WORD: Axis of Deceit : Chomsky, Israel, Nazis, and Aliens

I would like to begin this text, with the notice, many of the notions I will discuss are controversial, and absurd. Moreover, this text carries a political flavor, and as such, I am perfectly aware of the fact, that for many politically involved individuals, it will be rather agitating. Understanding this, you should feel free to criticize this text, and actually, I will not even attempt to defend the notions I will suggest. Instead, I merely ask your awareness to this narrative, as even if you will find it misguided, or false, perhaps, it will open you a fresh perspective over global affairs.
Ok, let us begin. Well, I was listening to a series of lectures on you tube, about the philosophy of the mind, carried by professor John Searle, of Berkley university. During the course, Searle repeatedly mentioned his work with a far more renown philosopher, Noam Chomsky. In the past, I found Chomsky's work interesting, and after being very impressed by John Searle's lectures, I decided to checkup on Chomsky as well.
Chomsky's work is by far more tangible than that of Searle's. In fact, it is widely agreed, Noam Chomsky is the world's most popular intellectual, a celebrity, so to speak. Still, unlike Searle, Chomsky's reputation, is not the result of his works in philosophy (or more specifically, the philosophy of language). In fact, as Searle sadly admitted, the research Chomsky initiated, and for which he became famous, namely, the existence of a "universal language," has yet to yield instrumental fruits, and as such, Searle suggested, it is still "up for grabs" for young philosophers, to attempt to progress in this regard.
No. Noam Chomsky's academic philosophical endeavors, are but a certificate of his academic skills, while his true passion, and the source of his reputation and influence, is in the field of socio economical critique. Chomsky has a special type of oratorical charisma, soothing the mind of the listener with polite intellectualism, while at the same time, "injecting" anti-establishment ideas, into the minds of his audience. Chomsky can make you fall into complete relaxation, while at the same time, change your perspective and inclination, into that of a rebel, a freedom fighter, and the likes.
As I mentioned before, when I was younger, Chomsky's work impressed me a lot. Through rational explanation, and while providing countless historical evidence to support his claims, Chomsky's ideas showed me a world, very different from the one I was taught. It was a world governed by finance and commerce, a world of great cynicism, ugliness, and corruption, but at the same time, it made sense. It fitted my intuition. Moreover, Chomsky repeatedly provided the beginning of a solution, which potentially, i could carry out in my life. In many ways, Chomsky made me believe, that even though the world is corrupt, once this corruption was outspoken, it could be healed. In short, in his obscure manner, Chomsky provided me with both a sensation of "enlightenment", and a sensation of "hope," and therefore, even though his ideas reflected a monstrous reality, all the same, in a strange way, they made me feel "better" as well.
Considering this, it is not surprising, Noam Chomsky is so popular. Moreover, because Chomsky's ideas appeal to all those in socio economic or political crisis, distress, or upheaval, for many, Noam Chomsky is perceived as a "savior." On his lectures and speeches, almost every reactionary sentence is followed by a horde of hands, clapping with joy. Indeed, when hearing others understand our hardships, such responses are only natural, especially if overcoming these hardships, is beyond our powers. Still, contrary to Chomsky's rational suggestions, such reactions are somewhat "too immediate" to be "intellectual," revealing the true reason for Chomsky's following. As calm and rational as he may sound, Chomsky does not "persuade” his audience, but rather "echoes" the notions, upon which his audience already agrees, while making minor, yet sometimes significant adaptations. Still, regardless of his method of persuasion, generally, it does not appear, Chomsky downgrades his argumentation, just so to satisfy his audience.
In comparison to mainstream opinions, the ideas Noam Chomsky suggests, are provocative. Chomsky argues against the blind support in democracy, exposing the easiness by which financial interests manipulate the democratic system, so to establish a type of neo-feudalism, designed to exploit the majority of the population, using the corporate controlled media, which effectively, molds public opinion, against public interests. While honestly, for me, many of his ideas are little more than "common knowledge," many "right wingers," find such ideas, preposterous. In many ways, I guess, Chomsky, and his supporters, have indoctrinated my mind, so to accept his suggestions. All the same, being somewhat antagonistic toward social norms, it is no wonder, i feel a sense of "belonging" with his dogma.
Still, the truth is, during my "indoctrination," i never verified Chomsky's claims. Perhaps, as i just suggested, with respect to Chomsky's audience, being somewhat "underground" myself, i was more interested in self-justification, than evaluating the macro level. Possibly, Chomsky's "intellectual style" led me to believe, it is improbable he will be reckless in his investigations, or too subjective and partial in his critique. Frankly, it is possible, that at the time, my hostility toward my environment, colored my reality with such great contrast between "good" and "evil," that if anything, i found Chomsky's critique to be "forgiving," and hence, reclined further investigation, as i felt reality is worse than he described it. To his defense, I should mention, Chomsky endorses the idea, we each conduct our own investigations, and learn "the truth" by reviewing the historical evidence. All the same, one does not expect to hear such a suggestion from a deceiver. Why should anyone conceal the truth, just to be caught in the act later? It seemed unreasonable, even more so, from a rational intellectual such as Noam Chomsky.
Well, whatever the cause, it was unjustified. Still, sadly, it was not my "intellectual superiority," which exposed this understanding. No. It was in the "luxury" of experiencing first hand, the central pivot of global debate and controversy, namely, the state of Israel.
The state of Israel is perhaps, the most controversial place on the planet. Hardly visible from orbit, it is the historical center and origin of the most influential religions on earth, Christianity, and Islam. With hardly any natural resources, on the brink of a desert, the homeland of one of the least widespread religions on earth (namely, Judaism), somehow, today, it is the center of international debate. While most know Israel for its violent dispute with the Palestinians, portraying Israel as a militant ruthless oppressor, the truth is, the Palestinian dispute is just the tip of the iceberg. From its very formation, and up until this day, all of its neighbors, be it those it made "peace" with, and those it did not, wish it removed from the face of the earth, for various reasons.
The Palestinians wish it removed, for the simple and outspoken reason, they view Israel as their land. Moreover, after suffering many years of hardships, under the rule of Israeli martial law, and with the world wide support for the righteousness of their cause, their rivalry toward Israel, reached frightening levels, peeking through what is otherwise known as "suicide bombers." Still, the Palestinians are but one party. There are other parties, motivated by other reasons. For example, because of the tremendous support Israel receives from the United States, it is attacked by those who oppose it. Moreover, being in a region of crucial significance, in terms of control over global natural resources, such as fossil fuels, many view it as an economic American invasion to the region. Additionally, many blame the U S, and its Israeli ally, for actively supporting anti-democratic, totalitarian regimes. Others wish it removed, so to reclaim "the holy land," and establish the rule of Islam over it. There are those who simply do not like to see a non-Muslim "gap" in the fabric of the middle east, while militant regimes and organizations in the region, merely wish to claim the honor of defeating the mighty Israeli war machine, not that different from the desire to win the Olympics.
