews of world domination ala the fake Protocols of Zion.

It is a little rough to call Wolfowitz a Satanist just because of being a Neocon that put America first and desired to attack Iraq out of protecting U.S. National Interests.

Dems, Republicans, Conservatives & Leftists all read the America (& foreign) Intelligence reports that concluded crazy Saddam Hussein was developing nukes and chem weapons. The Intelligence proved exaggerated (not completely wrong).

After the Iraq war about 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium were secretly removed by the U.S. from Iraq and transported to Canada. Most Leftist pundits and fact checkers will tell you that the yellowcake had been sitting around in containers since before 1991 and the 1^st Gulf War. Ergo, Saddam Hussein’s massive amount of yellowcake had not been weaponized.

The Leftist denial largely came forth because they didn’t want on their face over the anti-Bush slogan: “Bush lied, people died.”

Check this out the process to weaponize yellowcake:

The power of the atomic nucleus can be harnessed in one of two ways: Fusion, when two hydrogen atoms fuse together, and fission, when the nuclei of larger atoms are split open. Both release tremendous amounts of energy, and both are used in nuclear weapons. In nuclear energy plants, scientists rely on nuclear fission. Plants split open molecules of highly enriched Uranium. Uranium ore is found in the Earth’s crust and mined in Canada, Australia, Niger, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Namibia. In order to get it to become “highly enriched”, it has to be processed, and this is where complicated chemistry and physics come into play. First it’s made into “yellow cake” uranium through a number of chemical reactions, and then it’s centrifuged until the final fuel is at least 5 percent U235 and 95 percent U238. This highly radioactive combination of the two uranium isotopes is extruded into tiny ceramic pellets which are embedded into metal rods.

The rods are placed into the core of a nuclear reactor, which is where the fission takes place within a highly controlled containment structure. … (How Uranium Becomes Nuclear Fuel; By TRACE DOMINGUEZ; Seeker.com; 5/2/15)

Here is a simpler example of weaponizing yellowcake:

1 Uranium ore The mildly radioactive ore is mined from underground or open cast deposits. Iran has mines at Gchine on the Persian Gulf and at Saghand, in the middle of the country.

2 Yellowcake When ore comes out of the ground it can be less than 1% uranium oxide. Uranium oxide is leached out of the ore with strong acids or alkaline solutions and dried to ‘yellowcake’, which is more than 80% uranium oxide. Iran has mastered this process.

3 Conversion Yellowcake is processed into a gas, uranium hexafluoride. Iran’s conversion plant is at Isfahan.

4 Enrichment Uranium hexafluoride can be fed into centrifuges which separate out the most fissile uranium isotope U-235. Low enriched uranium for civilian reactors has a 3%-4% concentration of U-235. ‘Weapons-grade’ uranium is 90% enriched.

5 Fuel fabrication The uranium hexafluoride can be converted back to uranium oxide, which is pressed and baked into pellets. The pellets are put in metal rods, which are used in a reactor. Iran has yet to master this stage.

6 Reactor The fission of U-235 produces energy which heats water into steam that drives turbines. Iran has a research reactor in Tehran and an industrial-scale one at Bushehr.

7 Reprocessing Uranium and plutonium can be removed from the spent fuel, and reused. The plutonium can also be used to make weapons. (Weapons-grade uranium process explained; By Julian Borger; The Guardian; 12/5/10)

Saddam Hussein the means to weaponize nukes but appears not the patience for the complicated process to take place. The world can thank Israel for hampering that process. Israel bombed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear plant:

Thirty-five years after Operation Opera – the Israeli air attack that destroyed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear reactor at Osirak, retired IAF officers and Mossad agents revealed hitherto unknown details of the operation on Friday.

In an exposé aired on Channel 10, Col. (Ret.) Ze’ev Raz, who led the June 7, 1981 raid, said that … (35 years on, IAF pilots recall daring mission to bomb Saddam’s nuke reactor; By TIMES OF ISRAEL STAFF; Times of Israel; 6/4/16 6:34 am)

The only way for Saddam Hussein to weaponize his yellowcake is with a little help from a potential ally – hmm … like Russia.

Speaking of Russia and Iraq. It was a proven fact that Saddam Hussein has a very active chemical weapons program.

