What public-spirited American would not want to read a book with the provocative title that its author, Canadian journalist, Greg Felton has given it, The Host & the Parasite: How Israel’s Fifth Column Consumed America? One potential eager reader who readily comes to mind is the leader of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, as we can see from his widely attacked recent remarks before a gathering in Detroit:
“To the members of the Jewish community that don’t like me, thank you very much for putting my name all over the planet … I’m not mad at you, ’causeyou’re so stupid,” Farrakhan said.
“So when they talk about Farrakhan, call me a hater, you know they do, call me an antisemite — stop it! I’m anti-termite! I don’t know nothing about hating somebody because of their religious preference.”
Everyone raising a huge stink over Farrakhan’s remarks ignored what he actually said, particularly that last sentence, all waxing indignant over his having supposedly equated Jewish people to a particularly pernicious, edifice-destroying insect. If you look carefully at his statement, you will notice that he is simply calling attention to the same evident phenomenon that Felton is in his book. Farrakhan is addressing himself to those powerful members of the Jewish community who happen to hate him, and a major reason that they hate him so much is that he freely points out how they have abused their power in the United States. His case is not against all Jews, and certainly, as he states explicitly, it is not against those people who practice the religion of Judaism.
Recently, freshman Congresswoman, Ilhan Omar, summed up that abuse of power by saying that it was, “All about the Benjamins,” referring to the face of Benjamin Franklin on the $100 bill. Those she was attacking then proceeded to show how right she was about Jewish power by mobilizing the entire news media and political class to denounce her for her impertinence.
Compare Farrakhan’s cryptic observation from this passage from Felton:
From this vantage point, the last six years represent not the beginning of fascism but its highest expression: the September 11 attack, invasion of Iraq, torture of Arabs, demonization of bin Laden and Hussein, secret prisons, electoral fraud, warrantless domestic spying, lying to Congress, open contempt for the Bill of Rights and the rule of law—all this and more can be explained rationally as a function of a decades-long political degeneration. The republic did not spontaneously combust after September 11; it was already terminally ill. Re-establishing civil society based on the rule of law depends on healing the disjuncture between appearance and reality, and ending the government’s undeclared war on its own people. The first step in this healing lies with the acceptance that the republic is dead because only then will the American people be able to acknowledge that Israel’s fifth column is the real enemy.
That paragraph comes on pp. 480-481 as a sort of summing up of the case that he has made throughout the book. If you do the six-year addition you will notice that it was written in 2007. That was when the first edition of the book came out. We read the third, “Expanded Post-Obama” edition published in 2017. One of the book’s small shortcomings is that it seems a little dated, sort of like you’re reading old newspapers, but you are reading them with the strengthened vision that Felton supplies. The book has not had a complete reworking using the additional power of hindsight. What it has is a new final chapter entitled, “’Isramerica’ after Bush.” It’s well worth reading, but if you want to read the book while saving money but depriving the author and publisher of some well-earned money, I suppose you could just find a used copy of the 2007 or 2010 editions and update yourself by visiting the author’s website at http://www.gregfelton.com/. An even quicker update, at least on Obama, can be had be watching the video of this writer’s “Obama, the Song.”
Felton’s Excellent Insights
One might take an even greater shortcut by simply going to this writer’s short poem, “PNAC’s Mein Kampf” and then clicking on the link behind the poem’s title to watch a short video, or perhaps just watching “Waxing Indignant over 9/11 Truth.” Taking that approach, though, you would miss out on a host of insightful gems to be found throughout Felton’s brave and important book. Take, for instance, the following long quote that he has found from former Senator James Abourezk of South Dakota:
I can tell you from personal experience that, at least in the Congress, the support Israel has in that body is based completely on political fear—fear of defeat by anyone who does not do what Israel wants done. I can tell you that very few members of Congress—at least when I served there—have any affection for Israel or for its Lobby. What they have is contempt, but it is silenced by fear of being found out exactly how they feel. I’ve heard too many cloakroom conversations in which members of the Senate will voice their bitter feelings about how they’re being pushed around by the Lobby to think otherwise. In private one hears the dislike of Israel and the tactics of the Lobby, but not one of them is willing to risk the Lobby’s animosity by making their feelings public. (p. 483)
The “parasite” and the “fifth column” of Felton’s title are personified by the 16 faces that one sees in two rows plastered across the face of the book. It’s rather disconcerting to realize that the very first face on the top row is that of the man that President Donald Trump just put in charge of dealing with Venezuela, Elliott Abrams, who was convicted of lying to Congress over the Iran-Contra affair, and the second face on the second row is that of Trump’s National Security Adviser, John Bolton.
Similar to the Abourezk observation, another telling vignette that one finds in Felton’s book that reveals a great deal about Bolton’s character. It is from the testimony of US AID subcontractor, Melody Townsel, urging the Senate Foreign Relations Committee not to approve Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. The prime contractor for whom she worked in a project in Kyrgyzstan was Black, Manafort, Stone, and Kelly (Yes, that’s Paul Manafort and Roger Stone.), and their work on the project, according to Townsel, had been so abysmal that it prompted her to send a whistle-blowing letter to AID headquarters.