Still, again, the desire to remove Israel from the face of the earth, does not end with the middle east. As mentioned before, Israel serves as an American center of influence in the region, and generally, world powers, who wish to compete with America for global dominance (such as Russia, china, and perhaps, the European union), would hardly shed a tear, if Israel was a thing of the past. Moreover, Israel, being the "home land of the Jewish people," inherited the long lasting hatred of several parties, some of which are global, such as hardline neo-Nazis, for example. Arguably, even the catholic Church has a somewhat questionable history, with respect to the Jewish religion, as reflected in the time of the Spanish inquisition, for example. Considering this, we should note, the global parties, hostile toward Israel, are hardly a unified collective. Just as the Nazis despised the Christian religions, while they both shared a history of Jewish persecutions, there are even some Jewish sects (such as "Netoorei Karta" for example), which despise the state of Israel, as according to their beliefs, its formation did not follow the ancient Jewish prophecies of the coming of the messiah, and as such, they find the formation of the state of Israel, in its contemporary incarnation, to be blasphemous. Last, there are contemporary Jewish scholars, such as Norman Finkelstein for example, which while not completely antagonistic toward Israel, are easily swept away into the popular sport of Israeli bashing.
Noam Chomsky is not that different in this respect. Chomsky, born to a Jewish family, repeatedly criticizes Israel, for its policy with respect to the Palestinians. Chomsky suggests various sanctions, to be imposed on Israel, so to force Israel to a weakened position, where little more than trust in the international organizations, which criticize it now, would protect it from future hostilities. innocently, one could think "this is the way to go," as essentially, if one seeks peace, one should learn to trust one's previous enemy.
On its surface, taking a critical third person perspective, there is nothing arguable in Chomsky's suggestions. Supposing all his facts are correct, I live in the center of evil. I am the bringer of dictatorships, destroyer of peace. To clarify, while indeed, Chomsky mentions individuals in Israel, opposing its policies, Chomsky does not emphasizes any significant distinction, between The Israeli government, and its citizens. Israel is more or less portrayed as a unified entity. Perhaps it is because, all Israelis must serve in the army at the age of 18, before they mature, so to form their own opinions, hence, marking each Israeli, as a legitimate equivalent to government, when targeting sanctions. Perhaps it is because, Israel is such a small state. Possibly, it is because, being the home of "the Jewish people," Israel is overloaded with pretense, to the level it is inconceivable to think, Israelis can possess a perspective, different from that of the government. Maybe, Chomsky is waiting for a military coup, where 18 year old grunts, with no academic education, will rebel against their parents and commanders, so to create a regional hegemony, in terms of civil upheavals.
It is hard to say what motivates Noam Chomsky. To clarify, obviously, being intellectual, he must realize, his arguments are incoherent. To clarify, with the same breath, Chomsky can both criticize democracy, showing that without a fitting financial system, every democracy will transform into fascism, and demand Israel would take leaps of faith, while trusting the historically proven global political dishonesty, just so to establish democratic regimes in the region. I mean, why? Supposing Chomsky's financial critique is valid, why should we even bother to establish democratic systems in the middle east? What does the voice of the majority prove, in a state where freedom of thought is suppressed by culture and religion? What can the freedom to vote possibly mean, in a reality, where street decapitations are "acceptable?" To clarify, while in themselves, all of Chomsky's opinions are valid, juxtaposing them, fails to create an agreeable agenda. In other words, it appears, Chomsky does not converse or support an "idea," but rather, utilizes ideas, so to prove him right. But what for? Who is he fighting, and why does he bother? Is it a form of academic detachment from reality, or is he, in fact, yet another dishonest politician?
Strong words indeed. A dishonest politician. How do I know? Well, obviously, by circumstance or inclination, Chomsky, is a politician. Noam Chomsky deals with politics, and the size of the crowds, listening to him on his lectures, the prestige of the places in which he speaks, or simply the amount of "hits" his video lectures have on you tube, mark Chomsky as a politician. Still, why do i say "dishonest"? That is a strong accusation. Can there not be an intellectual honest humane politician?
Well, theoretically, the existence of such strange beasts is possible, but even if so, sadly, Chomsky is not one of them. How do i know that? Well, as part of my reacquaintance with Chomsky's latest works, i forced myself to listen to his bashing of Israel, and Israeli policies. Due to his "intellectual style" I attempted to take an objective perspective, when analyzing his claims, understanding that from afar, things appear different, and perhaps more clearly, than in the center of affairs. To tell the truth, i stopped listening to the news, so frankly, i do not know what is going on in this crazy place. Still, i am 35 years old, most of which, i have spent in Israel. I had served in the Israeli army. I have sat in a shelter, when missiles from Iraq fell over Israel. Friends of my family were blown to bits by terrorist attacks. I have friends who suffered post-traumatic stress due to their military service. I know other friends, whose neighborhoods were bombarded by Hezbollah and Hamas rockets. There are many other examples. Obviously, my life is a "paradise," when compared with the lives of the Palestinian population in the occupied territories. All the same, to me, what Noam discusses is not "information." For me, just as sadly, it is for every Israeli, it is experience. In other words, for the first time, I had the "luxury" of knowing some details of the story first hand, prior to being informed of it, through the mediation of professor Chomsky, and it is these experiences, which exposed the fallacy.
In what way? Well, during one of his lectures, Chomsky was defending the Iranian nuclear program, claiming Iran does not intend to destroy Israel with it at all. Chomsky suggested, all the Iranian leadership claims, is that the state of Israel will no longer be as it is now, which is completely legitimate, and is in accordance to U N resolutions. When i heard this, i felt this slap at the back of my head, saying "i am being objectively brainwashed by this professor." To explain, it simply does not make sense to interpret the nuances of the Iranian leader, the same leader, who during his visit to the United States, claimed on a C N N interview, there are no homosexuals in Iran. I mean, that is such an obvious fallacy, after which, taking his words literally, is at best, desperate. And yet, Chomsky does take such words seriously, while not taking seriously any claim of the Israeli side. To clarify, while obviously, many times, the official Israeli claims were dishonest as well, still, clearly, Chomsky was partial, when selecting the party, whose claim he decided to endorse.
Still, that is not a token of dishonesty, but rather, a token of dispute, between Chomsky, and Israel. While indeed, it shows Chomsky does not "like" Israel, it does not attest to dishonesty, and frankly, it is reasonable. To clarify, in 2010, Israel has denied entry to Noam Chomsky, who at the time, wished to participate in a debate in Bir-Zeit university (a stupid action on behalf of the Israeli government, i agree), and hence, any resentment Chomsky may have felt, is somewhat understandable. Again, Chomsky comes from a Jewish family, and hence, according to Israeli law, Chomsky is entitled to both enter, and receive Israeli citizenship, had he wished it.
Regardless if personally, I believe it was wrong, arguably, the motivation of the Israeli authorities, is understandable as well. Chomsky has repeatedly took part in actions, from which the Israeli government, and inevitably, citizens, have taken damage. Still, unless Chomsky was carrying nuclear bombs to his Palestinian colleges, such a reaction was unnecessary. In fact, the rejection of entrance, only strengthened Chomsky's argument, exposing the oppressive aspects of Israeli discourse. Still, being both a public figure, an intellectual, and a self-proclaimed advocate of "truth" and "justice," neither Chomsky's personal grudge, nor any fault Israel have committed in the past, should affect his honesty. Preaching what he proclaims his opinions to be, bigotry, and blunt partiality, should not enter his mouth.
