Tensions Between US/NATO & Russia Are Flaring Dangerously

News & Current Events Public News & Current Events
,
81

One of the great challenges in debating a contentious topic with people of very different viewpoints is to not move away from the main issues. 
Lets return to the central issues.   For me, these are:

1.  Is it true that the Neocon faction that faked the WMD and “close ties to Al Qaeda” lies and engineered and sold the Iraq invasion were Zionists working for the militant vision of “what is good for Israel?”

2.  That the Iraq invasion fits with the long-standing military goals of Israel such as articulated in the Oded Yinon plan.

3.  That the “War on Terror” motif seems to have been launched from Tel-Aviv by the Netanyahu Institute.

4.  That 9/11, with its novel building collapse patterns and unusual airplane crashes, came along just in time to enable the Neocon dominated white house and pentagon to sell of the GWOT story to America and the world.  This resulted in widespread destruction of MENA countries in patterns that match the Zionist/Israeli goals laid out in the decades before.

5.  That most of the American people do NOT KNOW that the Neocons are Zionist-loyal even when they hold high level American government positions, and that the ME wars that they launch match the long-term Zionist military objectives.  This information has not made it into widespread public awareness.  Why?

6.  That most of the American people do NOT KNOW that kerosene fires do not melt steel and cause buildings to fly apart in their entirety from top to bottom.  Americans believe that only crazy people doubt this story, despite 2,500 + Architects and Engineers and 400+ Professors who have said that this could not possibly happen.  How is the information flow to the public controlled?  How is such an inaccurate opinion perpetuated?

7.    What is the thought process, the morality and the structure of the thinking of those would do this?  Particularly poignant to me is one example:  Michael Chertoff, son of a rabbi and a Mossad agent, and brilliant legal scholar, who was pivotal in overseeing the implementation of the police state in America.  What is his moral framework?  Is his primary loyalty “to God” and “to Israel?”   How does the American police state fit with the Zionist vision?

Each person is invited to offer alternative explanations of how this works.

So far, I am hearing mostly destructive comments – that is finding fault with the views I have posted.  What I am requesting now, are positive alternative explanations of these 7 issues.

 

 

82

Sand Puppy, I appreciate your focus on this topic.  I want to point out an additional (somewhat complicating) factor regarding your point 4 since a different "primary loyalty to God" wacko religion was involved with that.  There are at least two wacko "primary loyalty to God” forces acting here.  The Saudi Sunni "primary loyalty to God" wackos have all the money and control politicians such as Hillary and many others with their money and coverup of the 9/11 story.  The Saudi Sunni wackos spent and spend much energy and money to go after their brand of nonbelievers and clearly are the force behind the 9/11 hijackers and US government coverup of those Saudi actors.  The airplane side of the 9/11 event is purely a  Sunni "primary loyalty to God" event.  If you listen to the story from the CIA interpreter who was the go-between between the US government and Iraq at the time (the US tried to send her to a mental hospital for permanent alteration when she decided to speak out but was interrupted by a judge, and she waited 10 years to get her story out) you will see that the other "primary loyalty to God" forces (or maybe "primary loyalty to money" individuals in the US) took advantage of the Sunni Saudis arranged 9/11 airplane flying event to finish off the buildings in a more complete way, and to launch their opportunistic adventure subsequently.  In fact, the US actors (with primary loyalty to money-God) were waiting impatiently day by day for the Saudi hijackers to do their part so that they could execute their parts.  The Sunni (primarly Saudi because their money rules) religious wackos are (and continue to be) an important force particularly in Syria, but that is another story.  

83

I'm not speaking for Sand Puppy but I am almost in disbelief at what I am reading. You seem to be suggesting that we should be giving up and burying our heads in our gardens because, shucks, there's just nothing we can do aboot it! And that the machinations of the Deep State are just some kind of interesting diversion that don't really have much relevance to our lives and that we are only pursuing it because we alas feel a "pressing need" to do so to satisfy some blame for 9/11. Well, uh, yeah… Do you not understand where Deep State is taking us? Am I misinterpreting your writings if I summarize you as suggesting that we should, "Don't Worry, Be Happy and Focus on Our Gardens"?