Discover The Networks (DTN) has a detailed account of the mystery of Saddam Hussein’s chemical weapons ranging from the exaggerated intelligence reports that inspired President G.W. Bush to invade Iraq through about 2006 when actual chemical weapon cache was located in Iraq. Again, the Left has downplayed chemical weapons discovery as old or defective, but I do not completely buy it. Here are the last few paragraphs of the DTN report:

Eventually, Wurmser said, Sunni insurgent groups did gain access to the shells in 2005. “There were to my memory at least two attacks on our soldiers using chemical weapons-rigged shells as [improvised explosive devices]. Fortunately, they were ineffectively weaponized and soldiers were wounded but not killed.”

Wurmser, however, grew more frustrated over time. “After waiting a year—during which we asked that the source of the batches be traced and followed to the location where the shells were being retrieved—we continued to see the trickle, but then discovered nobody was making any effort to track the source to the location of retrieval,” he said. “Instead, we were continuing to try to buy up some of the stuff in the market.”

After the U.S. found thousands of the old chemical-weapons shells, Wurmser and others at one point argued that they had an obligation to declare the stocks of chemical weapons under the Chemical Weapons Convention and destroy them. The United States was, after all, the occupier of Iraq and had assumed the country’s sovereign responsibilities as a signatory to the convention.

“It was all for nothing; Rove wanted the issue buried,” Wurmser said. (WMD: PRE- AND POST-INVASION INTELLIGENCE; DTN)

At least pertaining to Saddam Hussein’s chemical weapons, I find this Conspiracy Theory very credible:

Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein’s weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned.

John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, “almost certainly” removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad.

“The Russians brought in, just before the war got started, a whole series of military units,” Mr. Shaw said. “Their main job was to shred all evidence of any of the contractual arrangements they had with the Iraqis. The others were transportation units.”

Mr. Shaw, who was in charge of cataloging the tons of conventional arms provided to Iraq by foreign suppliers, said he recently obtained reliable information on the arms-dispersal program from two European intelligence services that have detailed knowledge of the Russian-Iraqi weapons collaboration.

Most of Saddam’s most powerful arms were systematically separated from other arms like mortars, bombs and rockets, and sent to Syria and Lebanon, and possibly to Iran, he said.

The Russian involvement in helping disperse Saddam’s weapons, including some 380 tons of RDX and HMX, is still being investigated, Mr. Shaw said.

The RDX and HMX, which are used to manufacture high-explosive and nuclear weapons, are probably of Russian origin, he said.

Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita could not be reached for comment.

The disappearance of the material was reported in a letter Oct. 10 from the Iraqi government to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

…

A second defense official said documents on the Russian support to Iraq reveal that Saddam’s government paid the Kremlin for the special forces to provide security for Iraq’s Russian arms and to conduct counterintelligence activities designed to prevent U.S. and Western intelligence services from learning about the arms pipeline through Syria.

The Russian arms-removal program was initiated after Yevgeny Primakov, the former Russian intelligence chief, could not persuade Saddam to give in to U.S. and Western demands, this official said.

…

The Russian weapons were then sent out of the country to Syria, and possibly Lebanon in Russian trucks, Mr. Shaw said.

Mr. Shaw said he believes that the withdrawal of Russian-made weapons and explosives from Iraq was part of plan by Saddam to set up a “redoubt” in Syria that could be used as a base for launching pro-Saddam insurgency operations in Iraq.

The Russian units were dispatched beginning in January 2003 and by March had destroyed hundreds of pages of documents on Russian arms supplies to Iraq while dispersing arms to Syria, the second official said.

Besides their own weapons, the Russians were supplying Saddam with arms made in Ukraine, Belarus, Bulgaria and other Eastern European nations, he said.

“Whatever was not buried was put on lorries and sent to the Syrian border,” the defense official said.

Documents reviewed by the official included itineraries of military units involved in the truck shipments to Syria. The materials outlined in the documents included missile components, MiG jet parts, tank parts and chemicals used to make chemical weapons, the official said.

…

Also, an Arabic-language report obtained by U.S. intelligence disclosed the extent of Russian armaments. The 26-page report was written by Abdul Tawab Mullah al Huwaysh, Saddam’s minister of military industrialization, who was captured by U.S. forces May 2, 2003.