But they do. In 2010, Chomsky addressed the Israeli military operation "Homat Barzel," which took place in the Gaza strip. According to Chomsky, there was absolutely no basis for the claim, this operation was intended so to protect Israeli citizens, that it was nothing but an act of aggression against the Palestinians, in an attempt to establish a reign of terror. Chomsky completely omitted the true reason for the Israeli operation, namely, the relentless bombing of Israeli settlements, on non-Palestinian territories.
My friends’ houses, their wives and children were there, as rockets fell over the southern parts of Israel from the Gazan Strip. This was the reason for the Israeli operation, at least as far as the soldiers fighting in it were involved. They did not care for corporate America. They did not care for religion. The only thing Israelis cared for were the rockets. Chomsky blames Israel for using force. The fact is, practically all nations, build their military forces, exactly so to be able to "solve" such dispositions. Moreover, as Chomsky surely knows, Israel has enough force, to wipe out the Gaza strip in one hour, without using unconventional weapons. Had this been Israel's motivation, namely, destruction and victory over the Palestinians, it would have been far easier to achieve, than to attempt to achieve peace with radical fundamental Islamic groups, such as the Hamas. Indeed, had it done such a crime, less than a day later, the entire world would obliterate the state of Israel. Still, the majority of Israelis, wish nothing of the sort, regardless of global threats or sanctions.
Chomsky justified his opinion, by pointing out, the Israeli authorities provoked the Palestinians, by assassinating Hamas leaders, while penetrating the somewhat unofficial Gazan sovereignty, and causing civilian collateral damages. Chomsky did not address the fact, Israel pursues such operations, exactly so to ensure its security, without causing the civilian casualties, with which a fully-fledged military invasion would result, and that such casualties were inevitable, as Hamas uses civilians as human shields. Instead, Chomsky argued, Israel intentionally nurtured the Hamas, so to ensure peace would be unattainable. All the same, this is not the point. The point is, Israelis were being bombed daily, Israel had the military capacity to bring an end to it, and the only reason why it did not do anything, is the fear of the response of the global community. In many ways, the only reasons Israel did not retaliate sooner, the only reason why Israel allowed the destruction of houses, the injuries and deaths of its citizens, is because of the work of individuals such as Chomsky, which for some reason, consider bombarded Israelis as, well...not "worthy enough" to be mentioned.
Moreover, as Noam Chomsky surely knows, contrary to its reputation, all in all, Israel is one of the least sovereign nations on the planet. It is completely dependent on America for its economic and military necessities, or more specifically, completely dependent on the Jewish community in the United States. As such, it is not calling the shots, and whatever actions, in which the Israeli army takes part, if it has a global political effect, it must have been issued by its benefactor, namely, the United States. Today, there is no other option, even if at a previous point in time, there was. Had Israel not followed the commands of the United States, it would no longer be. The international community demonized Israel so much, it is unlikely anyone would come to its aid, had the American administration, joined in on the deed. Moreover, it should be stated, that as Chomsky himself mentioned, the state of Israel is not that Jewish. Indeed, Israeli law is partially determined by Jewish traditions (especially in issues related with marriage), still, the majority of Israelis are secular, even if their origins are Jewish, and find the conservative Jewish Israeli population, which does not serve in the army, and whose tax burden is far lesser, to be a parasitical component of the Israeli social fabric. Indeed, Jews in America may have a strong grip over the American government, and may have a strong affinity with Israel, but they are not Israelis. They do not fight its wars, and as Chomsky shows, a significant portion of them, refuses to fight its wars, to the level they spread propaganda against it.
Still, is it unjustified? Is Israel a global demon? Well, it depends. If we agree, Israel is a state, designed to destroy the freedom of the world, devoted to war, terror, and hatred, the brainchild of the psychopath elite, then sure. However, if indeed, that is the definition of Israel, then that is not the place in which I live. Neither I, nor people I know, regardless of their role in Israel's defense apparatus, suggest anything, which could be interpreted as the above definition. In other words, the above definition, does not apply to the population of Israel, which due to the law, forcing all Israelis to join the army at the age of 18, is accidentally, the same population, of which the Israeli army consists. Regarding the Israeli leadership, then honestly, I simply do not know. Still, what I do know, is that the same forces, which have corrupted the American democracy, could have been "imported" to Israel, and hence, whatever is corrupting America, may indeed be corrupting the Israeli leadership. Again, I simply did not gather any data regarding this speculation. Still, again, the significant issue, is the understanding, Israel does not "control" the situation, but rather America, and the actual identity or affiliation of those determining policy, are irrelevant. They may even be Jewish, but they are not Israel, just as Barak Obama may be Muslim, but he is not Iraq.
Still, if the above analogy is so obvious, why do so many "fall for it," when it comes to Israel? Well, this is what I call, the Zionist unity fallacy. To clarify, the term Zionism has come to couple several distinctively unrelated ideas. The first idea, which I will name “survival Zionism,” and which is the one Israelis learn, and fight over, is the historical conclusion, that if Jews are to live on earth, they must have their own country. Again, this conclusion is not proactive, but rather reactionary, to the repeated historical emergence of anti-Semite tendencies world widely, which apparently, peeked during world war 2, and more specifically, the holocaust. To clarify, it was the Nazis who insisted to find the ancestry of European citizens, so to eradicate any Jewish genealogy, while many of the same citizens, were secular, and mostly disinterested in Jewish tradition, and Jewish political agendas. I mean, all in all, had they been interested in it, why did they not join the Jewish settlement in Palestine, already in existence at that time?
Regardless of any international dispute, no Israeli, which does not possess an additional, non-Israeli citizenship right (such as yours truly), has the luxury to reject this type of Zionism. To clarify, for such Israelis, Israel is the only place, in which they can live lawfully, and hence, rejecting the Zionist idea, that Israel is their home, effectively forces them to seek an immigrant status in a foreign land, while currently, it is possible, no other land will grant them such citizenship. To clarify, for those who do not know, regardless of the support Israel receives from the United States, Israelis find it extremely hard to receive American citizenship, far harder than for example, British citizens. Therefore, unless such Israelis are expected to take their own lives, this version of Zionism, is an existential necessity. Indeed, some can claim, that due to its cultural difference with the Arab world, Israel does not "belong" in its territorial region. Moreover, some can extrapolate a Zionist scheme, whose very purpose was to harass and annoy the arguably scarce indigenous population, which existed in Palestine, prior to the formation of Israel. All the same, by now, the existence of Israel, along with its national and private establishments, is a fact, and there is no realistic "relocation program" of Israel, to which any citizen of any nation would agree. To summarize, as hard as it might be to accept, no party should expect Jewish Israelis to question their right to live in the region, as a citizen of the Jewish state of Israel, as the merger of the historic anti-Semitism Jews suffered, and the "facts in the field," meaning, the formation of Israeli homes and establishments, and the lack of any additional citizenship right, forces Israelis to accept the legitimacy of this type of Zionist perspective.