Firstly, I don't understand why we cannot pursue both the 3 E's as well as vigilantly investigating the Deep State. Are they mutually exclusive?

Secondly, have you no knowledge from history of what happens to societies when aggressive dictatorships (which I would classify the US state as) gain full control? The 3 P's will likely be your last concern in that scenario and based on the speed with which it is moving I think we will each be encountering limits from the Deep State far sooner than from the 3 E's.

Thirdly, I am a little aghast at how you could be suggesting that Americans should be regarding the Deep State and 9/11 as little more than an interesting diversion that we should only pursue if we feel the "pressing need" to create narratives of good guys vs. bad guys. DUDE! 9/11 was a criminal act perpetrated by "bad guys". If they weren't Muslims, which the evidence clearly reveals, then who were they??? Were they "good guys" who murdered 3000 Americans? Were they kind-of bad guys, but not truly evil, just on the slightly bad side of average, but generally overall good people who just didn't get the proper nurturing from their mommies?? DUDE! Your country was aggressively attacked! By BAD GUYS!!! Good guys don't blow up buildings and murder thousands of people. You think this isn't going to happen again??? You think you can just go hide in your garden? 9/11 was probably the most important event in US history since its birth. Your constitutional rights were snuffed out shortly after when the Homeland Security Act was swiftly brought in.

If you are so worried about searching out all human rights abuses from the far corners of the world and treating them with an even hand, then what are you doing to clear the name of Muslims being falsely accused for 9/11 and other hoaxes, since that seems to me to be about the most widespread racist bigotry I see in N America and not only is it tolerated within reason, it is actually promoted by the media to discuss Islam as a source of domestic terrorism when the evidence clearly shows that Muslims are not responsible. I guess at this point, you'll revert to the default argument that gardening is a more productive endeavour…

I would disagree. I spent a small amount of time looking into this and of all the main US media outlets I searched, they all had Jewish CEO's, all except for Fox News which has Rupert Murdock. If anyone can make a list that would be great, but I would estimate that 80% of US media is headed by Jews. Not that there's anything wrong with Jews, but when Jews represent 3% of the population but own the vast majority of the media… and the media blatantly lies to us that Muslims did 9/11 and other "terrorist attacks"… but the real evidence behind 9/11 involves Israel in a meaningful way… and Israel is the only Jewish state in the world… and the US response to 9/11 was to attack Middle Eastern Muslim states… those same Muslim states Israel also has deep frictions with… well you don't need to be Inspector Clouseau to connect the dots to realize that there is something there.

Is that bigoted? No, it is observing facts. Am I anti-Semitic? Far from it; I actually hope that this Deep State can be stopped before it destroys the world, for the sake of the 99.99% of the Jews out there who have nothing to do with it, since Jews are a varied group just like any other religion.

Why the focus on Jews? Because clearly Israel is an outside influence that has significant control over the US. You lament how this energy should also be spent exposing domestic mega-corporations and the military industrial complex. But I believe it already has. We have already exposed how corrupt American corporations are and I don't think many people out there would deny this. How many times do we need to learn about Monsanto or Haliburton or Walmart? There's really nothing new there, no major cognitive dissonance denial in the minds of the public

You can keep gardening; that's your choice. And I can observe the Israeli influence in the Deep State and pursue investigation of that. Neither of those choices makes either of us bigoted as your veiled insult suggested.

You talk of the "Big Picture"; well the Deep State is an integral part of that Big Picture because it is the Deep State that steals from every middle class person and creates artificial banker-contrived scarcity, thus fueling an unending requirement for perpetual exponential economic growth to keep the middle class fed. It is the debt-based ponzi scheme financial system that we are all enslaved to which is destroying the world (one that was set up in 1913 when the Federal Reserve and the Rothschilds gained power), and until it is dismantled there is no hope for the 3 E's in the long run. This requires dismantling of the Deep State. Either the Deep State is dismantled while we still have the 3 E's left to continue with afterwards, or we ignore it and the Deep State pushes us all to collapse.