The Russian “spetsnaz” or special-operations forces were under the GRU military intelligence service and organized large commercial truck convoys for the weapons removal, the official said.

Regarding the explosives, the new Iraqi government reported that 194.7 metric tons of HMX, or high-melting-point explosive, and 141.2 metric tons of RDX, or rapid-detonation explosive, and 5.8 metric tons of PETN, or pentaerythritol tetranitrate, were missing.

The material is used in nuclear weapons and also in making military “plastic” high explosive.

… (Russia tied to Iraq’s missing arms; By The Washington Times; 10/28/04)

Under the failed Neocon paradigm of nation-building to transform a despotic nation into a nation of laws, in which citizens were able to choose between war or the prosperity of a Western economy, would benefit U.S. National Interests.

The reason the paradigm failed in Iraq (& for the most part Afghanistan), is Islam. Islamic theopolitical brainwashing has existed for several centuries. Islamic brainwashing washed the Christian ethics that dominated the Middle East prior to Islamic imperialism that began in the late 600s AD.

Such brainwashing would take another several centuries of deprogramming to eliminate the violent and intolerant social structure of Islam. Iraq was a learning experience. Only nations amenable to Western principles would ever successfully be molded (Germany & Japan).

Calling Neocons evil merely because nation-building among Muslim nations is quite erroneous! Equally erroneous is vilifying Neocons for being pro-Israel as if being a Conservative Zionist is evil.

I am not pleased with Zionist that have a Marxist slant. Those Zionists are leading Israel to destruction much like the American Left is leading America to destruction. The curse is Marxist-Communism and not Neoconservatism or Zionism.

JRH 4/28/17

Please Support NCCR

Are Jews the Bane of the World’s Future?

John R. Houk

I received a comment from a Christian that was upset with me that I believe the Land of Israel is for the Jews because God gave it to the Jews by Promise. The comment was from a post entitled “YOU KNOW the USA and EU Work AGAINST Israel, Right?” (Cross posted at SlantRight 2.0) In essence the commenter seems to believe that when Paul calls Christians Spiritual Israel then the Promise to the Jews was replaced by Christians; ergo Christians replace Jews as the Chosen People.

In case I have read it wrong here is the comment:

After seeing one post awhile back i followed you, thinking i’d see some more reasoned thinking… Now I’ve UN-followed — because it’s a waste to hear the typical yammering by another neo-Conned religious dude who doesn’t get Romans 9 — where Paul clearly spells it out for us– who is an Israelite? Or you can read in Revelation 2 again about the false Jews. (Pray and meditate as your read, and look at the actions –unprovoked war against the US in 1967 — destroying the USS LIberty (ever studied that?)

Why do you think we were warned TWICE, in critical places of the Scriptures?

From the Rothschilds to British Zionists to the current Yahoo in charge, the Beast of Daniel 9 has effective control of your beloved brutal state… — SO Who really runs the machinery of gov’t there? Are they using our military brothers as stooges while the powers in media and even the 501 c 3 churches have fallen into the trap?

What good can Jesus do with a Neo-Conned church? (Bold Emphasis Mine)

The only reference to Jews in Revelations is a weak assertion that the Christians have replaced the Jews. For one thing Chapter 2 of Revelation is about Christian Churches that have strayed away from the principles that make a strong Church thus endangering their position in Christ. Revelation 2: 8-11

The Persecuted Church

⁸“And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write,

‘These things says the First and the Last, who was dead, and came to life: ⁹“I know your works, tribulation, and poverty (but you are rich); and I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. ¹⁰Do not fear any of those things which you are about to suffer. Indeed, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will have tribulation ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.

¹¹“He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes shall not be hurt by the second death.”’ (Bold Emphasis Mine NKJV)

The “Jews” the Apostle John is writing about by prophetic revelation are Christians that believe the Law must be abided by Christians with the emphasis of circumcision and ritual rites. The Apostle Paul did not have a problem with Jews that believe the Salvation work of Jesus Christ but he did have a problem with Jewish Christians forcing Gentile Christians to directly follow the Law. The Law culminates in Christ hence Faith trumps works of the Law to remain in Right Standing with God in Christ. (See Matt. 5: 17-20 and Romans 10: 3-13)

So when the commenter associates the term “Synagogue of Satan” with all Jews as a condemned people in the sight of God he/she is greatly mistaken.