Within hours of sending a letter to US AID officials outlining my concerns, I met John Bolton, whom the prime contractor hired as legal counsel to represent them to US AID. And, so, within hours of dispatching that letter, my hell began.
Mr. Bolton proceeded to chase me through the halls of a Russian hotel — throwing things at me, shoving threatening letters under my door and, generally, behaving like a madman. For nearly two weeks, while I awaited fresh direction from my company and from US AID, John Bolton hounded me in such an appalling way that I eventually retreated to my hotel room and stayed there. Mr. Bolton, of course, then routinely visited me there to pound on the door and shout threats.
When US AID asked me to return to Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan in advance of assuming leadership of a project in Kazakstan, I returned to my project to find that John Bolton had preceeded me by two days. Why? To meet with every other AID team leader as well as US foreign-service officials in Bishkek, claiming that I was under investigation for misuse of funds and likely was facing jail time. As US AID can confirm, nothing was further from the truth.
He indicated to key employees of or contractors to State that, based on his discussions with investigatory officials, I was headed for federal prison and, if they refused to cooperate with either him or the prime contractor’s replacement team leader, they, too, would find themselves the subjects of federal investigation. As a further aside, he made unconscionable comments about my weight, my wardrobe and, with a couple of team leaders, my sexuality, hinting that I was a lesbian (for the record, I’m not).
When I resurfaced in Kyrgyzstan, I learned that he had done such a convincing job of smearing me that it took me weeks — with the direct intervention of US AID officials — to limit the damage. In fact, it was only US AID’s appointment of me as a project leader in Almaty, Kazakstan that largely put paid to the rumors Mr. Bolton maliciously circulated.
As a maligned whistleblower, I’ve learned firsthand the lengths Mr. Bolton will go to accomplish any goal he sets for himself. Truth flew out the window. Decency flew out the window. In his bid to smear me and promote the interests of his client, he went straight for the low road and stayed there.
John Bolton put me through hell — and he did everything he could to intimidate, malign and threaten not just me, but anybody unwilling to go along with his version of events. His behavior back in 1994 wasn’t just unforgivable, it was pathological.
I cannot believe that this is a man being seriously considered for any diplomatic position, let alone such a critical posting to the UN. Others you may call before your committee will be able to speak better to his stated dislike for and objection to stated UN goals. I write you to speak about the very character of the man.
It took me years to get over Mr. Bolton’s actions in that Moscow hotel in 1994, his intensely personal attacks and his shocking attempts to malign my character.
I urge you from the bottom of my heart to use your ability to block Mr. Bolton’s nomination in committee. (pp. 361-362. The full testimony is here.)
The foregoing episode occurred before President George W. Bush made Bolton Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. Here’s what Felton says about Bolton’s work in that capacity:
At the State Department, he was known as [Secretary of State Colin] Powell’s “minder.” Bolton reported to [Donald] Rumsfeld, [Paul] Wolfowitz and [Dick] Cheney if Powell strayed too far off the Zionist path. To all intents and purposes, Bolton was the Secretary of State and Powell an emasculated figurehead. Bolton undercut Powell’s authority as a matter of course. Most notoriously, he intercepted a State Department memo for Powell that accused Israel of violating American arms-export laws. The act in question was the July 23, 2000, assassination of Salah Shehada, a senior Hamas activist in Gaza City. Bolton even held unauthorized private meetings with Mossad and other Israeli officials, a fact that demonstrates that he was an independent agent in the state Department and did not answer to Powell. (p. 361)
Still Timely Book
Just this March 18, Wayne Madsen in an article entitled “Trump’s CIA Now Unbound and Back to Its Traditional Hijinks” showed us just how relevant Felton’s book is to today’s news, what with the important roles being played by Bolton and Abrams. Here is a relevant excerpt:
Hybrid warfare against Venezuela, which includes economic, diplomatic, and cyber, has the backing of the neo-conservatives who now call the shots for the Trump White House. They include, in addition to Pompeo, national security adviser John Bolton; Iran-Contra felon Elliott Abrams, Trump’s special envoy to the US-backed opposition-led rump Venezuelan government of Juan Guaido; Cuban-American Mauricio Claver-Carone, the senior director for Western Hemisphere affairs at the National Security Council; and Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio, a Cuban-American, who represents the interests of South Florida’s right-wing oligarch exiles from Venezuela and other Latin American countries.
Felton is at his best in taking recent history and projecting it upon the larger historical scene in his analysis the UN Security Council Resolution 662 of August 9, 1990, that served as the basis for the multinational military assault upon Iraq to force it to give up Kuwait, which it had taken by military force. That resolution demanded “that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990,” and it concluded with a resolve “to continue its efforts to put an early end to the occupation.” And we all know how that played itself out.