84

Sandpuppy,

I really appreciate this post.  While I don't think developing resilient responses to limits to growth is aided very much by trying understand the particulars of the American Deep State - and indeed, our discussion of these topics on a public forum may endanger us in the medium to longer run - you are right that the primary issues here are the Deep State, 9/11 and the wars in the Middle East.

For me, it would have been easier to focus on these main issue if you had not made as many untenable - or at least very hard to prove - claims about the nature of the Jewish people/culture, but in any case, here is my first reply regarding these main issues.  Also, it is the middle of a busy work week for me, but I will answer as I have time for now, and try to give more explanation later.  My reliance on a big quote, instead of my own explanation, is partly due to my time constraints.

First, here are two questions, I think, that might underlie differences of how we might see the Deep State:

  1.  Was the Deep State designed by a specific group of people or has its development been mostly an unconscious process, sort of a drift of institutions?

  2.  To the extent that specific people or groups developed certain aspects of consciously, were these people/groups unified by a particular ethnicity or religion?

In my view, the answer to number one is that many aspects of the Deep State evolved unconsciously, but that there are certain people, events, and pieces of legislation that can be identified as key to its development.  

Here is Mike Lofgren on the unconscious nature of this process, from chapter 2 of his book The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government.

A warning, for those sensitive to being labeled as conspiracy theorists: Lofgren states that he is not convinced by conspiracy explanations.  While I disagree with some aspects of his quote - whatever conspiracy executed 9/11 has been successfully hidden in plain sight from the broad mass of people - his main point regarding unconscious evolution is still compelling, and has been, for the most part, missing from our discussions of the Deep State at PP thus far.

An Evolution, Not a Conspiracy

Yes, there is another government concealed beneath the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, tethered to but only intermittently controlled by the visible state whose leaders we nominally choose. Those who seek a grand conspiracy theory to explain the phenomenon will be disappointed. My analysis of the Deep State is not an exposé of a secret, conspiratorial cabal. Logic, facts, and experience do not sustain belief in overarching conspiracies and expertly organized cover-ups that keep those conspiracies successfully hidden for decades.

Belief in conspiracy as a systematic explanation for the functioning of a complex society is like belief in intelligent design, a pseudoscience which imagines that wisdom teeth, tonsils, and appendixes came about as the intentional result of a grand designer's infallible master plan. Mountains of empirical evidence teach us that those features arose by tiny degrees over eons as random adaptations to chance and necessity - and they are not always optimal designs: our eyes possess blind spots because they are wired backward. In the same way, mechanisms of social control evolved through historical circumstances, chance, and the peculiarities of human psychology. The Deep State, like a set of infected tonsils, is hardly an optimal design, but it became ascendant over our traditional representative democracy as a result of the gradual accumulation of historical circumstances.

[Lofgren continues by saying that both parties look similar when in office partly because of the institutional inertia and entrenched bureaucracies of the Deep State.]

This slow evolution into the Deep State is probably along the lines of what would have been expected by any observer of governmental change: the framers of the American constitution designed a constitutional republic - a government of, by, and for the people - but over time some aspects of our government have become much less democratic and accountable, even as the franchise as well as the concept of rights have both expanded.

On the other hand, there clearly are some specific people and laws that had a role in creating the Deep State.  Peter Dale Scott is the best source that I know of on this side.  He sees the Doomsday Project, also referred to as continuity of government (COG)  - originally a plan for governance in the event of a nuclear attack in which the president was killed and/or Congress was debilitated - as key in the development of the deep state.  Here is a link to an essay that Scott wrote on this.  I have not yet had time to read that essay, as my understanding of this comes from Scott's book The American Deep State: Wall Street, Big Oil, and the Attack on U.S. Democracy, but I'm guessing his argument & evidence are similar in both.