For greater clarity on Jews as still the Chosen People or the people of the Promise through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob read what Paul says that the Promise to the Jews is by no means annulled:

Present Condition of Israel

³⁰What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; ³¹but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness.^[a] ³²Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law.^[b] For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. ³³As it is written:

“Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense,
And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”^[c](Romans 9: 30-33 NKJV)

Israel Needs the Gospel

10 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel^[a] is that they may be saved. ²For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. ³For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. ⁴For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

¹⁶But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?”^[a]

¹⁹But I say, did Israel not know? First Moses says:

“I will provoke you to jealousy by those who are not a nation,
I will move you to anger by a foolish nation.”^[a]

²⁰But Isaiah is very bold and says:

“I was found by those who did not seek Me;
I was made manifest to those who did not ask for Me.”^[b]

²¹But to Israel he says:

“All day long I have stretched out My hands
To a disobedient and contrary people.”^[c]

Israel’s Rejection Not Total

11 ¹ I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. ²God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying, ³“Lord, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life”?^[a] ⁴But what does the divine response say to him? “I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.”^[b] ⁵Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. ⁶And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace.^[c] But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.

Israel’s Rejection Not Final

¹¹I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. ¹²Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!

¹³For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,¹⁴if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. ¹⁵For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

¹⁶For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. ¹⁷And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, ¹⁸do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.

¹⁹You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” ²⁰Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. ²¹For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. ²²Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness,^[a] if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. ²³And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. ²⁴For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

²⁵For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. ²⁶And so all Israel will be saved,^[b] as it is written:

“The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;

²⁷For this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”^[c](Romans 11: 1-6, 11-27 NKJV)

This is some clarity that the Promised Land is still the land of the Jews which is the Land of Israel – Eretz Israel.

Now let’s examine a few assertions by the commenter that has little to do with the Promise to the Jews and more to do with a bias against Israel which I perceive may even smack a bit of Antisemitism.

The 1967 War in which Jordan, Syria and Egypt AGAIN prepared to invade Israel with the intention to destroy, because of its Jewish nature the commenter insinuates an Israel attack on the USS Liberty was an overt act of war against the United States. The reality is AGAIN Israel was involved in a war of its survival and after Israel perceived an attack from the sea hit some IDF forces Israel retaliated based on the perception. Here is a good summary:

The Israeli attack on the USS Liberty was a grievous error, largely attributable to the fact that it occurred in the midst of the confusion of a full-scale war in 1967. Ten official United States investigations and three official Israeli inquiries have all conclusively established the attack was a tragic mistake.

On June 8, 1967, the fourth day of the Six-Day War, the Israeli high command received reports that Israeli troops in El Arish were being fired upon from the sea, presumably by an Egyptian vessel, as they had a day before. The United States had announced that it had no naval forces within hundreds of miles of the battle front on the floor of the United Nations a few days earlier; however, the USS Liberty, an American intelligence ship under the dual control of the Defense Intelligence Agency/Central Intelligence Agency and the Sixth Fleet, was assigned to monitor the fighting. As a result of a series of United States communication failures, whereby messages directing the ship not to approach within 100 miles were not received by the Liberty, the ship sailed to within 14 miles off the Sinai coast. The Israelis mistakenly thought this was the ship shelling its soldiers and war planes and torpedo boats attacked, killing 34 members of the Liberty ‘screw and wounding 171. Ships from the Sixth Fleet were directed to launch four attack aircraft with fighter cover to defend the Liberty, but the planes were recalled after a message was received at the White House that the Israelis had admitted they had attacked the ship.

Numerous mistakes were made by both the United States and Israel. For example, the Liberty was first reported — incorrectly, as it turned out — to be cruising at 30 knots (it was later recalculated to be 28 knots). Under Israeli (and U.S.) naval doctrine at the time, a ship proceeding at that speed was presumed to be a warship. The sea was calm and the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry found that the Liberty’s flag was very likely drooped and not discernible; moreover, members of the crew, including the Captain, Commander William McGonagle, testified that the flag was knocked down after the first or second assault.

