On Karl Marx’s Schizoidal Mental Aberration:
Schizoid characters aim to impose their own conceptual world upon other people or social groups, using relatively controlled pathological egotism and the exceptional tenacity derived from their persistent nature. They are thus eventually able
to overpower another individual’s personality, which causes the latter’s behavior to turn desperately illogical. They may also exert a similar influence upon the group of people they have joined. They are psychological loners who then begin to
feel better in some human organization, wherein they become zealots for some ideology, religious bigots, materialists, or adherents of an ideology with satanic features. If their activities consist of direct contact on a small social scale, their acquain-
tances generally just consider them to be eccentric, which limits their ponerogenic role. However, if they manage to hide their own personality behind the written word, their influence may poison the minds of society on a wide scale and for a long
Karl Marx is the best example of this is correct as he was the best-known figure of that kind. Frostig a psychiatrist of the old school, included Engels and others into a category he called “bearded schizoidal fanatics”. The famous writings attributed to “Zionist Wise Men” at the turn of the century begin with a typically schizoidal declaration. The nineteenth century, especially its latter half, appears to have been a time of exceptional activity on the part of schizoidal individuals, often but not always of Jewish descent. After all we have to remember that 97% of all Jews do not manifest this anomaly, and that it also appears among all European nations, albeit to a markedly lesser extent. Our inheritance from this period includes world-images, scientific traditions, and legal concepts flavored with the shoddy ingredients of a schizoidal apprehension of reality.
Underneath the rulership of its incompetent administrative predecessors, we can even discern a period of hyperactivity on the part of schizoidal individuals mesmerized by the vision of their own rule based on contempt for human nature …
Political Ponerology, by Andrew M. Lobaczewski
Karl Marx was undoubtedly one of the most leading figures of the modern era. Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, Maoism, and a number of other “isms” which had left devastating horrors in the twentieth century would be almost impossible without him.
But who was Karl Marx? A lover of truth? A man who was fighting for the poor and needy? Or was he using economic theory as a vehicle to indirectly advance his Faustian/Mephistophelian pact which he had written about in his early years? Let us take a look.
One cannot understand Karl Marx without fully understanding many of his poems. Biographer and historian Robert Payne declares that some scholars tend to pay little or no attention to Marx’s early works of poetry and argue that it is not related to his mature work, but Marx did not see them that way.
Like Sigmund Freud, Marx fantasized about revolutionary heroes in his teens and wrote his first poem “Oulanem”—“which he hoped would be the Faust of his time”—on that theme. That poem, Payne and Paul Johnson tell us, “dealt with satanic possession, homosexuality, seduction, and the ruin of the world.”
For Marx, “passion and desire shall lead us.” It was this “desire, not logic,” that eventually “ruled Marx’s mind. Determined to find philosophical justification for a revolutionary war between the classes, he devised a theory which involved abstractions piled upon abstractions.”
Freemasonry was dark and secret, but Marx’s poetry shows that one can be a true revolutionary in all its metaphysical forms without being initiated into Freemasonry like Encyclopedists. A few lines from his poem “The Player” will prove this point.
“The hellish vapors rise and fill the brain,
Till I go mad and my heart is utterly changed.
See this sword—the Prince of Darkness sold it to me.
For me he beats the time and gives the signs.
Ever more boldly I play the dance of death.
I must play darkly, I must play lightly,
Until my heart, and my violin, burst.”
Payne declares that
“The pact with the devil is consecrated by the purchase of the magic blood-dark sword, which kills with unerring aim.”
Marx’s other poems such as “Nocturnal Love” were classified as satanic as well. Marx, for Payne, “was taking poetic revenge on the world.” When there was a failed attempt to assassinate Emperor Wilhelm I, Marx summoned “curses on this terrorist who had failed to carry out his act of terror.”
Marx was never in a political position to practice his violent curses, but once again his ideology was put to work by three of his most noted admirers: Lenin, Stalin, and Mao.