Here is Felton’s take on the matter as he relates it to the Six Day War in which Israel grabbed the remainder of Palestine, partitioned by the United Nations in 1948, and also Syria’s Golan Heights:
If you substitute “Israel” for “Iraq”; “Palestine” for “Kuwait”; and “5 June 1967” for “1 August 1990” you would have the essence of Israel’s occupation of Palestine, but the UN has not imposed sanctions against Israel or threatened it with military reprisals for flouting international law; in fact, the UN has done nothing but issue a blizzard of paper protests. The message is unmistakable—one form of aggression is acceptable and one is not.
For his part, President Trump recently called for the rewarding of Israel’s aggression by saying in a tweet that we should “fully recognize Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights.”
Handicapped by Liberal Partisanship
As good as he is at seeing the big picture, it is the opinion of this reviewer that his scope is not quite wide enough. I suppose that it is easy to be overwhelmed by the obvious villainy of the neocon crowd that has taken this country to war in the Middle East. Felton concludes that that has purely been for the benefit of Israel, not for control of oil supplies, but he seems to lay his blame too heavily upon the Republican Party, first upon President Ronald Reagan and later upon President George W. Bush. Felton is clearly a political liberal and his obvious preference for the Democrats over the Republicans—curious for a Canadian who really doesn’t have a dog in the fight—might be a bit off-putting for readers who happen to be of a conservative bent.
Felton marks the Ronald Reagan administration as the point of complete takeover of the American host by the Israeli parasite. In doing so, his assessment of President Lyndon Johnson seems to be altogether too benign. I gather that he is unfamiliar with Phillip Nelson’s LBJ: The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination,LBJ: From Mastermind to “The Colossus,” and, most importantly, of Remember the Liberty. One will find no account in the book of how President Dwight D. Eisenhower stood up to the Israelis, the British, and the French in the Suez Crisis. We do learn from Felton, however (pp. 124-125), that President George H.W. Bush was enough of a problem for the Israelis that they hatched a plot to assassinate him at the Madrid Conference in 1991, a plot that was spoiled by an Israeli intelligence whistleblower. Overall, though, the credit that Felton gives to the first Bush is little different from his assessment of U.S. Republicans in general.
One gets the impression from Felton that the theft of the 2000 election for Bush and Cheney was completely necessary in order for the plan for U.S. participation in the forthcoming Middle East wars on behalf of Israel to be carried out. The name of perhaps the most extreme Israel-firster in U.S. politics, Al Gore’s vice-presidential candidate, Joe Lieberman, doesn’t even appear in Felton’s index. Neither will you find there the name of the journalist whose falsehoods about Iraq were most important in providing the impetus for the invasion of Iraq, Judith Miller of the “liberal” New York Times.
The primary means by which the Israeli parasite took over the American host, one gathers from Felton, was through control of a number of think tanks, abetted by the right-wing press. What he says about the Center for Security Policy (CSP), which he informs us supplied 22 members of the George W. Bush at the very beginning, tells us a lot about his entire view of the takeover:
Whereas JINSA declares its Israeli bias up front, the CSP hides behind an innocuous, generic name. It’s little more than a reflection of [Frank] Gaffney’s simplistic, militant prejudices, and as such cannot seriously be considered a research institution. If there’s an anti-Arab, anti-UN, pro-Israeli, pro-military or obsequiously pro-Bush position, the CSP will adopt it.
The CSP is less of an independent organization than it is a recycler of writings from other Zionist sources like the National Review, American Spectator, Fox News, New York Post, frontpagemagazine.com and townhall.com. To give an example of the incestuous nature of the Zionist fronts, frontpagemagazine.com managing editor Jamie Glazov offered up a fawning interview with [Michael] Ledeen in which he affected Ledeen’s “terrorist” vocabulary and asked him leading questions to elicit the proper anti-Arab responses. At no time did Glazov identify Ledeen as a member of JINSA, yet the interview was dutifully reposted on the CSP website as if it were from an outside source. (p. 139)
As we have seen, though, the Democrats, led by Hillary Clinton, have been even more aggressively opposed to the Russian support for the Syrian government in that country’s civil war than the Republicans, and that can only be because it goes against the interests of Israel. If you watch the parade of politicians before the annual AIPAC gathering in Washington or pay any attention to the mainstream media at all, it is very hard to detect any difference between the Democratic and Republican Parties and the liberal and conservative media when it comes to complete devotion to support for the Jewish-supremacist state of Israel.
Finally, I would like to commend to the attention of readers Felton’s excellent presentation on his book to the Vancouver Public Library. He is especially good at responding to the hostile questions from the audience by Zionists. I’m not sure that I could have responded as effectively as he did. He does a little less well with friendly questioners, though. It is left up to a questioner for the subject of the Israeli assault on the USS Liberty to come up. Felton agrees with the questioner that the assault was obviously intentional, but he reveals in his answer that he does not know the real reason for the attack, what a truly evil deed it was, and how deeply involved Lyndon Johnson was in it. You can see that he seems to be unaware of what Phillip Nelson reveals about the true false-flag nature of the attack in Remember the Liberty! or even what is in my song by the same name, minus the exclamation point.