According to Israeli Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin’s memoirs, there were standing orders to attack any unidentified vessel near the shore.¹The day fighting began, Israel had asked that American ships be removed from its coast or that it be notified of the precise location of U.S. vessels.² The Sixth Fleet was moved because President Johnson feared being drawn into a confrontation with the Soviet Union. He also ordered that no aircraft be sent near Sinai.

A CIA report on the incident issued June 13, 1967, also found that an overzealous pilot could mistake the Liberty for an Egyptian ship, the El Quseir. After the air raid, Israeli torpedo boats identified the Liberty as an Egyptian naval vessel. When the Liberty began shooting at the Israelis, they responded with the torpedo attack, which killed 28 of the sailors. In 1981, the National Security Agency noted that accounts by members of the Liberty crew and others did not have access to the relevant signal intelligence reports or the confidential explanation provided by Israel to the United States, which were used in the CIA investigation. The NSA concluded: “While these [signal intelligence of Israeli communications] reports revealed some confusion on the part of the pilots concerning the nationality of the ship, they tended to rule out any thesis that the Israeli Navy and Air Force deliberately attacked a ship they knew to be American.”^2a

The Joint Chiefs of Staff investigated the communications failure and noted that the Chief of Naval Operations expressed concern about the prudence of sending the Liberty so close to the area of hostilities and four messages were subsequently sent instructing the ship to move farther away from the area of hostilities. The JCS report said the messages were never received because of “a combination of (1) human error, (2) high volume of communications traffic, and (3) lack of appreciation of sense of urgency regarding the movement of the Liberty.” The report also included a copy of a flash cable sent immediately after the attack, which reported that Israel had “erroneously” attacked the Liberty, that IDF helicopters were in rescue operations, and that Israel had sent “abject apologies” and requested information on any other U.S. ships near the war zone.

Initially, the Israelis were terrified that they had attacked a Soviet ship and might have provoked the Soviets to join the fighting.³ Once the Israelis were sure what had happened, they reported the incident to the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv and offered to provide a helicopter for the Americans to fly out to the ship and any help they required to evacuate the injured and salvage the ship. The offer was accepted and a U.S. naval attaché was flown to the Liberty.

The Israelis were “obviously shocked” by the error they made in attacking the ship, according to the U.S. Ambassador in Tel Aviv. In fact, according to a secret report on the 1967 war, the immediate concern was that the Arabs might see the proximity of the Liberty to the conflict as evidence of U.S.-Israel collusion.^3a A second secret report concluded, “While the attack showed a degree of impetuosity and recklessness, it was also clear that the presence of a U.S. naval vessel, unannounced, that close to belligerent shores at a time when we had made much of the fact that no U.S. military forces were moving near the area of hostilities was inviting disaster.”^3b

… (READ THE REST – The USS Liberty; By Mitchell Bard; Jewish Virtual Library)

Sorry commenter there was no intention of pre-1967 borders Israel taking on invading Arab armies and the super power the United States. That’s not smart thinking.

In Conspiracy Theory when it involves Jews, the international aspect of the Rothschild family has always figured large in the accusation of Jewish World Domination. Here is an example:

SECRECY IS THE HALLMARK of the Jewish Rothschild Dynasty. But I, Brother Nathanael Kapner, a former Jew, am intent on bursting the “Rothschild-bubble.” I am doing this because I perceive that the Rothschilds, (they are Jews), are the leaders, (they are secretive), in destroying Christian civilization throughout the world. (How The Rothschild Dynasty Operates; By Nathanael Kapner; Real Jew News; 4/29/08)

If the Rothschilds are involved in a NWO conspiracy I doubt that the little sliver of land known as Israel is a cog in that agenda. Here is some info that is probably closer to the truth about the Rothschild family in monolithic terms:

…

There is no longer any such thing as a monolithic House of Rothschild with connections to any significant number of all the scores of today’s independent Rothschild business ventures. The closest thing is Rothschilds Continuation Holdings AG, a Swiss company that manages interests in many Rothschild-founded institutions. There are no longer any Rothschild family members on its board (the last having retired in 2011), though about eight Rothschilds are believed to own stakes in it (like many holding companies, it’s privately held, so its records are not public). Its other owners include Rabobank and Hong Kong based Jardine Matheson Holdings. The Rothschild funds it manages now focus on mergers and acquisitions. Make no mistake, it’s a large and successful company; but with billions in assets, it’s a relatively small fish in the sea of world financial institutions with trillions in assets, including Deutsche Bank, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, HSBC Holdings, BNP Paribas, Japan Post Bank, Crédit Agricole Group, Barclays PLC, Industrial & Commercial Bank of China, Royal Bank of Scotland Group, JP Morgan Chase & Co., and many others. Anyone trying to point the finger at the scattered Rothschilds as “controlling” world banks has an awfully tall order. That little factoid is about 100 years out of date.