He seemed to have foreseen his influence in Russia in 1882 when he triumphantly boasted that “it gives me the satisfaction that I damage a power which, next to England, is the true bulwark of the old society.”
This form of damage of course was laid out in most of his poems. In those poems, particularly “Oulanem,” Marx “smiles pleasantly, roars outrageously, consigns the entire human race to damnation, and all the time he is watching himself cynically.”
Payne continues to say that “Oulanem” represented Marx’s vision for the world. Mankind, according to Marx, is in chains and it is only Marx who will rescue them from this worldly torment. But Marx’s torment is nothing less than hell on earth.
“[Marx] will squeeze the life out of the world, and then watch it sinking away into utter nothingness. He has become God, and he has consigned the world and all the universes to perdition.”
The connection between Freud and Marx is not far-fetched in that both desired vengeance and both deliberately made a Faustian pact. Armand M. Nicholi of Harvard declares that
“The last book Freud reads on the day he chose to die by euthanasia was Balzac’s The Fatal Skin, where the hero also makes a pact with the devil. In both Faust and The Fatal Skin the main character, a man of science, depressed over his lack of recognition and success, considers suicide.
“Freud perhaps identified not only with these main characters, but also with the devil himself—not as the embodiment of evil but as the ultimate rebel, defiant and refusing to surrender to Authority…
“In a letter to his fiancée expressing his worry about their future, he quotes from his favorite literary work, Milton’s Paradise Lost, not using the words of Adam, Eve, or god but the devil…
“Throughout Freud’s writings he refers often to the devil, sometimes as a figure of speech, sometimes in quotes from the great literature. For example, in a letter to Jung, Freud stresses how they ‘were in urgent need of able helpers’ in disseminating psychoanalytic theories and then uses a quote from Faust: ‘Although it was the Devil who taught her; He cannot do it by himself…
“A paper Freud wrote in 1923, analyzing a seventeenth-century manuscript describing a case of a painter who made a pact with the devil, explains his views. Freud relates what the devil had to offer the painter:
“‘In return for an immortal soul, the Devil has many things to offer which are highly prized by men: wealth, security from danger, power over mankind and the forces of nature, even magical arts, and, above all else, enjoyment—the enjoyment of beautiful women.”
All these explanations are plausible precisely because Freud, though he was trained in the sciences, was not only obsessed with pacts but made it clear at the end of his life that this was the direction he was taking. Like Nicholis, Paul C. Vitz of New York University recounts similar phenomena in Freud’s life.
Before he died in 1939, Freud specifically chose to read Balzac’s the Fatal Skin, in which the main character, “a young scientific man with a craving for riches and fame” and who “considers himself highly gifted but unappreciated and a failure,” sold his soul to the devil. Nicholi writes,
“Raphael meets the devil, who promises to fulfill all of the young man’s cravings for fame and fortune. ‘I will make you richer, more powerful and of more consequence than a constitutional king,’ promises the devil. But as part of the pact, Raphael must take ‘the skin of a wild ass.’
“With each wish the hero makes, the skin will shrink a little and shorten his life. The devil warns Raphael that ‘to Will consumes us: to have our Will destroys us…I will tell you the great secret of human life…
“As the hero becomes wealthy and has more and more of his wishes granted, he finds others resent him. As he talks about himself, one can understand how freud may have identified with him….
“More and more of Raphael’s wishes are granted. The skin continues to shrink and the hero knows his life is coming to an end. He tries to find a means of stretching the skin but fails. ‘It is all over with me,’ he cries…
“The novel closes with the hero dying in a frantic state of despair. He falls in love with beautiful Pauline. But every time he desires her, the skin shrinks and his life shortens. So he leaves her. When she finds him, he fears he will be unable to control his desire for her and the skin will shrink one last time and kill him.
“‘Go! go! leave me,’ the hero says to his lover. ‘If you stay, I shall die. Do you want to see me die?’ He shows her the skin, which begins to shrink as his desire for her grows. Suddenly she realizes what is happening, locks herself in another room, and, to save Raphael, tries to kill herself. He realizes he is dying and shouts to her: ‘I want to die in your arms.’