OK, that's all I have time for now, SandPuppy.  I will try to write more this weekend.

Cheers,

Hugh

85

SP-
If we stick with the subject of neocon attempts to (mis-guidedly) support the state of Israel, there is a lot of room for agreement.  The issue of morality - thats when things get a little odd.

So if we look through the five acknowledged false flag attacks, many of which were engineered by the CIA, the moral framework of those were quite clearly: "we do what we must to manufacture consent in order to achieve our policy objectives."  Ends justify the means.  Acceptable losses.  Casualties of war.  Triage.  Its all about inflicting a smaller loss now to avoid a (projected) greater loss later.

http://theantimedia.org/5-confirmed-false-flag-operations/

Same thing applies to all of the events you talk about.  If you want to ask about morality - it uses the universal morality of the military/intelligence operation in order to manufacture consent to achieve an objective.  Soviets did this, Germans/Nazis did this, US did this, UK did this, and it turns out, Israel does this too.

Let me try with Chertoff.  "If, through constructing this security state, we avoid the detonation of a single nuclear device on American soil, it will all have been worth it."

There.  Justified.  No religion involved.  Who cares if he's a rabbi's son?  Let's disagree with his policy instead of focusing on who his daddy was.

The whole "Jew" focus of yours is a total red herring, as is "ruling the world from Jerusalem" meme.  It unnecessarily distracts from the essential point: do we want to continue down the path of executing covert operations (some of which dramatically change life in the US, and kill US citizens and military personnel) in support of a wrong-headed plan to help the Israeli state?

That question alone should be our focus, for a variety of reasons.

I sure don't want to be destroying countries in a misguided attempt to make the world safe for Israel - especially when I think it actually makes the world a whole lot more dangerous overall, and more dangerous for Israel too.  Its just bad policy for everyone.

If we stick with that line, I promise, I won't be destructive.

However, if we hare off into a navel-gazing analysis of Judaism (with NONE of us being Jewish) in an attempt to "figure out why these people are so evil" - that's when I'm going to stand up and call bullshit, because that's all that approach is: its bullshit.  Or to put it more politely, it will not lead anywhere productive.

Why do I say this?  Let's go through the list of false flags:

  • Tonkin Gulf.  US Anti-communist "domino theory.".
  • COINTELPRO.  US suppression of dissent within the US.
  • Operation Ajax.  US/UK Anglo-Persian oil.
  • Operation Gladio.  US/UK Anti-communist "discredit the Reds."
  • Lavon Affair.  Israel discrediting Egypt via destroying US/UK assets.
Only one of these items has to do with the state of Israel, and they all share a common morality: do what you need to do to manufacture consent and/or make others look bad in order to achieve your larger objective.

Presumably the US/UK operatives were Christian.  Should we start exploring the Bible and Christianity in order to answer the burning question "why, oh why do these Christian people act like this?"  OMG bullshit, again.  They're covert operatives, and the ends justify the means.  That's just how they work.  Covert agents all operate in RED/BLUE, regardless of religion.  That's their world.

Same answer w.r.t. all the pro-Israeli activity.  Its all in service to support the survival of the Israeli state in a neorealist worldview where "you gotta help yourself" since there is no law and order in the international arena.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neorealism_(international_relations)

There is a large space where we agree.  If you can stifle your "fascination" with trying to find the evil allegedly inherent in Judaism, we can discuss forever whether or not this should be US policy, whether or not the policy is even a good one, whether it will achieve its objectives, what the policy happens to be, who are the players, what's coming next, and how we can best inform others as to what's going on - again, there is lots of space where we can agree.

Just from a "sales" technique - my (unsolicited) advice to you is, the LESS time you spend trying to pin the blame on a particular religious belief and some crazy-sounding "secret plan to rule the world from Jerusalem", the MORE people you will find willing to agree with you.  You'd probably get the Israeli left on your side too, FWIW.