Still, again, this is not the only type of Zionism there is, nor is it the interpretation of Zionism, which is so hated world widely. Again, there are other types of Zionism, one of which, I choose to name “religious Zionism.” As its name suggests, this type of Zionism is somewhat "religiously driven," claiming the existence of a spiritual, biblical, pan historic link between Jews and Israel. It is this type of Zionism, which motivates many of the Jewish settlers, living in the occupied territories. While the majority of Israelis do not reject this type of Zionism, most do not believe it is of a crucial, “life and death” significance, and next to a half of the Jewish Israeli population, would agree to dismiss this Zionist ideal, if such dismissal would promise them peace. Still, this is not the type of Zionism, which motivates any widespread refusal of Israelis for territorial compromises with the Palestinians. No. The widespread Israeli refusal, for such territorial compromises, is motivated by the first type of Zionism, which we mentioned previously, namely, “survival Zionism.” To explain, while obviously, peace and security could ensure the motivation for “survival Zionism,” the fact is, due to the collective Holocaust trauma, and the repeated militant clashes between Israel and its neighbors, Israelis simply do not believe, the Palestinians would agree to live with them in peace. Israelis believe, that even if the majority of the Palestinian population would wish to live in peace with their Israeli neighbors, still, a non-marginal fraction would continue to conduct acts of aggression against Israel, backed by yet another non-marginal portion of their leadership, and supported by external, Arab, anti-Semite, and anti-American parties. As such, while the majority of Israelis will agree to accept a 2 state solution, with a non-marginal percentage of them (I would estimate, something around 15 percent), even agreeing to give the city of Jerusalem to the Palestinians in full, in return for peace, first, they demand to see some sort of “proof,” such territorial compromises would provide this desired result.
Such “proof” is simply not available, and we can only speculate why. To clarify, just as Israel is controlled by the American administration, so are the Palestinians, with their string pullers ranging across the variety of parties antagonistic toward Israel, which we mentioned previously. In other words, regardless of what public opinion says, contemporary political international reality clearly suggests, the majority of international power, be it American, or otherwise, does not wish for peace between Israel, and the Palestinians, and unless this global inclination would change, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot cease. Therefore, even if theoretically, “religious Zionism” can obstruct peace in the region, the truth is, it is not “powerful” enough to determine Israel's contemporary reality, and as such, cannot, and should not, be targeted by any party, expressing contempt or antagonism, toward the state of Israel. In fact, of all the people I know, none are more critical toward “religious Zionism” than the Jewish secular majority of Israelis. To explain, regardless of what the Israeli government says, from the locally centric perspective, not only does the majority of Israelis find this type of Zionism as obstructing the peace in the region, but also, again, strict religious Jewish Israelis, are allowed not to serve in the army as secular Israelis, while their tax burden is lesser.
Actually, in many ways, “religious Zionism” reflects the American Evangelist Christian religious teachings, much more than it reflects a Jewish consensus. To clarify, from the Evangelist religious perspective, the return of the Jewish people to Israel, in its full biblical territorial stretch, marks the unfolding of the prophecy of the second coming of Christ. Indeed, a religious Israeli minority "couples" this prophecy, with the prophecy of the return of the Jewish messiah. Still, Judaism rejects the validity of the Christian claims, and this is but a ridiculed fanatic minority. All the same, considering the amount of antagonism Israel receives world widely, no one can blame any Israeli, for thinking the Evangelist perspective is “good,” as being secular, Israelis do not find much difference between the religious babblings of radical Jewish rabies, and the religious babblings of Evangelist priests.
As we just explained, the two types of Zionism, which we mentioned previously, can have little to do with the international hatred toward Zionism. These 2 types are the only types of Zionism of which Israelis know, and hence, Israelis find it hard to comprehend the global antagonism toward Zionism. While Israelis understand, oppressing the Palestinian population marks them as somewhat immoral, and while they would be happy to rid themselves of this burden, their survival necessities, along with their arguably justified inherent distrust toward practically all nations, does not allow them to do so. Israelis feel “stuck” within a world of double standards and deceit, a sensation, which quite possibly, is felt by the Palestinian population as well. Therefore, without understanding the motivations behind the hatred toward Zionism, Israelis can find no other explanation for their situation, other than anti-Semitism. Again, Israelis do not have the luxury of questioning their American benefactors, as currently, Israel simply does not have an alternative. Israel must adhere to American policies, and Israelis understand this. Moreover, due to the fact, that generally, people wish to live their small little lives, rather than understand macro cosmos politics, most Israelis view America as their “friend,” and actually, considering the options, and considering the American support to Israel, it is understandable.
The hatred toward Zionism has little to do with the notions we just discussed. To clarify, there is an additional type of Zionism, which I will name “black Zionism,” and which I believe, is the true reason for the hatred toward Judaism. There is little I know about this type of Zionism. No one teaches about it in Israeli schools. No one reports it in the Israeli media. To the best of my knowledge, no Israeli army general (and I have met several during my military service), know anything about it. In fact, the only place where we can find reference, to this type of Zionism, is in the accusations coming from those who criticize Zionism in general (and I should emphasize, those who criticize it, do not make any distinction regarding its type).
This type of Zionism consists of a narrative merger, of anti-Semite propaganda (such as the protocols of the elderlies of Zion), along with newer details, which according to such allegations, persist to this very day, through the operations of the Mossad, the alleged “real agenda” of the Israeli leadership, and other alleged covert operations, conducted by the Israeli army. Moreover, lately, many have suggested, this “black Zionism” is but another name for the infamous “new world order,” the Bilderberg group, and the likes. Actually, in fringe circles, which day by day are becoming somewhat acceptable by mainstream public opinions, it has been suggested, “black Zionism” is but another name, for the hostile takeover of alien beings over the world. The fact is, I have no data, by which I can refute such allegations, while their contenders claim to possess documents to prove them. Moreover, in many ways, we can claim, Noam Chomsky is but one example of a political figure, which supports the allegations against “black Zionism.” While I am certain, I am not an alien, with an agenda to enslave humanity, I cannot verify such details with my surroundings. I just think it is insane, and every Israeli I know, would believe, even mentioning the notion, marks me as somewhat insane as well.
As I said, I cannot determine anything about “black Zionism.” Maybe it is true. Maybe the people who formed Israel, such as David Ben-Gurion, and Theodor Herzl, were aliens with malicious plans for humanity. All the same, with my grandparents being Holocaust survivors, and with my personal experience with the war between Israel and Arabs, I can safely say, that considering my origins, and considering the fact, others will judge me as a Jew, regardless of my religious inclination, I must agree, the formation of the state of Israel, was a good idea. Maybe its implementation is faulty, and maybe we did awful things to the Palestinians, but I, as well as most other Israelis, have a conscience, and if it would have been possible to obvert these historical misfortunes, if it was possible to make the Palestinians “happy” today, I am confident, most Israelis would agree to do whatever is necessary to achieve this goal, as long as it does not endanger their very survival. In other words, regardless if “black Zionism” exists or not, it is not what “survival Zionists” and “religious Zionists” want, or know of, and as such, should not be coupled as one notion. Their unification is a complete fallacy, designed to delegitimize the first two types, due to the possible crimes of the third. Perhaps, supposing it truly exists, Israeli leaders believe, “black Zionism” is a necessity. Still, we know nothing about it. Moreover, again, it would be wrong to blame such a huge international conspiracy on the state of Israel, as again, Israel is not calling the shots. Maybe it is the Jewish lobby in America. Maybe the Jews in America are the ones, who ensured Israeli leaders would join the alleged agenda of “black Zionism.” All the same, essentially, it is not an Israeli agenda, and if anything, Israel is the scape goat of its Jewish conspirators overseas.
Still, this is not what this text is about. Moreover, the aim of this text is not to advocate for the state of Israel, as its "scope" extends beyond it, beyond the hostility, or affinity, toward Israel. No. The example we just discussed, exposes a bigger question, affecting our concept of reality, our freedoms, and perhaps, might even reflect a historical misconception of our cultural narrative. To explain, knowing for a fact, Chomsky's historical account was partial, I cannot help but wonder, was this Chomsky's first distortion of historical facts? What portion of Chomsky's ideology are impartial?
To clarify, Chomsky's motivations, are none of my concern. For all I know, he truly believes in the righteousness of his cause, and whomever supports him behind the scenes, be it western, or eastern parties, or simply people wishing to better their lives, is not the main issue. Moreover, Chomsky is but one intellectual, and his opinion is but one opinion. He does not control the world, and even if his ideas are harmful to some parties, it is perfectly legitimate, just as it is legitimate to cause harm to an enemy, in any other non-hypothetical conflict. Furthermore, even the question, who is morally better, is irrelevant, as moral judgment regarding such issues, is completely dependent on the identity, ideology, context, and status, of the judging individual.
No. The problem is the extent of Chomsky's ideology and message. Chomsky repeatedly attacks our existing financial establishments, the corporate controlled governments, the media, the manner our freedoms are little by little taken away, always portraying a picture of reality, which leaves little question, with respect to the intrinsic evil, embodied in the western civilization. The question therefore becomes, "what parts of this certainly more significant critique, is partial?"
Moreover, this question becomes critical, as the ideas Chomsky expresses, are becoming ever more popular, and regardless of his personal role in this shift in public opinion, the question remains as valid. How much of the growing resentment toward our governing parties and establishments, such as bankers, the military, or what have you, is justified, and how much of it is a distortion, and if it is a distortion, is there a reason why it is as such? Is there a conspiracy behind our contemporary affliction with conspiracy theories? Is Chomsky leading a "revolution," or is he but a puppet in an even greater conspiracy, perhaps unaware of the deceptions into which he is led, designed to shift the public opinion, so to serve a dire purpose?
Indeed, these are hysterical allegations. Still, the fact is, we simply do not know. To clarify, it does not take a genius to understand, there is concrete truth in some of Chomsky's allegations. It is a fact, our freedoms are being eroded. It is a fact, the western economy is in crisis. It is a fact, America sends its troops all over the world, harming indigenous populations, and in turn, becoming ever more hated. All this, and more, are facts. Still, all the same, it does not explain one simple thing. Why do we know about it? Why does America, the land which pioneered the significant role of contemporary media, in molding public opinion, rank so poorly, on its global propaganda? How come America, whose military forces literally built the internet, is becoming so targeted on the very communication channel, it made available to the entire world? Can it not "pull the plug" on it? Could it not have expected and avoided this reality? How come it is so easy to spot the lies of contemporary politicians and governments? How can it be, that those governing us, those who learned how to govern us, how to manipulate us, are so easily exposed? Is it the truth that we are exposed to? Could it be, that this entire charade, in which we think we discover "the truth," is but a carefully crafted "trick," designed to be not too easy, yet not too hard, so to drag us to a pre designed target, by our curiosity, and desire for enlightenment? Can it be, our path of discovery, is but a method to control us, exactly at the moment we begin to believe we reclaimed our personal freedom?
Obviously, such claims are hysterical. Still, once we broaden our perspective, beyond Noam Chomsky, and conventional topics of discussion, considering this possibility becomes ever more reasonable. To explain, there are those who oppose Chomsky's views, which are neither Jewish, representatives of Israel, or expressing the ideas propagated by the mainstream media, such as Alex Jones, for example.
Alex Jones is a Christian radio show host from Austin, Texas. He is mostly renowned as a "new world order" conspiracy theorist, and while significant details of his ideas, differ from those of Chomsky, an "outsider" could hardly set them apart. That is, all but one, apparently significant detail. For some strange reason, Alex Jones chooses to "defend" Israel, meaning, he does not automatically blame any global misfortune on Israel. Actually, in some cases, Alex actively argues (or alternatively, shouts) with those bashing it, while in other times, Alex expressed a strange type of admiration to the Israeli people.
This difference peeked during one of his radio shows, to which he invited Noam Chomsky (You can listen to this radio program on you tube). Before Chomsky went on the air, Alex already prepared his audience, explaining Chomsky is not what he appears, that the things he does not reveal in his lectures, serve to protect the leaders of the new world order. Then, Chomsky went on the air, expressing his ideas in his usual calm, polite, and intellectual manner.
After quite a few very long commercial breaks, and a rather polite conversation, Alex Jones snapped. He began bashing Chomsky, with the worst, most hysterical types of arguments, and the conversation ended. Later Alex Jones argued, Chomsky hung up on him, but the radio recording clearly shows, that was not the case.
The truth is, that regardless if I agree with some of his views, and regardless if in some way he defends me, the impression Alex Jones left in me, is of an idiot. It does not matter how intelligent he can be, and how accurate is his intel (that is, not to say it is accurate). His hysterical, non-convincing arguments, along with his tendency to shout, instead of speak, and the rude manner, by which Alex silences people, who talk with him on the show, all surmount to his message, becoming more of an epistemic nuisance, than any type of intelligible transmission of ideas. Indeed, within the context of the global hostility toward Israel, an arguably understandable perspective toward Israel and its citizens, is somewhat comforting. Nevertheless, the fact is "survival Zionism" is much too reasonable, to require such a hysterical advocate, and if anything, the style, by which Alex Jones conveys his ideas, and his refusal to answer counter arguments intelligibly, stains "survival Zionism" with malignant unnecessary association with autism, and psychosis. Considering this, I should note, I am somewhat "happy" that as usual, hardly anyone would listen to this text, as in a way, it guarantees, I would not have to suffer the insults of Alex Jones, as response to my critique. Still, either way, I guess it does not matter.
Possibly, the reason I find Alex so unimpressive, is due to the cultural differences between Israelis and Texan rednecks. Still, there are other "features" of Alex Jones's "work", which are questionable. For example, the amount, length, frequency, and contents, of the commercials breaks appearing throughout his shows, leave the strong impression, his message is but a promotion scam, for essentially worthless "new world order combat gear," which Alex attempts to persuade his audience to purchase, by inducing his audience with unnecessary fears. Moreover, the technical level of his broadcasts raises the question we mentioned before, namely, how can it be, that considering the political and economic strength of the malicious parties, which Alex allegedly fights against, his radio shows will be able to prosper enough, so to establish such an arguably professional enterprise? How can Alex afford to hire, or protect, his personnel, from the force of those he criticizes? To clarify, the more an enterprise is well established, the more people it hires, the easier it becomes to harm it, as such established enterprises find it hard to rebuild their operations, after being raided. In fact, it is this drawback, which guerrilla warfare exploits, so to be able to weaken, if not subdue, superior military forces.
Considering this, we should ask ourselves, do the parties Alex criticizes, or alternatively, demonizes, even exist, are they as "terrible" as Alex describes them, and if so, then who exactly is protecting Alex Jones? Who would want to spend resources, so to allow a loudmouth questionable character as Alex Jones to express his message, and more importantly, why? Do these parties wish to create an opposition to the malicious parties Alex criticizes, or do they wish to ridicule these notions? When Alex invited Noam Chomsky to his show, was the intention to argue against Chomsky's ideas, or to support them, by exposing the ridiculousness of Chomsky's opposition?
Well, we should not be quick to jump to conclusions. To clarify, clearly, Alex Jones is not significant enough, so to serve as proof for global affairs. Moreover, obviously, the interview, with Noam Chomsky, was but one nuance in Alex Jones' long career. To explain, Alex Jones shoots in all directions, and his messages extend far beyond those of Chomsky. Occasionally, the conspiracy theories Alex promotes, extend to issues such as U F Os, the alleged extraterrestrial presence on earth, spirituality, and the occult. Considering the capitalist flavor of Alex Jones' show, which we mentioned previously, along with its "new world order combat gear" merchandise it promotes, this comes as little surprise. Alex Jones' enterprise thrives on the fears it inspires in its audience, and the intimidating nature of these fringe subjects, is consistent with this principle. All the same, it invites additional notions and opinions, which in many ways, are incoherent with the manner Alex bashed Chomsky on his show. Possibly, there was a personal or financial grudge between Alex and Chomsky, which resulted with this aired hostility. I simply do not know. Still, considering Alex's other shows, we can safely assume, the reason for this hostility has little to do with their disagreement, with respect to their opinions, regarding the state of Israel.
To clarify, Alex Jones is not hostile to all his guests. Possibly, the more is his guest hysterical, the more agreeable Alex finds him, or her, and of all the hysterical guests Alex had on his show, one stands somewhat above the crowd, namely, David Icke.
David has been on Alex's show several times, informing of atrocities we never heard of, from cannibalistic Satanists, to alien control of the new world order, you name it. Honestly, there is no notion too preposterous for David Icke, and actually, it appears, David Icke is quite proud of the fact, he can say things, which other ridicule. Ever since David Icke began suggesting the existence of Reptilian shape shifting aliens, amidst and conspiring against human society, David suffered enormous ridicule, a trauma, which quite possibly, scarred his psyche, so to go to a somewhat opposite autistic extremity. While this does not suggest David's notions must be incorrect, still, his fetish for things weird, may have tampered his judgment.
Unlike Alex, David Icke knows how to argue intelligibly, even if his arguments do not satisfy any type of scientific proof. Additionally, sometimes, David's emotions burst out of control. One such burst occurred during his appearance on Alex Jones’ show. David Icke was explaining to Alex Jones, and his audience, the happenings transpiring in the middle east. His description was quite similar to the notions suggested by Noam Chomsky, with the slight difference, that according to David, the root cause for all the bad things happening in the region, was not just Zionism, but rather explicitly "black Zionism," allegedly controlled by the reptilian Rothschild aliens, all incarnated in the blasphemous, non-human nation of Israel. David Icke did not even attempt to distinguish between the Israeli government, and the Israeli nation. By his accord, Israel is the center of evil on earth, and that is all there is to it, and if anything, it reminded me of pre-world war 2 Nazi propaganda. We will soon see why this might be important.
Alex Jones did not appear to mind. On the contrary, he inflamed David even more. Apparently, Alex does not care for Israel, as much as he cares for terrifying his audience, and frankly, nothing obliges him to be any different. All the same, it becomes truly difficult to make sense of this situation. To clarify, considering all we just mentioned, it becomes hard to explain, what is the point behind this "fringe"? To explain, while Alex Jones may be chipping dollars on the guests he brings to his show, why do they agree to participate? Why does a renown intellectual such as professor Chomsky agree to be interviewed in the same radio show, which interviewed the arguably lunatic David Icke? Can David Icke, Alex jones, or Noam Chomsky, not comprehend their inability to bring forth one consistent argument? Can they not understand, this inability deflates the efforts of those who follow them, to bring forth any change? Is it all about money and fame?
Or is this what this is all about? Is it possible, the reason we have so many different opinions in the fringe, is precisely because, this variety of opinions incapacitates the opposition? Is it possible, the only reason we hear these notions, is to prevent us from realizing them ourselves, and by doing so, molding these notions to controllable falsities? Is it possible, there is absolutely no truth in the words of neither Chomsky, Jones, or Icke?
Intuitively, the calmness and intellectualism of Chomsky, would cause us to assume, his opinions are valid, while Alex's, and obviously David's are not. However, again, due to my personal experience, I know there is a grain of truth in the notions David Icke suggests. To clarify, while i find David Icke's accusation, Israel is the land of reptilian aliens absurd, the fact is, as I mention in previous texts, during 2009, I have seen U F Os flying above my flat in Tel Aviv, and while I do not know what they were, I can personally verify, a "black" agent surely exists, regardless if it is Zionist, alien, the product of mind control, or human.
In short, again, as with Chomsky, David speaks partial truths. U F Os exist. Still, obviously, this understanding does not tell us much. There is a huge difference between suggesting U F Os exist, and suggesting they are piloted by Rothschild shape shifting aliens, dressed in Israeli uniforms. All the same, once we broaden our perspective, to the history of U F O reports, and the history of David Icke's teachings, at last, we may find a historical link, which possibly, solves this strange puzzle.
In what way? Well, to understand this link, we must return to the theoretical origins of David Icke's metaphysical spiritual teachings. Without going through the specifics of David Icke's metaphysical (or alternatively, spiritual) theories, essentially, they repeat the notions, which first emerged in the modern age at the end of the 19th century, and the beginning of the 20th century, through the works of Helena Blavatsky, and Alice Bailey. To clarify, while David Icke's spiritual teachings somewhat differ from these, they utilize the same concepts, which are very different from conventional science, or religious teachings.
Some have claimed, "the new world order," which allegedly, day by day unfolds into our contemporary reality, is yet another interpretation of Blavatsky's and Bailey's ideas. Still, there was another historical social collective, which was inspired by these ideas, namely, the Nazis. Again, I will not go over the details of this historical connection, as it is irrelevant to the notions I suggest.
To this day, the historical emergence of Nazism baffles the post-world war 2 western civilization, with a fantastic collection of conspiracy theories, suggesting explanations regarding their rising to power, their enterprises and influence, which allegedly, persists to this very day, as well as controversies regarding the personal life of Adolf Hitler.
Still, there are 2 relevant aspects of Nazism, which are somewhat less controversial, and quite possibly can solves our confusion. First, the Nazis, headed by Joseph Goebbels, were masters of propaganda. Utilizing the inherent fears and angst of the German people, they managed to transform an entire highly civilized nation, into a bloodthirsty warmongering monster. Indeed, the Nazi propaganda apparatus does not justify any atrocity performed by the Germans, under the Nazi leadership. Nevertheless, in its monstrous way, it was ingenious, and more importantly, it was an instrumental asset for any regime.
Secondly, it appears, the Nazis managed to utilize something, which quite possibly, were U F Os, and I am referring to what is otherwise known as the "Foo Fighters." To clarify, according to many eye witnesses, during world war 2, allied fighter planes were repeatedly followed by strange light orbs, floating in the skies, which the allied pilots named "Foo Fighters." While to this day, no one has come out and explained what these "Foo Fighters" were, being hovering light orbs, their resemblance with U F O reports, such as the "Lights over Phoenix," as well as my own "flying triangles" sightings, suggests a historical link between these reports. To clarify, while in itself, this does not prove these "Foo Fighters" were little more than illusions, the fact is, the amount of U F O reports have significantly increased ever since world war 2, which is strange. To explain, it is only once airplanes came to exist (somewhere along the beginning of the 20th century), that humanity had the capacity to put machines in the skies, and hence, we should have expected, that had such U F Os existed prior to these times, their appearance would be perceived as even more weird, as no one could even speculate, what these objects could be, suggesting such sightings would have attracted even more attention. To summarize, there may be a link between U F Os and the Nazis, and hence, there may be a link, between the stories regarding extraterrestrial visitations, and Nazism as well. If so, it is possible, the message of David Icke, is propagating Nazi related issues, both in terms of his spiritual teachings, and his political critique.
Still, this does not imply anything, with respect to the validity of David Icke's ideas, nor does it prove, or disprove, the existence or inexistence of an extraterrestrial presence, or anti-gravity Nazi technologies. No. The truth is, that contrary to widespread conspiracies, it is unlikely humanity has learned how to build devices, such as U F Os, nor the alleged "free energy," so popularly mentioned among conspiracy theorists. To explain, this conspiracy has been in effect for too long, and its civilian, and financial potential, is far too great to be left secret. If U F O anti-gravity technology was in our reach, practically nothing could have prevented it from "oozing" into the private market, so to be exploited for its economic potential. To clarify, surely, corporations may obstruct research of new technologies, such as cures for diseases, whose profit from symptom suppressing drugs are high. All the same, once the technology exists, and is in use, practically nothing can prevent it from reaching the private sector. Money simply talks.
Therefore, possibly, there is a link between Nazism and U F Os. If so, it is very possible, these U F Os were not a great technological marvel of anti-gravity technologies, but rather, yet another example of the ingeniousness of the Nazi propaganda apparatus. To clarify, it is possible, the "Foo Fighters" were but a psychological warfare device, by which the Nazis intimidated the allied forces, making them believe the Nazis were technologically superior, while in actuality, they were but technological hoaxes, which might still be utilized, resulting with contemporary U F O sightings, as psychological instruments, used to establish conspiracy theories about them. Considering this, we should note, the Nazi project, otherwise known as "the Bell" could have been yet another example of this. While obviously, this is but a speculation, it is possible, the origins of both contemporary U F O sightings, as well as many, if not all, conspiracy theories, are in carefully planted psychological warfare hoaxes, designed by the fevered minds of Nazi propaganda moguls. Moreover, if this hypothesis is indeed correct, it is no wonder David Icke echoes a link with Nazism, as all in all, his entire message, if not life, could have been a Nazi hoax as well, of which quite possibly, David Icke knows nothing.
Still, how can it be? Are the Nazis not long gone? Have they not lost the war? Well, if it is possible, U F Os are but carefully designed illusions, then naturally, recorded history should not be any more real. Actually, this should not surprise us. Throughout history, historical records have been altered, so to provide moral historical justifications for the agendas of ruling parties, and actually, Noam Chomsky provides splendid examples of this in his lectures. Still, world war 2 was not a small incident. Obviously, it is ridiculous to suggest, the countless American, European, an Russian troops, were all participating in one great conspiracy. World war 2 surely transpired, and the soldiers who participated in it, surely fought, and died, in valor. All the same, several suggestions have been made, which expose a different picture of the war, through what is otherwise known as "Operation Paper Clip."
"Operation Paper Clip" refers to the mass "importation" of Nazi scientists to the United States, after the war ended. Already during world war 2, American and Russian strategic analysts predicted the coming of the cold war, and to prepare for it, both America and Russia attempted to plunder, whatever strategic advantages they could find, from their horrible, yet arguably formidable, Nazi adversary. Allegedly, upon arrival, these ex-Nazi scientists, headed by Wernher von Braun, pioneered the American space program, resulting with the famous Apollo missions. Years after the landing on the moon, many have found inconsistencies in NASA reports and footage, suggesting the landing on the moon was a hoax. Additionally, conspiracy theorists have claimed the existence of evidence, which strange enough, suggests the existence of an alleged American secret space program, based on back engineered alien technologies. Alternatively, some have claimed, many world governments, have made treaties with our extraterrestrial visitors, which in return, provided these governments with anti-gravity, super luminal technologies. Actually, the amount of different conspiracy theories, with respect to NASA, extraterrestrials, their technologies and origins, is too great and preposterous to review in this text.
Indeed, it is hard to determine, what exactly happened. Still, there is a somewhat different possibility, which apparently, no one suggests, even though it is intuitive, if not obvious. To clarify, it is possible, neither the official NASA reports, nor the conspiracy theories are correct. It is possible, that other from creating illusions of U F Os (which may involve holograms, flares, hallucinogenics, or what have you), there is no exotic technology in use, and that in actuality, the little technologies we have seen, such as for example, the lunar lander, were nothing but props. This explanation is by far more plausible than any other conspiracy theory, as again, arguably, no earthly political force, is influential enough, to restrict financial powers, from exploiting the economic potential, of any exotic technology. The idea, a technology could be kept secret for more than 20 years, without any progress in that field being applied in the private market, is inconceivable. Had there been anti-gravity technologies, they would have been implemented in commercial airliners. Had there been free energy technologies, they would have been implemented in power grids. The thought they would not, is unreasonable. The thought that entrepreneurs, would not hear of "free energy," investigate it, and use it, even if only in some remote insignificant region on earth, is simply childish. In contrast, considering the conspiracy we just suggested, namely, that the conspiracies are themselves hoaxes, designed by the same designers of the NASA hoaxes, then clearly, the "technologies" they utilize, are widely in use in the private sector. To clarify, in the world of contemporary commerce, lies, hoaxes, and deceit, are the name of the game.
Considering this arguably preposterous hypothesis, we should note, it is possible, such conspiracy has a technological expression, in contemporary mainstream scientific discourse. To clarify, contemporary scientific discourse, repeatedly attempts to discredit the theories of renown professor, Albert Einstein. The main line of attack on Einstein's theories, comes in the form of quantum mechanics, suggesting our reality breaches the limitations of consistent causality. As I explained in a previous video, this interpretation is absurd, and can easily be replaced, via an extension of physics, into local, non-universal laws, and phenomena. Still, not a single scholar has even raised this quite trivial solution, and instead, contemporary scientific discourse encourages an ensemble of preposterous, unintelligible theories, ranging from String Theory, and beyond. For some benign reason, even though Einstein's works have provided us with nuclear technologies, we prefer to believe, his theories are wrong. To clarify, even if Einstein's theories are inexact, the widespread contemporary attempts to discredit them, seem to exceed any rational motivation.