By my analysis, the Rothschilds are best thought of not as an evil shadow conspiracy, but as a great success story of rags to riches, Jewish slum to financing the defeat of Napoleon. The price of gold is fixed twice a day by five members of the London Bullion Association: Barclays Capital, Deutsche Bank, Scotiabank, HSBC, and Societe Generale, and they conduct their twice-daily meeting over the telephone. Today this is mere financial necessity, but until 2004, it was also a century-old tradition as great as the ringing of the bell at the New York Stock Exchange. The five distinguished representatives included a Rothschild, and they met in person in a paneled room at the London office of N M Rothschild & Sons. That ritual is now a thing of the past, as is the power of the world’s greatest financial dynasty. (These are the last two paragraphs of “The Rothschild Conspiracy”; By Brian Dunning; Skeptoid; 5/22/12)

Scroll back up toward the top to read the commenter’s accusation of British Zionism and compare to these far out Anti-Semitic words:

The Davidic monarchy of Britain, and the rulers of all her allied/related nations; including America and parts of the Commonwealth like Australia, Canada and New Zealand, and others; have purposefully hidden their people’s true Israelite identity/history from them.

http://www.jahtruth.net/heraldry.htm

To do this successfully, they have helped to promote the idea that the synagogue of Satan (Revelation 2:9 / 3:9) – those who say they are Jews and are not, are the real “Israel”, in order to draw attention away from themselves. When for the most part, these so-called Jews are actually Idumeans (from Esau/Edom), Ashkenazi (Genesis 10:2, 3) & Khazars.

Why have they done this? Why don’t they tell their people the truth? Are they ashamed of belonging to the House of Israel?

http://jahtruth.net/britca.htm

The answer is simple when you look at it from their perspective. And is why the Davidic British monarchy gave over control of Palestine to the counterfeit-Jews, who say they are Jews, and are not. The “Elite” have done a deal with the Devil’s synagogue, for their own convenience and Elizabeth Battenberg/Mounbatten even inter-married with them, and then had their male children circumcised by a rabbi, as only counterfeit-Jews can be, under counterfeit-Jewish Talmudism. (The Counterfeit-Jew Zionist and Judahite British Elite Conspiracy; By cybe; 100777.com; 8/15/08)

Yeah, that’s some nutty stuff.

Then the commenter mentions “the current Yahoo in charge”. I had to think about that a minute. Then I realized Marissa Mayer has a Jewish last name, so I looked up her ethno-religiosity:

Is Marissa Mayer Jewish?

Yes, the new CEO of Yahoo!, Marissa Mayer is a Jew.

Hat tip to our friend David who points out, “I find it interesting that Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and as of Monday, Yahoo!, are all run by Jews.” (Is Marissa Mayer Jewish? By Tzvee Zahavy; The Talmudic Blog; 7/16/12)

Jews in the 21^st century are from religious to secular and even to atheistic in their belief system. I have no idea where MS Mayer stands on her heritage and this is not the place to do further research to satisfy my curiosity. Nevertheless I can see that the commenter is concerned about her Jewishness. And so we can conclude that the commenter is an Anti-Semite because of the obvious everything Jewish is evil mentality.

Daniel chapter 9 is about Daniel’s awareness that Jeremiah’s prophecy that 70 years of exile had elapsed which meant the time for the Jews to return home had come. In chapter 9 Daniel intercedes to God for mercy on the Jews’ past path that was so bad that God’s punishment was to exile them from the Promised Land. I am guessing the commenter presumes this is an example of God abandoning Jews because of sin. The reality is if you read the rest of Daniel 9 God Almighty gives Daniel a vision which for Christians has a double meaning. The first meaning was Jews indeed would return home and stay there until the Messiah comes. For the majority of Jews this has not happened, but for Christians that Messiah was and is Jesus Christ of the lineage of David in the flesh and the Son of God by incarnation. Again Jewish leadership became more worldly minded than spiritual minded losing their rebellion against the Romans which in turned emptied huge chunks of Jews into exile called the Diaspora. Guess what: When the Messiah returns again the Jews will know Him as Jesus the Messiah and Savior.