“He breaks down the door, rushes into the room, and takes her into his arms. Unable to control his wishes or his fears of death, he dies in a state of panic.”
Freud used similar languages to describe what happened to him. In fact, “Freud used the word ‘shrinking’ to describe his father’s death many years ago…”
What we are seeing here is that Freud desired vengeance on Christianity; Marx sought to inflict his vengeance upon the world, but religion, mainly Christianity, was his primary target. Peter Singer of Princeton himself writes,
“Marx seized on orthodox religion [Christianity] as the chief illusion standing in the way of human self-understanding. The chief weapon against this illusion is philosophy. In the preface of his doctoral dissertation, Marx wrote:
“‘Philosophy makes no secret of it. The proclamation of Prometheus—in a word, I detest all gods—is her own profession, her own slogan against all the gods of heaven and earth who do not recognize man’s self-consciousness as the highest divinity. There shall be no other beside it.’”
Marx on the surface gave the impression that he was writing as an atheist, but Jewish French literary critic Bernard Lazare stated that Marx “had that clear Talmudic mind which does not falter at the petty difficulties of fact. He was a Talmudist devoted to sociology and applying his native power to the criticism of economy.” Paul Johnson came to similar conclusions.
As an intellectual Talmudist, it was inevitable, then, that Marx’s theories would revolve around attacking Logos—both implicitly (through economic philosophy) and explicitly (through poems).
Johnson declared that Marx “was fond of quoting Mephistopheles’ line from Goethe’s Faust, ‘everything that exists deserves to perish,” and this is actually “the background to the Communist Manifesto of 1848, and it is the climax of [Das] Capital itself.”
Marx was fully aware that Das Capital was fraught with falsifications and discrepancies, and philo-Semitic historian Paul Johnson declares that Marx did these deliberately.
Marx’s deliberate attempt to manipulate the data in order to marshal some of his points in Das Capital was quickly picked up by two Cambridge scholars who found that Marx’s work contained not just flashes of inaccuracies, but “showed signs of a distorting influence.”
In the end, Johnson writes that Marx was confronted with two possibilities when writing Das Capital: “Marx had to distort his main source of evidence, or abandon his thesis.” Marx chose the former. “The book was, and is, structurally dishonest.”
Marx was not motivated by the truth, and it was only a matter of time before he found himself attacking truth in order to marshal an ideology which later proved to be destructive in Communist countries.
Marx’s “The Player,” says Payne, is Mephistopheles, the Prince of Darkness who wants nothing less than vengeance upon mankind. “Vengeance” was the theme of Marx’s
“long soliloquy in which he celebrates his power to shatter the world through his curses. And one of the major difficulties confronting Marx was that he could think of no hero except Mephistopheles…
“Marx’s drama can be seen as an extended improvisation on the theme announced by Mephistopheles in Faust: ‘Alles, was besteht, ist wert, dass es zugrunde geht’ (‘Everything that exists deserves to perish’). Marx had a particular affection for this line, which he quoted with relish in The Eighteenth Brumaire.”
If that is the case, then it is again not far-fetched, says Payne, to declare that “there were times when Marx seemed to be possessed by demons, when rage overflowed in him and became poison, and he seemed to enter into a nightmare.”
Paul Johnson agrees, saying that Marx’s hatred for mankind and his longing to destroy everything, if it were possible, are “the background to the Communist Manifesto of 1848, and it is the climax of Capital itself.”
Johnson also declares that almost all of Marx’s work “has the hallmark of Talmudic study.” Moreover,
“the pact with the devil was the central theme of Oulanem and appears in various disguises in many of his early poems. It was a subject on which Marx had brooded frequently, not only in his youth.
“Goethe’s Faust was his bible, the one book which he regarded with unreserved admiration, and he liked to roar out the verses of Mephistopheles…[Marx] had the devil’s view of the world, and the devil’s malignity. Sometimes he seemed to know that he was accomplishing works of evil.”
Johnson writes the same thing, that he was fascinated with “suicide pacts and pacts with the devil.”
Payne concludes that “damnation, satanic seductions, curses and excommunications, the ruin of the world—such were [Marx’s] nightmares. What no one could have known or guessed was that more than a century later he would still be visiting his nightmares on the world.”
We have seen these nightmares in Communist regimes in China, Vietnam, Russia, etc. These nightmares brought “incalculable consequences for mankind” by three of Marx’s “most important followers, Lenin, Stalin and Mao-Tse-Tung, all of whom, in this respect, were faithful Marxists.”
As we have seen in previous articles, people like Freud and Marx were simply following the traditional cosmic war that has existed between two systems: Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism.
In the first century, St. Paul foresaw that those who follow the metaphysical claim of the latter are “the enemy of all mankind” and should be kept in check. Nearly all the early church fathers kept an eye on them precisely because they knew that once “the enemy of all mankind” rejects the moral and cosmic order of the universe, he will inevitably wage war upon those who uphold the moral order.
As Jones puts it, enemies of all mankind, “who have abandoned the light of reason, the Logos,” progressively became metaphysical revolutionaries and therefore “have no control over their passions. They live in the darkness of unreason and, as a result, pursue their desires without restraint.”
This cosmic war has been going on since the first century, when the Pharisees and high priests incited the Jewish crowd to persuade Pilate to release Barabbas (an insurrectionist) instead of Christ. The people ended up shouting with one accord: “Let his blood be upon us and upon our children.”
Ever since, those who followed the teachings of Christ and those who deliberately rejected him because he was no political leader got locked into an eternal war which got lineated over the centuries, including the Middle Ages.
Jewish scholar Israel Jacob Yuval has pointed out that in the Middle Ages, this cosmic struggle in some instances was viewed as a “messianic battlefield between the prince of Edom [Christianity] and the prince of Israel.”
Incidentally, it was right after the Bar Kochba revolt that rabbis began to use the word “Edom” to denote the entire Christendom—a word that symbolically means to them that Rabbinic Judaism will be in perpetual conflict with Christianity.
During the Middle Ages, words such as “Esau” and ”Amalek” were also referred to Christianity. These ideas seemed to have been preserved in the works of Rashi, Don Isaac Abrabanel, and R. Abraam Ha-Yarhi.
For many of those writers, “God would remain restless until Esau (which for medieval Jews meant Christendom), rather than merely Amalek, was utterly defeated and destroyed.” Misapplying the Old Testament to Christendom or Esau, Maimonides also declared,
“We are commanded to remember what Amalek did to us in attacking us unprovoked [and to hate him always]. We are to speak of this at all times, and to arouse the people to make war upon him and bid them to hate him, and that hatred of him be not weakened or lessened with the passage of time.”
The Jews of Spain, Babylon, and Southern France during the Middle Ages viewed “Edom” as Christendom, while the Ashkenazim viewed it as Rome.
This tendency is found in a prayer (the Kaddish prayer) that was usually recited in the synagogue, which reads,
“And thus we pray yitgadal ve-yitkadash, meaning: Let it be the will of He through whose word the world was created that He redeem us from among the nations and destroy the memory of Amalek and His name will be hallowed to be complete.”
Rashi’s students picked up where he left off and announced that God “swore by His right hand and by His throne that His name would not be complete…until He avenged Himself against Amalek.”
Noted Jewish scholar Elliott Horowitz of Bar-Illan University, Israel, made the case that this teaching “made its way southwest to the Jewish communities of Provence and Christian Spain, who also saw themselves living among the descendants of Esau.” Horowitz continues,
“In the fourteenth century two influential Spanish authors, R. David Abudarham and R. Jacob b. Asher, included similar interpretations of the Kaddish in their works…
“By stressing Amalek’s ancestry, Abudarham, like R. Abraham ha-Yarhi before him, evidently sought to signal to his co-religionists that the Kaddish should be seen (and experienced) as part of the cosmic struggle between their God and the evil empire of Esau/Edom.