This tendency is enhanced in fringe, and conspiracy theorists circles. For example, a few months ago, scientists working on the particle accelerator in CERN, Switzerland, announced the possibility, they have evidence to show, that particles known as Neutrinos, travel at a velocity faster than the speed of light, hence, suggesting Einstein's theories are wrong, or at the very least, inexact. At the time, the CERN scientists confessed, their findings required additional verifications.
Conspiracy theorists took it as a fact. They did not care for scientific research standards. Their prime motivation was to prove the possibility and existence of superluminal vehicles, which they attributed with the alleged extraterrestrial presence. They did not even consider the well-known malpractice, in which scientists distort results, just so to ensure future funding of their research (which in the case of CERN, are preposterously great). Moreover, the conspiracy theorists did not even bother to change their claims, after the CERN scientists confessed, they were wrong in their interpretation of the data, as apparently, for such theorists, this second announcement could mean nothing other than a "cover up." To clarify, as I myself have seen with my very eyes, the aeronautic capabilities U F Os exhibit, clearly suggest, our contemporary knowledge in physics, is lacking. All the same, supposing U F Os are but illusions, such suggestions are unjustified.
Still, why should anyone go through this trouble, just to discredit Einstein's relativity theories? Well, first, we should note, the tendency we have just made, with respect to Einstein's theories, is highly presumptuous, as it is just as possible, it is purely coincidental, and unintentional. All the same, we should note, that exactly as many conspiracy theorists have already pointed out, the Nazis were extremely annoyed by Albert Einstein's scientific brilliance, and during world war 2, have spent great efforts, just to deem the "Zionist science," obsolete. Therefore, it is possible, post-world war 2 Nazism has not given up on the effort, and having made little success in their scientific pursuits, have resorted to the one endeavor they do best, namely, propaganda, lies, and deceit. If the Nazis could not discover the proof they sought, that the Jews are inferior to them in every sense, they would manipulate public opinion, until that opinion would match, that which they desire.
While this all sounds desperate, and pathetic, apparently, it is consistent with the connection we suggested previously, between David Icke spiritual teachings, and Nazism (or more specifically, the Nazi fascination with the occult), namely, the spirituality of Bailey and Blavatsky. These teachings persistently argue, we can, and should, "evolve" our consciousness, so to mold physical reality, directly through our minds, while suggesting a collection of pseudo-scientific claims, which are literally unintelligible to any serious scientific discourse. Such is the "Vibrational Fields" theory of David Icke, such was the racial theory of the Nazis, and such are the claims coming from practically all fringe conspiracy circles. Therefore, it is not inconceivable to suggest, these-ex Nazis would apply their delusional concepts of reality, thinking that if people believe in the existence of an extraterrestrial presence, which utilizes super luminal technologies, and which would suggest, that the "Zionist science" is "wrong," then it would mean, that indeed, it is "wrong." Actually, the same might apply to quantum mechanics. To clarify, it is possible, this same mentality, prevents academic research from solving the issue of quantum indeterminism, as it satisfies the same motivations.
Obviously, none of this can serve as proof, and I would find it hilarious, if anyone would take my suggestions seriously. Still, considering the fact, all the other suggestions we mentioned so far, from Noam Chomsky, to David Icke, seem lacking as well, while so many believe them, I find it hard to determine, which is worse.
All the same, the conspiracy theory we just mentioned, appears completely detached from reality. To clarify, again, the allied forces have won the war, while according to the suggestions we made, today, the Nazis rule the earth. So, where are they?
Well, obviously, wherever they are, regardless if today, Nazi global influence exists, it is not visible. Still, again, appearances may be deceiving. To clarify, many conspiracy theorists suggest, Nazism persists to this very day, building up global domination, ever since the end of the 2nd world war. In fact, many have suggested, Adolf Hitler himself has survived the end of the 2nd world war, as he migrated, along with many other Nazi generals, to Argentina. Still, as we mentioned previously, we have good reasons to doubt the validity of these conspiracies, as well as the identities of their true narrators. Moreover, had this been true, I doubt if the global Jewish population would allow it. Alternatively, we can claim, that if indeed, Adolf Hitler survived the war, Israel's secret service, namely, the Mossad, would know about it, and the fact it did not ensure his assassination, should serve as proof to the obvious, namely, that it is all a load of bullocks.
Still, there is an additional possibility. To clarify, had we to claim, the Israeli secret service knew Adolf Hitler survived the war, while not doing anything about it, it would suggest the those who govern Israel, do not share the same "holocaust trauma" as the rest of the Jewish people. Moreover, it would suggest, that regardless of origin or religion, neither Israelis nor Jews control the state of Israel, along with its secret services, as any Jew would find the survival of the former Nazi dictator, intolerable. Alternatively, it could suggest, the complete submission of the state of Israel, to a Nazi supporting source of power. In short, it could serve as an assertion to both the existence of "black Zionism," and the identity of the powers that govern it, namely, the Nazis themselves.
Still, again, how can it be? How can we even suggest, that post world war Nazi influence was so great, that they could infiltrate the ranks of the Israeli secret services? Moreover, what for? Did the Nazis not loath all that is Jewish? What type of an absurd theory is this?
Well, in an age, were so many believe, America launched the September 11th terrorist attack on itself, it is hard to determine what is absurd. Supposing America did take part in such a deed, then honestly, there is no other historical ruling collective, insane enough, so to orchestrate such an operation, as the Nazis, and if indeed, that is the case, there is no telling how twisted our political reality became. To clarify, apart from exterminating Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals, it is historically documented, that on their path to power, the Nazi party literally butchered parts of their own political party. Moreover, considering the Nazi propaganda and brainwashing mastery, had they influenced American administrations, it is not inconceivable, they would convinced their American hosts, so to orchestrate such an attack.
All the same, there is simply not a shred of hard evidence to support this conspiracy theory. Nothing. It is completely circumstantial. All the same, it is all completely how it "should be," had there been a real conspiracy. Not through whistleblowers, who considering the power possessed by those they claim to expose, should have been silenced, if not assassinated, long before we would hear about them. Not through transparent actions of governments, which Noam Chomsky could expose at will. Not through shy aliens, who attempt to save humanity, by conveying anti-establishment messages, to arbitrary clueless individuals. It would be covert, and we would not know what hit us.
Could it be, that at some point during world war 2, the Nazis figured, the direct approach of the German war machine, was "not working," and decided to take a "safer" strategic path, namely, propaganda and deceit, so to achieve the same goals? Could it be, that the end of world war 2, was very much narrated by the Nazis? Could it be, they already planned their next move? If so, then how can it be, only 2 years after the end of the war, the state of Israel was formed? How could they have allowed such a "prize" to their loathed archenemies?
Or is it a prize at all? Can it be that the political mess in which Israel finds itself today, is but a well-designed Nazi scheme to continue where they failed during world war 2? To give the Jews what they always wanted, while ensuring it will give them nothing but pain? Can it be that this is the reason America has sabotaged so many peace initiatives between Israel and its neighbors? Can it be a Nazi scheme, to ensure all the hardships they inflicted on the world, would "stick" to Zionism, via "black Zionism"?
Maybe. The truth is, I do not know, not sure if I even care, and this text became too farfetched and long. Goodbye.