My two cents.

 

86

Dave:  Thanks for bringing your analytical mind to the disturbing tack taken on this thread.
JT

87

Sand Puppy: here's a link to a video of psychologists, who more or less answer your final question at point 6: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxiQmtVGgcQ

88

SP has received a lot of flak for daring to ask who are the neocons? while delving into their underlying motives, loyalties, cultural affinities, religious beliefs, pyschologicial and emotional hobgoblins among other issues. Thorny issues all and one for which a thorough airing is long overdue.
Today at Mondoweiss Philip Weiss has published an important piece entitled Jewish entitlement, and Jewish populism. In it, he states

It has always been my contention that honesty about the Jewish role in the establishment is not going to spark another Holocaust: because history doesn’t repeat itself, because people already know about that presence, and because Americans have a right to discuss the sociological character of elites, especially if those elites are influencing Middle East policy, as Jeffrey Goldberg, Paul Singer  Jane Harman, Penny Pritzker, David Brooks and Richard Haass are. (Emphasis added and yes it is that Paul Singer. Such a lovely man...)
Below the article atlantaiconoclast comments:
Phillip, I greatly appreciate your comments in this article. It takes such courage for you and other Jews to speak out about this issue. I just hope other Jews like yourself realize that it is even harder for Gentiles to speak out about this issue. There is virtually no way for us to talk about this issue without being accused by someone of being “anti Semitic,” or spreading a “blood libel.” It gets old.
 

 

 

89

Just select "Ignore User" for HughK and Michael_Rudmin and most of the gatekeeping disappears. Just sayin'.

90

I honestly had to look up what gatekeeping was. I assume that wikipedia’s definition is good enough.
By all means, if your definition of gatekeeping is “one dissenting voice for each ten of groupthinkers”, by all means, turn it off.
I suppose my humor in the “books never written”, and my commentary on concrete decay, my comments on gardening, my attempts to help us improve our forecasts, my commentary on PMs, are all valueless because I do not agree with the groupthink on 9-11 or the JewzInPowr.
Ah, well. Throw a rock in a bunch of dogs and the one it hits will bark.
You said my name, so I’ll say Woof.
Let me get back to my gatekeeping now.

91

Ironically, one of the factors driving T2H's use of the ignore button, as well as Debu's desire to simplify what has been a much more complex discussion, may be the monotheistic dualism acquired inadvertently by pretty much all of us Westerners (and Middle-Easterners) - and by much of the world now that our civilization has gone global.  This dualism seems to be one of the reasons that many people an inflated sense of their own ability to distinguish truth from falsehood.

Debu, T2H, while you seemed to have stayed stuck at the same point this conversation was a few weeks or months ago - and even then it was more nuanced than you were either willing or able to notice - some of the recent posts in this thread indicate progress and development of our knowledge.  Indeed, your approaches and characteriizations seem to be designed to shut down thought and debate than any of mine.  After all, I've been quite specific about which statements seem bigoted.  You may disagree with specific points, but then address them instead of just saying, "gatekeeper!" and then closing the door to your mind.

For example, Dave and I both articulated what we objected to as well as which parts of SP's posts are more compelling.  On the other side, MarkBC, to whom I have yet to respond, has elucidated a clear argument for why discussions of the Deep State does belong here. I don't agree with everything he says, but his post has some good points - some of which I need to consider more deeply - and does give us another perspective, hence developing the conversation.  

SP asked for positive contributions in the form of other sources or alternative views of the Deep State, and I provided some.  Debu, T2H, is there no value in Lofgren or Scott's view of the Deep State?  Do you both agree with all of the statements made in this thread and others regarding Jews, to the point that you see any dissent with that as mindless gatekeeping? 

What about groupthink here at PP?  Is there ever a danger that we become our own echo chamber, and that we - me included - sometimes exhibit our own sheeple-like characteristics?  I think we can all find some examples of this at the site pretty easily, both in the realm of economy (gold!) and in politics.

The conversation is showing signs of moving forward.  However, those who press the ignore button or otherwise limit their sources of information, are probably going to be further removed from that elusive truth, stuck in an echo chamber of their own design.

The Japanese woodblock print below contains a non-dualistic view of the relationship between human perspectives and objective reality.  For any not familiar with it, here's a link to a Western poet's rendition of this Eastern story.

92
Just select "Ignore User" for HughK and Michael_Rudmin and most of the gatekeeping disappears. Just sayin'.
Troll!

Just sayin'…

 

 
93

Angel Merkel is reported in the FT today as seeing Russia as a threat. As Blair might, maybe we can blame her Intelligence people. It’s nice though that the same article quotes her foreign minister as being unimpressed.He described recent NATO exercises as " sabre rattling and war-mongering."PS Thanks Dave and HughK for all you efforts at keeping us here at PP aligned on a “middle way”.

94

By all means investigate alternative views and develop the conversation.
I welcome that as I was not suggesting monocausality for a moment. That would be absurd regarding any complex issue.

The gatekeeper problem arises when one particular line of enquiry is taboo.

My point was quite simple. Unmissable even, I had thought.

Life is full of surprises, big and small. This one would be of the latter type…

95

>> Taboo
The problem I'm seeing in all of this is not that "one particular line of enquiry is taboo", it's that other relevant lines of enquiry are being ignored. Monomania!
Point to ponder: Freedom of speech means that you can say [whatever] but it also means that .others who think differently are equally free to say so.

A person who truly believes in free speech will learn from thoughtful analysis and reasoned disagreement, not just resort to name-calling.

96

debu-

SP has received a lot of flak for daring to ask who are the neocons? while delving into their underlying motives, loyalties, cultural affinities, religious beliefs, pyschologicial and emotional hobgoblins among other issues. Thorny issues all and one for which a thorough airing is long overdue.
It is a thorny issue to be sure.

There's two levels of this.  There actual policy, and then there's the touchier stuff that has to do with people making value judgments about someone else's culture and religion.

Those too are valid things to discuss, but if you go there, you should probably come equipped with some evidence, not just personal opinion extracted from your favorite author's hiney.  So to speak.

Here's an example of the kind of evidence I'm talking about in commentary on the impact of religion and culture on politics.

Kevin Phillips in his book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Theocracy goes into great detail about the effects on policy of certain large religious sub-group within American culture who currently have immense influence over (what was formerly "his") Republican party.  Specifically, he suggests that people with End of Times beliefs have a different level of concern about earthly problems (climate change, peak resources, debt) because they are focused on the world coming to an end in the near future.  Why worry about peak oil when gotterdammerung is literally a few years down the road?  They are far more concerned with moral decay.  Makes sense - if the world ends, and a positive outcome for you depends on how moral you are, its probably a good idea to focus on being a better person.

Ok, so what's all this evidence?

 He doesn't just drag out the good bits from Revelations - he points out that an End Times novel sold some 60 million copies in the US, he references national polls that assert that a large percentage of this group believe Jesus will arrive on earth in the near future (which will bring about the end of times), he lays out the policy changes this group demands, and how that affects the ability to get Republican candidates elected nationally.  (Given he used to be very plugged in to that particular party, he brings a strong level of credibility there as well).  Plus he includes a number of quotes from currently active ministers of this faith talking about this very subject.

End Times is a central motivating myth.  It isn't hidden or secret.  Proof is easy to find, and he presents it.  And if asked, I suspect the evangelicals here at the site would be happy to lay it out for us.

So.  We get that level of evidence about Judaism and its aspects, I'm perfectly happy to talk about it because we'll be talking about facts and evidence, not about one guy's opinion.  Assuming that ends up going somewhere useful, of course.

In the meantime, why not focus on the stuff that really matters?  What these guys are doing, who they are, what they want to do next, who they are funded by, and so on.  The more people we have on board, the better - and the less we focus on the opinion-based evidence-free things that just tend to polarize, the more allies we will collect to achieve the objective.  Think: Big Tent.

Otherwise…

"If you want to join the PFJ, you'd have to REALLY hate the Romans!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WboggjN_G-4

97

Why can I not give Davefairtex more thumbs up for his above post?
i know, it does not fit with the pre-tribulation, second coming, 1611king James, dispensational, millennial reign eschatological world view…

seems a Judaic world view forgot the original mandate towards mankind was to steward the earth…it was never rescinded.

i is one, but usually christianspiss me off.

 

98

"2017 War with Russia," is of course the correct title of a book by Sir Richard Shirreff, former Assisstant Commander NATO. Sir Richard has apparently taken to writing novels for the sake of you and me that happen to get reviewed on RTE News.

99
...you should probably come equipped with evidence
Nice one, Dave. Way to keep it classy!

I don't really see a qualitative difference between the evidence SP has been offering and what you provide by way of example.

In the meantime, why not focus on the stuff that really matters?  What these guys are doing, who they are, what they want to do next, who they are funded by, and so on.
This is precisely the sort of stuff we have trying to be focus on between screams of "bigot", "monomaniac" and now from you, too "polarizing" meaning, presumably, "quiet, we mustn't frighten the children".

On the whole I find the substance your reply of bewildering and the supercilious tone unbecoming.

There is a place for a big tent approach but sometimes, especially when the stakes are high, it is necessary to ask awkward questions even we if inevitably screw up from time to time in doing so.

The attempts to browbeat those of us on our side of the argument into silence on taboo topics are getting, as others have noted, old.

100

debu-

This is precisely the sort of stuff we have trying to be focus on between screams of "bigot", "monomaniac" and now from you, too "polarizing" meaning, presumably, "quiet, we mustn't frighten the children".
Frightening the children?  I guess you really didn't get it.  Let me try a different approach.

You guys have two products you are flogging.

Product #1 is: "Neocons are causing big problems."

Product #2 is: "Jews are Evil." *

*(because of their religion - something about it makes them do evil things, and we really need to figure out exactly what it is!)

From where I sit, I believe that Product #1 is a best-selling product.  People will love it.  I love it.  I want to hear more about it.  I'm a "motivated buyer."

Product #2 is not going to sell.  Its a loser.  I do not like this product at all, I think it's a steaming pile of manure.  And, I suggest to you that most people are not going to buy this product - it will only appeal to a small, niche market.  This small subset will definitely adore it, but the vast majority of people will not.

If in your sales campaign, you persist in linking these two products together - a prospective customer will not be allowed to buy product #1 unless they also buy product #2 -  then sales of product #1 will fall to the level of product #2.  By doing this, you are essentially shooting your own marketing campaign for product #1 in the foot.  This is too bad, because product #1 has real mass market appeal.

A more clever marketing strategy might be to break up the sales campaigns of two products.  That way, each product can rise to its maximum on its own terms.

Last point.  If I were a neocon, I'd want you to do exactly what you are doing -  because that will be the easiest for them to defend against.  There's no palatable way to sell "Jews are Evil" to the wider public.  Or to me.  You are playing right into their strength.

Try hitting them where they are weak.  I'm telling you, it will work.  Try this tagline on for size: "Jews are fine, they're like everyone else - but those neocons are just fanatical nutjobs and have already caused the world a great deal of pain.  We should stamp them out."  At one stroke you strip away the neocon primary line of defense.  They don't have Jews to hide behind any longer.

Alternatively, you can keep talking about "gatekeepers", "frightening children", "taboos", "hasbara swarms" and all the other lines you guys in the in-group love to use, but if you are focused on maximizing your impact rather than scratching some personal itch, you might consider what I have suggested.

Consider this "feedback from a potential customer."