“After the ‘Amalek-oriented’ interpretation of the Kaddish spread from Franco-Germany to the Hispano-Provencal world, there were thousands of Jews across late medieval Europe who prayed several times daily for God to avenge Himself against the archenemy whose continued existence kept His name sundered—and thus painfully postponed their own redemption.”
Yuval provides similar historical accounts for the heated tensions between Christianity and the implications of Rabbinic literature in the Middle Ages. After sifting through many historical and rabbinic accounts, Yuval finds that
“The desire for vengeance may also be found in Eleazar Ha-Kallir’s lamentations for Tish b’Av. He asks that the evil of the Gentiles be revealed, so that God may take vengeance on Edom. In a recently published siluq for Tisha b’Av by Ha-Kallir, the editor noted ‘a veritable outburst of curse and hatred’ against the Christians.”
As a supplement to this vengeance, a unique ritual of cursing non-Jews was quite “widespread in Ashkenaz during the Middle Ages,” most specifically against Christians. As Yuval writes,
“Birkat ha-Minim (Malediction Against the Heretics) was well-known, and its origin may perhaps be traced back to the curses of the Judaean Sect against those who did not abide by the laws of the sect.”
The prayer says in part that “the community will gather and curse all those ‘who veer right or left from the Torah.’”
Historian Ruth Langer declares the same thing. She went so far as to say that “every single European Jewish community” in the Middle Ages “adopts the basic form” of the “birkat haminim,” which is “fully a curse of Christians.” In many countries this was done explicitly, where in many cases it became a cultural phenomenon among the Jews. Other curses
“are attributed to Rabbi Kalonymus the Elder and include sharp condemnations of and curses against the Gentiles and a plea to God to bring destruction upon them. Surprisingly, historical scholarship, which openly discusses all aspects of anti-Jewish hatred, has passed over these poems [which specifically discuss the curses against Christians and Gentiles] in almost total silence.
“These are texts that demonstrate the abyss of hostility and hatred felt by medieval Jews toward Christians. And we have here not only hatred, but an appeal to God to kill indiscriminately and ruthlessly, alongside a vivid description of the anticipated horrors to be brought down upon the Gentiles.
“These pleas are formulated in a series of verbs—‘swallow them, shoot them, lop them off, make them bleed, crush them, strike them, curse them, and ban them…destroy them, kill them, smite them…abandon them, parch them.””
For Daniel Goldschmidt and others, all of this is a reaction to Jewish persecution! Yuval, in response, argues that these curses not only predate anti-Jewish reactions, but were widespread among rabbis, going all the way back to the tenth century. Yuval concludes,
“These and similar liturgical poems were used by those who sought vengeance as having active messianic significance and should not be seen solely as a spontaneous emotional response. We are dealing here with a comprehensive religious ideology that sees vengeance as a central component in its messianic doctrine.”
This hostility toward Christians and Gentiles is indeed “part of an entire messianic teaching,” spread from many rabbis in the Middle Ages. This “messianic teaching” has its theological basis in Rabbinic Judaism which is first and foremost a rejection of metaphysical Logos.
Moreover, for many rabbis of the same era, “killing the Gentiles is part of the uprooting of evil in messianic time” and the Gentiles who will be saved are “those who convert to Judaism.”
This particular statement has a striking parallel to the Ukrainian crisis, which Israel Shamir says is an infiltration of
“Ukrainian ultra-nationalists and (mainly Jewish oligarchs. The oligarchs who financed the Maidan operation divided the spoils: the most generous supporter, Ukrainian Jewish multi-billionaire Igor ‘Benya’ Kolomoysky, received the great Russian-speaking city of Dnepropetrovsk in fief. His brethren oligarchs took other Russian-speaking industrial cities, including Kharkov and Donetsk.”
Over the years, Russia has progressively become docile to the moral order. But those who politically convert to Jewish revolutionary movements today are the ones who are denouncing Putin, who in many ways resent the Zionification of the world.
Paul Craig Roberts has said that Angel Merkel “whores for Washington.” Merkel has said recently that Putin is leaving “in another world” because much of the Zionist world did not like his actions.
Of course, to be a political whore for Washington is to be a Zionist, and Merkel could hardly be the only goyim here. David Cameron has recently defended Western nations’ “robust” approach to Russia’s actions. It is reported that “Calgary Conservative MP Rob Anders says the world needs to consider using force to stop Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression against Ukraine.”
Job C. Henning and William Courtney of the National Interest have declared that “robust military steps” must be taken against Russia. Janine Davidson of the same magazine had similar thoughts. Paul Roderick Gregory of the Hoover Institution writes in Forbes that
“Putin’s goal is the destruction of pro-Western authority in Ukraine, the total humiliation of the West, and a makeover of the geopolitical balance.”
The New York Times has labeled the situation “Russia’s aggression,” leaving readers with the impression that Russia has no right to intervene and establish order. Michael Rubin of Commentary sees this as America’s weakness.
Jonathan S. Tobin of the same Jewish neoconservative magazine declared that Putin is actually stealing territory from Ukraine. Lee Smith of the Weekly Standard calls people like Putin “criminal kleptocracies.”
Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post is quite sad because Obama doesn’t seem to want “to change gears” fast enough. Bill Kristol realizes that Americans are war-weary, but then moves on to say,
“A war-weary public can be awakened and rallied. Indeed, events are right now doing the awakening. All that’s needed is the rallying. And the turnaround can be fast.”
Let us grant the dumb argument that Putin is a bad guy and actually wants to take over Crimea in order to increase his political power. Why would the people of Crimea single-handedly join Russia and reject Washington’s neo-Bolshevik approach in the region? Why do Russian lawmakers ask President Obama to impose sanctions on them all?
Does Putin have a surveillance system that is capable of recording “‘100 percent’ of a foreign country’s telephone calls” as the N.S.A. in the U.S. does? Has Putin provided the IAEA with fake documents on Iran’s nuclear program like Israel has? Does Russia have a Russian lobby in Washington, as the Israeli regime does?
Why would the New York Times continue to brainwash its readers implying that Putin won the vote because of “thousands of heavily armed Russian troops occupying this perennially embattled peninsula”?
More importantly, are the neocons and the highly paid vaudevillian goyim in Washington and at think tanks willing to take at least some responsibility in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Are they going to apologize to the American people for snooping on them since the Bush era without any court approval? Are they ready to admit that they supported the Syrian rebels/jihadists, who recently vandalized the Greek Catholic church in Yabroud, Syria?
Are they willing to stop the sodomization of our military men and women? Are they willing to admit that they were accomplices when it was reported that 26,000 men and women were sexually assaulted in the military in 2012?
What would they say to more than 85,000 veterans who have been treated over military sex abuse in 2012? What would they say to the thousands of Iraqi women who are “imprisoned by a judicial system plagued by torture and rampant corruption”?
Are they going to take some responsibility for supporting terrorists in Libya, who eventually captured Gaddafi and to some extent sodomized him as they were dragging him to the slaughter house? As Horace Campbell of Syracuse University has shown, is Goldman Sachs going to take some responsibility in destabilizing Libya?
As Katrina vanden Heuvel of the Nation rightly points out,
“Sectarian violence claimed more than 8,000 Iraqis in 2013 alone, and this year’s toll has already surpassed 2,000. Iraq today is a broken and failing state: the war that many would prefer to believe ended in 2011 continues unabated, with Iraqis continuing to suffer, as much as ever, the fallout from this country’s callous lies and avoidable mistakes.”
Frankly, I would prefer Putin over any neo-Bolshevik/Zionist/Trotskyist/neoconservative ideologue precisely because whenever those ideologues take over politics, academia, and economic affairs, they slaughter any opposing viewpoint and reduce just about everyone else into abject servitude.
For example, when they want to take over the academia, they ask for “diversity,” but when they are in charge, they punish students who oppose the Zionist Holocaust in the Middle East.
If Palestinian kills an Israeli, the Zionist media will make sure that it is broadcast all over the Western world, but when Israel shot a Jordanian judge, Israel only apologizes, the Western world is silent, and things continue as they were.
Putin seems to understand how the typical Zionist plays his game. And he seems to have a much more intellectually rigorous answer to the Zionist explanation of things. As he explains his moves on Crimea:
“Crimea is a unique blend of different peoples’ cultures and traditions. This makes it similar to Russia as a whole, where not a single ethnic group has been lost over the centuries. Russians and Ukrainians, Crimean Tatars and people of other ethnic groups have lived side by side in Crimea, retaining their own identity, traditions, languages and faith.
“Incidentally, the total population of the Crimean Peninsula today is 2.2 million people, of whom almost 1.5 million are Russians, 350,000 are Ukrainians who predominantly consider Russian their native language, and about 290,000-300,000 are Crimean Tatars, who, as the referendum has shown, also lean towards Russia.
“True, there was a time when Crimean Tatars were treated unfairly, just as a number of other peoples in the USSR. There is only one thing I can say here: millions of people of various ethnicities suffered during those repressions, and primarily Russians.
“Crimean Tatars returned to their homeland. I believe we should make all the necessary political and legislative decisions to finalise the rehabilitation of Crimean Tatars, restore them in their rights and clear their good name.
“We have great respect for people of all the ethnic groups living in Crimea. This is their common home, their motherland, and it would be right – I know the local population supports this – for Crimea to have three equal national languages: Russian, Ukrainian and Tatar.”
Scholar Angela F. Stent of Georgetown University has declared that Putin was “the first leader to call George W. Bush after the 9/11 attacks and offer moral and material support for the antiterrorist campaign, with the expectation that Russia would become the United States’ full-fledged partner.” Iran also sent his sympathy to Bush and offered to fight terrorism.
All of that got squashed by the Zionist mafia. Instead, the Zionist puppets are telling us that both Russia and Iran are the biggest threat in the world. In a desperate attempt to attack Iran, Zionist Isaac Yeffet, former head of global security of israel’s national carrier, tells us that Iran was behind the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370! The buffoon went to say,
“I believe Iran was involved. They hijacked the aircraft and they landed it in a place that nobody can see or find it.”
To sum up, whatever the prayers that the Jews may recite daily, Christians in particular should daily pray for their salvation, as well as for the salvation of all men.
While the Apostle Paul was being persecuted almost daily by “my kinsmen according to the flesh,” he never ceased to pray for them. Israel Shamir rightly says, “The Jews daily begged God to smite the Christians, while the Christians daily prayed for the Jews to join them and be saved.”
 Quoted in Robert Payne, Marx (New York; Simon & Schuster, 1968), 71; Paul Johnson, Intellectuals (New York: Harper & Row, 1987), 54.
 Payne, Marx, 59.
 Ibid., 61.
 Ibid., 112.
 Ibid., 62.
 Ibid., 63.
 Ibid., 64.
 Johnson, Intellectuals, 71.
 Ibid., 79.
 Payne, Marx, 68.
 Ibid., 72.
 Armand M. Nicholi, The Question of God: C. S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex, and the Meaning of Life (New York: The Free Press, 2002), 208, 209.
 Paul C. Vitz, Sigmund Freud’s Christian Unconscious (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988)
 Nicholi, The Question of God, 225.
 Ibid., 229.
 Peter Singer, Marx: A Very Short Introduction (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 21.
 Bernard Lazare, Anti-Semitism: Its History and Causes (New York: Semicon, Inc., 2005), 315-316.
 Johnson, Intellectuals, 66-67.
 Ibid., 67.
 Ibid., 69.
 Payne, Marx, 73.
 Ibid., 315.
 Johnson, Intellectuals, 55.
 Ibid., 53.
 Payne, Marx, 317.
 Johnson, Intellectuals, 54.
 Payne, Marx, 74.
 Johnson, Intellectuals, 52.
 Jones, Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, 70.
 Israel Jacob Yuval, Two Nations in Your Womb: Perceptions of Jews and Christians and Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages (Berkley: University of California Press, 2006), 140.
 Ibid., 175.
 Horowitz, Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006), 125-126.
 Ibid., 126.
 Ibid., 132.
 Yuval, Two Nations in Your Womb, 114.
 Horowitz, Reckless Rites, 128.
 Ibid., 128-129.
 Ibid., 129.
 Yuval, Two Nations in your Womb, 101.
 Ibid., 115.
 Ibid., 115-116.
 Ibid., 116.
 Ruth Langer, Cursing the Christians?: A History of the Birkat HaMinim (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 66.
 Yuval, Two Nations in your Womb, 120; emphasis added.
 Ibid., 121.
 Ibid., 122-123.
 Ibid., 123.
 Ibid., 102, 103-109.
 Ibid., 111.
 Quoted in Gianluca Mezzofiore, “Ukraine Crisis: Vladimir Putin ‘In Another World’ Angela Merkel Tells Obama,” International Business Times, March 3, 2014.
 Job C. Henning and William Courtney, “Don’t Just Sanction Russia, Deter It,” National Interest, March 18, 2014.
 Janine Davidson, “Thinking the Unthinkable in Ukraine,” National Interest, March 20, 2014.
 Paul Roderick Gregory, “Putin Has Already Declared War on Kiev,” Forbes, March 17, 2014.
 Steven Erlanger, “Russia’s Aggression in Crimea Brings NATO into Renewed Focus,” NY Times, March 18, 2014.
 Michael Rubin, “The Reverberations of American Weakness,” Commentary, March 18, 2014.
 Jonathan S. Tobin, “Putin’s Crimes and the Kosovo Precedent,” Commentary, March 17, 2014.
 Lee Smith, “Will Ukraine Regret Giving Up Its Nukes?,” Weekly Standard, March 19, 2014.
 Caroline Glick, “Why Obama Will Not Change Gears,” Jerusalem Post, March 17, 2014.
 William Kristol, “war-Weariness as an Excuse,” Weekly Standard, March 24, 2014, Vol. 19, NO. 27.
 David M. Herszenhorn, “Crimea Votes to Secede from Ukraine as Russian Troops Keep Watch,” NY Times, March 16, 2014.
 See Philip Giraldi, “America’s Torture Doctors,” American Conservative, March 13, 2014; Richard Norton-Taylor, “British Army ‘Blocked Investigation into Treatment of Iraqi Prisoners,” Guardian, March 17, 2014.
 Conor Friedersdorf, “Details of Illegal Torture that the CIA Doesn’t Want You to Know About,” Atlantic, March 20, 2014.
 Michael F. Matthews, The Untold Story of Military Sexual Assault,” NY Times, November 24, 2013.
 Horace Campbell, Global NATO and the Catastrophic Failure in Libya (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2013).
 Katrina vanden Heuvel, “The Week in ‘Nation’ History: The Horrific Legacy of the Invasion of Iraq,” The Nation, March 15, 2014.
 See for example Gabi Kirk and Joey Morris, “Were Students Punished for Protesting Israel?,” Jewish Daily Forward, March 17, 2014.
 Angela Stent, The Limits of Partnership: U.S.-Russian Relations in the Twenty-First Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014), x.
 See for example Trita Parsi, Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007); A Single Roll of Dice: Obama’s Diplomacy with Iran (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012).
 Quoted in Debra Kamin, “Ex-El Al Expert: Iran Likely Involved in MH 370,” Times of Israel, March 16, 2014.
 Shamir, Masters of Discourse, 591.