In my opinion it is a bit of an expectation that the majority of Jews in the present are wary of Jesus Christ as Messiah because of how the Christian Church forsook the love of Christ to persecute Jews as Christ-killers not realizing the Chosen People’s time of full restoration will not occur until Christ Returns. Modern Israel is the miracle that should signify to Christians the fullness of the times of the Gentiles has not happened yet but is getting closer.

Chuckle … The commenter quite cleverly lists Christians that agree with the Bible that the Jews are the Chosen People have been “Neo-Conned”. That is a reference to the name of the blog that the comment was actually left upon – the NeoConservative Christian Right (NCCR). My favorite blog to post on is actually SlantRight 2.0; however the NCCR is my secondary blog that usually benefits from cross posting.

It is true, even though Neoconservatism has bad a rap with the Left and many on the Right I have an affinity for this Conservative ideology. For myself I am a fiscal Conservative with domestic issues and a supporter of a big military to keep America strong, protected and free. Most Libertarian-Conservatives and perhaps a majority of Paleoconservatives lean to going back to pre-WWII days when America purposely kept the military small under an Isolationist Foreign Policy. Isolationism was good for its day when the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans served as a buffer against militarily powerful nations.

Japan bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 which signaled the end of ocean buffers as a protection for the USA. This means Isolationist policies will always be ineffective in protecting our homeland. Only a pro-active military will keep America the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

Another aspect of NeoConservatism was the concept of spreading American-style democracy to otherwise hostile despotic nations. The theory being a nation of laws might disagree with American National Interests but would be more interested in achieving a diplomatic solution to disagreements with a like-minded governing system.

I have since modified my agreement with nation-building after encountering actual hatred from Muslim citizens for delivering them from despotism. That anger is based primarily on the Islamic theopolitical dynamic that is totally the opposite of the Constitutional Freedom Americans have. Muslims have been totally brainwashed by their religion that politics and religion are equal partners in governance. Islam’s holy writings demand absolute submission to their deity Allah and absolute respect for their false prophet Mohammed in a socio-political sense as well as religiously. If the governing authorities fail to uphold this mind-set through a Muslim rule of law known as Sharia massive riots occur. There is no amount of nation-building that will change this Muslim-mindset without forcing a situation where the people are taught a system more accustomed to Liberty and Freedom.

In the 21^st century an all-out war to conquer an evil religious ideology is Politically Incorrect. However, the all-out war concept to transform the minds of a conquered people is part and parcel of Islamic ideology from the days of conquering Mohammed through to the present time. That is the West’s current weakness.

Now back to the commenter. I suspect the commenter’s problem with NeoConservatism is less with its broad ideology but more with the movement’s historical figures which were often Jewish and/or Marxist in their thought process. Liberal Jews joined bewildered Marxists abandoning Communism due to the example of the abject failure Leninist-Stalinist and Maoist Communism to bring forth a civil free society. One famous Neocon brought forth this transformative thought: A Neocon is a Liberal mugged by reality (Loose memory of the original quote). I believe I have already established the commenter has a problem with Jews. You can see the antipathy and dislike then of NeoConservatism.

JRH 7/18/13

Please Support NCCR

Everything Old Is Neo Again

I have considered myself as part of the Neoconservative persuasion. And yes, I know, I do know that Neconservatism has been branded as the enemy from Obama Messianic Leftists and Paleoconservatives alike. Also to be honest I am consistent among Neocons in that I don’t agree with some others of the Neoconservative persuasion. Neoconservatism is not monolithic in ideology. Neoconservatism is multifaceted with core similarities of ideology.

With that in mind I stumbled upon a book review of a collection of essays by deceased Irving Kristol. The reviewer Millman seems to be praising Irving Kristol essays with slight appreciation.

Millman then compares Irving’s son William (Bill) Kristol’s Neoconservatism. Millman is a little enthusiastic about Bill Kristol’s Neoconservative without coming out with some out right criticism.

JRH 3/19/11

Please Support NCCR

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: