"Jews always position themselves as mediators. These nasties hold it cardinal they accredit and interpret *everything*. Nothing has worth or meaning until it's pronounced upon by a generous scoop of shit in a hate hat. Nothing must be expressed save in jewish terms. Invaders become undocumented workers. Queers become gays. Freakins become African-Americans. Attack on Iraq becomes defense of America. Nothing is legitimate save Big Kike stamp off on it.
BK doesn't like it when a Sheehan steps forward and foghorns facts to fodder. Instantly, like mosquitoes at twilight, a flock of bloodthirsty kikes appears, buzzing and sucking and whining. Have you ever noticed that it is impossible to criticize jews and keep your character? The jews have literally billions of enemies worldwide, yet not a single one of them is an honest man of laudable motive. It is impossible to carry off this charade without controlling the media and a hell of a lot of other things too. The minute jew-criticism appears, the ashkenazis and appeaser annies begin the smear. No one ever opposed a loving kike except invidiously. Smear campaigns are media control in action. There are other aspects of media control, but day in day out, making horrible shrieks and gurgles to keep the goyish herd away from the healthy green fields is the workaday business of the controllers. Jews determine which issues may be debated, and in what terms. Jews make up more than fifty percent of the experts on both sides of these tiny debates. A few vetted goyim are allowed through to keep up the charade of democratic discussion. The Internet is the only medium that prevents the illusion of popular conformity with jewthink being carried off. All that is necessary for jews to maintain control is to create a congenial if bogus reality through television and the main dailies, and relentlessly enforce this orthodoxy through smear campaigns against any who breach it.
The death of a son is one of the few motives strong enough to drive average goy fodder to breach etiquette and speak truth to kikes. She must be shut down. How to do that? You can see the jews' uncertainty. They attack her, at the same time, as both a lefty and a nazi. Illogical, but in time they'll settle on an approach. Sometimes just throwing shit and see what sticks is the best way. How dare Sheehan value her own son more than the interests of Israel?
I say my son died for LIES. George Bush LIED to us and he knew he was LYING.
And none of the thick rancid honkings Limbaugh and the freeper patriotards can gainsay it. Remember that bushy came out of manly Barbara, the wizened maw who asked why she should trouble her "beautiful mind" about the body bags coming back from Iraq. You know - the ones you never see, because they have to show you endless pictures of $440,000-compensated jews being "ethnically cleansed," sniff, yet again. Only an anti-Semite puts his own life before Israel. The jews are the one people on earth who routinely are absolved of guilt for that for which they and they alone are guilty. Isn't that odd?
The De-Zionization of the American Mind 2006-08-20
By Jean Bricmont
Americans are constantly told that they have to defend themselves against people who "hate them", but without understanding why they are hated. Is the cause our secular democracy? Our appetite for oil? There are lots of democracies in the world that are far more secular than the United States (Sweden, France...) and lots of places that want to buy oil at the best possible price (China) without arousing any noticeable hatred in the Middle East.
Of course, it is true that, throughout the Third World, Americans and Europeans are often considered arrogant and are not particularly liked. But the level of hatred that leads a large number of people to applaud an event like September 11 is peculiar to the Middle East. Indeed, the main political significance of September 11 did not derive from the number of people killed or even the spectacular achievement of the attackers, but from the fact that the attack was popular in large parts of the Middle East. That much was understood by Americans leaders and infuriated them. Such a level of hatred calls for explanation.
And there can be only one explanation: United States support for Israel. It is indeed Israel that is the main object of hatred, for reasons we shall describe, but since the United States uncritically supports Israel on almost every issue, constantly praises it as "the only democracy in the Middle East" and provides its main financial backing, the result is a "transfer" of hatred.
Why is Israel so hated? The constant stalling of "peace plans" in favor of more settlements and more war aggravates that hatred, but the basic cause lies in the very principles on which that state is built. There are basically two arguments that have justified establishing the State of Israel in Palestine: one is that "God" gave that land to the Jews, and the other is the Holocaust. The first one is deeply insulting to people who are profoundly religious, like most Arabs, but of another creed. And, for the second, it amounts to making people pay for a crime that they did not commit.
Both arguments claim that it is right for Jews, and only Jews, to set up a state in a land that would obviously be Arab, like Jordan or Lebanon, if not for the slow Zionist invasion. This is illustrated by the "law of return": any Jew, anywhere, having no connection with Palestine whatsoever, and not suffering from the slightest persecution, can, if he so wishes, emigrate to Israel and easily become a citizen, while the inhabitants who fled in 1948, or their children, cannot. Add to that the fact that a city claimed to be holy by three religions has become the "eternal capital of the Jewish people" (and only them) and one should start to understand the rage that all this provokes throughout the Arab and Muslim world.
It is precisely this [Jewish supremacist] aspect that infuriates most Arabs, even if they do not have any personal connection to Palestine. This situation delegitimizes the Arab regimes that are impotent in the face of the Zionist enemy and, after the defeat of the region's two main secular leaders, Nasser and Saddam Hussein (the latter thanks to the U.S.), leads to the rise of religious fundamentalism.
The conflict over Palestine goes beyond the second class status of Israeli Arabs or even the treatment of the Occupied Territories. Even if a Palestinian state were established on the latter, and even if full equality were granted to Israeli Arabs, the wounds of 1948 would not heal quickly. Arab leaders, even religious ones, can of course sign peace agreements with Israel, but they are fragile so long as the Arab population considers them unjust and does not accept them wholeheartedly. Palestine is the Alsace-Lorraine or the Taiwan of the Arab world and the fact that it is impossible to take it back does not mean that it can be forgotten . (I am not arguing here in favor of "wiping Israel off the map", or in favor of a "one state solution" but simply underlining what seems to me to be the root and the depth of the problem. In fact, I am not arguing for any solution partly because none seems to me to be attainable in the short term, but, more fundamentally, because I do not think that outsiders to the Middle East should propose such solutions.)
There is no sign that any of this is understood in Israel by more than a few individuals; if Arabs hate them, this is just another instance of the fact that everybody hates Jews and it only proves that they have to "defend themselves" (i.e. attack others pre-emptively) by any means necessary. That is bad enough, but why isn't this understood in the United States either? There are traditionally two answers to that: one is that the population is manipulated into supporting Israel by the government, the arms merchants or the oil industry, because Israel is a strategic U.S. ally; the other answer is that the United States is manipulated by the Israel lobby. The idea that Israel is a strategic ally, if by that one means a useful ally (useful to, say, the oil interests, broadly understood), although widely accepted, specially in the Left, does not survive a critical examination. That may have been the case in 1967 or even during the Cold War period, although one could argue that, even then, the Arab states were attracted by the Soviet Union only because it might support them in their struggle against Israel, albeit ineffectively. But both in 1991 and in 2003, the United States attacked Iraq without any help from Israel, even begging Israel not to intervene in 1991, in order for its Arab coalition not to collapse. Or consider the post-2003 occupation of Iraq, and suppose that the goal of that occupation is control over oil. In what sense does Israel help in that respect? Everything it does (the currents attacks on Gaza and Lebanon for example) further alienates the Arabs, and U.S. support for Israel makes the control of oil harder, not easier. Even the Iraqi parliament, Malaki and Sistani, who are the closest to allies that the United States can find there, condemn Israel's actions.
Finally, just imagine that the United States would make a 180 [degree] turn and suddenly side with the Palestinians, as they did with the Kosovars against the Serbs. Such a change of policies is by no means impossible: when Indonesia invaded East Timor in 1975, the US supported the invasion by providing most of Indonesia's weapons. Yet, 25 years later, the U.S. supported, or at least did not oppose, East Timor's accession to independence.
What effect would that have? Can anyone doubt that such a change of policy would facilitate U.S. access to oil fields and help it gain strategic allies (if any were still needed) throughout the Muslim world? In the Middle East, the main charge against the United States is that it is pro-Israel, because it lets itself be "manipulated by the Jews". Therefore, if Washington switched sides, there would be no more basis for hostility to U.S. presence, including its control over oil. Thus the notion of Israel as "strategic ally" makes no sense. This leads us to the "Israel lobby" answer, which is closer to the truth, but not the whole truth. To get a complete picture, one has to understand why the lobby works as effectively as it does, and that depends on factors lying outside the actions of the lobby itself. After all, the militant Zionists constituting the lobby are a minority among Jews, who themselves form a small minority of the American population. The Israel lobby does not work like other lobbies, for example, the arms and the oil industry lobbies (which is one of the reasons why it is easy to dismiss it as irrelevant, as long as one does not understand how it really exerts its influence).
Of course, like the latter, the Israel lobby does fund electoral campaigns and its power derives in part from its ability to target people in Congress who deviate from its "line". But if that were all, it could be easily defeated -indeed. There are other sources of electoral funding, the big industrial lobbies for example, and if the pro-Israel candidates could be shown to be paid to serve the interests of another state, their opponents could denounce the people who receive money from the lobby as some sort of agents of a foreign power. Just imagine a pro-French, pro-Chinese or pro-Japanese lobby that would try to significantly influence the U.S. Congress. Certainly, money alone cannot suffice.
What protects the Israel lobby is the fact that anyone who would denounce an opponent funded by the Lobby as a quasi-agent of a foreign power would immediately be accused of anti-Semitism. In fact, imagine that big business is unhappy with the current U.S. policies (as it well may be) and wants to change them-how could they do it? Any criticism of lobby influence on U.S. policy would immediately trigger the anti-Zionism-is-anti-Semitism accusation.
So the strength of the Israel lobby resides in part in this second line of defense, which itself is linked to its influence on the media. But even that could easily be defeated-not all the media are under the lobby's influence, and, more importantly, the media are not all-powerful: in Venezuela, they are anti-Chavez, but Chavez regularly wins elections. In France, the media were overwhelmingly in favor of the "yes" vote to the referendum on the European Constitution, yet the "no" won. The problem-and this is why the Israel lobby is so effective, is that it expresses a world view that is accepted too easily by too many Americans. After all, nothing could be more ridiculous than accusing someone of anti-Semitism because he wants or claims to put America's interests above those of Israel. Yet, the accusation is likely to be effective, but only because years of ideological brainwashing have predisposed people to consider U.S. and Israeli interests as identical-although instead of "interests" one speaks of "values".
"Knowing who did the terrorism of September 11 is important, but why they did it is even more important.
Yet, strangely, there has been little discussion in the mass media on why the attack occurred. Politicians and media personalities have given us completely inadequate explanations why a couple of dozen young men would blow themselves up to get at us. In fact, they have told us absurd lies to keep Americans from understanding the real reason for the attacks.
We have been told that the attackers were simply crazy, cowardly men who committed a quote "unprovoked attack." Media and government spokesmen repeatedly assured us that these attacks had "nothing to do with America's support of Israel." The official view, as expressed by the President to the U.S. Congress, was that the terrorists attacked us because they hate our freedom! Here is an excerpt of his remarks before Congress
"Americans are asking, "Why do they hate us?"
"They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms."
I am not trying to be disrespectful, but what he said is so ridiculous that even this intellectually challenged President cannot really believe it. Does Bush really think that a bunch of young men would give up their families, their homes, and immolate themselves in a huge ball of fire simply because they hate our democracy! Right on Mr. President! Next week, will we will hear about Islamic kamikazes crashing planes into Iceland, the oldest enduring democracy on earth.
Mr. Bush is asking America to support a massive war over the next ten years. We are being asked to support a massive conflict whose huge costs could well bankrupt America and cause the loss of great numbers of American lives. Before we can make such a crucial decision, we deserve to have the whole truth concerning this cataclysmic event.
Of course, Mr. Bush did not tell us the truth; he simply repeated the Big Lie put out by the American mass media.
Saying that these acts were born out of hatred for freedom is a calculated lie to divert us from associating this disaster with our support for Israel.
You see, associating the attack with our Israeli policy would be bad public relations for Israel and the Jewish Lobby. The last thing they want is for the American people to realize that our unconditional support of Israel has directly led to this disaster.
If the American people clearly understand that fact, people might begin to ask a similar question to the one asked by Leslie Stahl, "Is our support of Israel really worth it?"
To keep people from asking that obvious question, the media made up the Big Lie that the men of October 11 were simply crazy, cowardly people who hated freedom and democracy!
Many Americans suspect that Jews have disproportionate influence in the press, but their actual power is more than most people imagine. If you want documented proof of their enormous media power, just go to my web page, www.davidduke.com and read the "Who Runs the Media?" chapter from my book, My Awakening. (Located at http://www.davidduke.com/awakening/chapter19_01.html)
Just as Jewish Israel-Firsters dominate the mass media, so the Israeli Lobby afflicts Congress and the President. It should anger every American to think that the most powerful lobby in Congress is in the service of a foreign nation. Yet, the immense power of the Jewish Lobby is a proven fact, and nobody on Capitol Hill will dare defy this all-powerful lobby. Even one of the most powerful U.S. Senators in American history, William Fulbright, bluntly said on CBS's Face the Nation, that, "Israel controls the U.S. Senate."
Recently, a Hebrew Israeli radio station, Kol Yisrael, on October 3rd reported that during an argument in an Israeli cabinet meeting, Shimon Peres warned Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that unless he would heed American requests for a cease fire with the Palestinians, he could cause America to turn against Israel. In a fit of anger, Sharon responded to Peres:
"Every time we do something, you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." (2)
The media bosses and the Israel-bought politicians know the real reasons behind this terrorism. They have read the interviews of Osama Bin Laden. He and almost every other Islamic opponent of America has put support for Israel at the top of their top ten reasons for hating America. Bin Laden and countless millions in the Muslim world regard the attacks on Lebanon, on Iraq, on Libya, on Iran, on Afghanistan and on Sudan as a direct result of Israel's control over America.
They point out that the many Israeli massacres of Palestinians, the ongoing torture of thousands of prisoners, the use of assassination of political enemies, the bombing of refugee camps, and the expansive wars launched by Israeli's against their Arab neighbors; that all these Israeli crimes are completely dependent on unconditional American aid. They also see the deaths of the 500,000 Iraqi children, as admitted by our former Jewish Secretary of State, as a direct result of Jewish control of America.
The American people, who are under the bombardment of a biased multimedia, might not realize the Jewish control of American foreign policy, but the Palestinians and their allies such as Bin Laden, all understand it; and they hate us for it.
In fact, the same mass media that are giving out the Big Lie that the terrorist motivation is "hate for freedom," are clearly aware of Bin Laden's real motivations.
I can easily prove the true motivation of bin Laden and I can prove the media has known the truth all along. In May of 1998 reporter John Miller of ABC interviewed Bin Laden. Bin Laden talks about why he seeks to attack America. You can find it on the ABC and the PBS web sites. Here are excerpts of bin Laden's own words.
"For over half a century, Muslims in Palestine have been slaughtered and assaulted and robbed of their honor and of their property. Their houses have been blasted, their crops destroyed.
"This is my message to the American people: to look for a serious government that looks out for their interests and does not attack other people's lands, or other people's honor. And my word to American journalists is not to ask why we did that but ask what their government has done that forced us to defend ourselves."
"So we tell the Americans as people, and we tell the mothers of soldiers and American mothers in general that if they value their lives and the lives of their children, to find a patriotic government that will look after their interests and not the interests of the Jews."
I say to them that they have put themselves at the mercy of a disloyal government, and this is most evident in Clinton's administration. We believe that this administration represents Israel inside America. Take the sensitive ministries such as the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense and the CIA, you will find that the Jews have the upper hand in them. They make use of America to further their plans for the world.
In the interview, bin Laden never said one word about opposing democratic principles, nor has he ever done so in his lifetime. So, now we know Laden's true motivation. He attacked us not because he "hates democracy", but because he thinks Israel controls and uses America to attack his people."
David Duke
(1) THE SUNDAY MAIL (2001) Sept. 16 (2) Israeli Hebrew radio, Col Yisrael Wednesday
Uh-huh wrote: > If they're that easily brainwashed it doesn't say much for U.S. > troops, does it? > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/06/allen-west-gop-candidate_n_3... > I might add, hoards of al Qaeda are lying just offshore waiting for > the signal to invade the homeland! > I love this kind of stuff...
xxxx If you thought it was true you would shit your baggy pants full.
Falluja, Baghdad, Ramadi, Nasiriya - an entire people has risen to confront the colonial occupation army, its mercenaries, clients, and collaborators. First in massive peaceful protests, they were massacred by US, British, Spanish and Polish troops: Bare hands against tanks and machineguns. The armed resistance, in the beginning a minority now indisputably the most popular force, backed by millions. The colonial armies, fearful of every Iraqi, shoot wildly into crowds and retreat; they encircle whole cities, fire missiles into crowded working class neighborhoods, helicopters pour machinegun fire into homes, factories, mosques...
In the eyes of the colonial soldiers, the enemy is everywhere. For once they are right. The resistance resists, every block, every house, every store rings out with gunfire, the resistance is everywhere. Every house takes hits, the resistance fight on. The people aid the wounded fighters, wash their wounds. They provide water to the thirsty to quench their parched throats and cool their hands - the automatic weapons are hot.
And where are the western mercenaries? The $1,000 dollar a day hired guns with their flak vests, dark glasses, --their swagger and insolence have disappeared. They too have seen the charred bodies of their ex-partners of death.
Hundreds of Iraqis have been killed, thousands have been injured, many more will die but after each funeral tens of thousands more, the peaceful, apolitical, "wait and see" ones have taken up the gun. 'It's a civil war', brays the bourgeois press. This is wishful thinking. Shia and Sunni are in this together, brothers in arms, each covering their comrades' backs as they confront the tanks. And the resistance is winning. Never mind the "proportions" - five or ten or twenty Iraqis for each colonial soldier. The Iraqi Resistance has won politically: No appointed official has any future : They exist as long as the US military remains but they will flee from the rooftops of their bunkers as the US withdraws.
Militarily, the US and the mercenaries are taking thousands of casualties - scores of deaths and wounded everyday. In Washington, the civilian militarists, the architects of the destruction of Iraq are panicking. "Send more troops!" say Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and the would-be president Kerry. From his Texas ranch, Bush proclaims the resistance leader Moqtada Sadr a "killer". Far from the fire, the mayhem, the massacres, his television doesn't show the child with the mangled face. Bush once again is far from the killing fields - Vietnam and now Iraq. Now he can claim a draft deferment - he is nominally the President who unilaterally declared the end of the war in May 2003. Now, April 2004 there are more than 600 dead US soldiers as the Iraqi resistance rose to meet Bush's challenge "Bring them on" and took the streets from the colonial army, then they came on and conquered the cities and with sheer courage and absolute determination they hold their ground.
The "Arabs" resist, while the overstuffed cabbage Sharon is silent. His once loquacious agents, Wolfowitz, Feith, Abrams and their underlings are strangely silent. Are they worried that there might be a mass backlash against those who cooked the data to get the US into a war in which thousands of US soldiers will die and be maimed - in order to "protect" Israel's undisputed claim to dominance in the Middle East?
In the early spring of 2004, in April to be exact, the dreams of a new colonial empire came crashing down on the masterminds of the New World Order, an undisputed, unilateral Empire. The end of the Sharon-Wolfowitz-Blair-Chaney "Greater Mid-East Co-Prosperity Sphere". The Iraqi resistance has turned the Rumsfeld- Wolfowitz dream of a series of wars against Syria, Iran, Cuba, and North Korea into a nightmare of bloody street battles on every block in Fallujah and Sadr City, Baghdad.
The heroism, the valor, the inspiration, the mass resistance is all the more so as the Iraqi people draw on their resources, their own solidarity, their own history, their belief that they will be free or take down every colonial soldier as they fight to the death. The phrase "Patria o Muerte" takes on a special and very specific meaning in Iraq: It is not a slogan of a leader, a vanguard, to arouse and inspire the people - it is the living practice of a whole people. Patria or Muerte comes out of the mouths of teenage street fighters as well as street venders and widows with black scarves. The "Iraqi April Days" are a lesson to for the whole Third World and other would-be imperial colonialists: Mass armed resistance cannot be politically or militarily defeated. The heroism of the Iraqi resistance stands in stark contrast to the cowardly self-styled Arab leaders: The Jordanian and Saudi monarchs, the garrulous corrupt "President for Life". Not one has moved a finger to aid the Iraqi national liberation struggle. They fear the example of the successful Iraqi resistance will light a fire under their ample buttocks..
> Falluja, Baghdad, Ramadi, Nasiriya - an entire people has risen to > confront the colonial occupation army, its mercenaries, clients, and > collaborators.
Exposing the Real Racists Edgar Johnston, PhD. reviews an important new book Jewish Supremacism by David Duke. Published by Free Speech Press, 2003
More than 500,000 copies of 'Jewish Supremacism' have been sold worldwide. It is even sold within the Russian Duma (parliament).
Jewish leaders are extremely fearful of this book. I can illustrate the cause of their concern by giving an example of David Duke's technique in exposing what he calls Jewish supremacism. If any prominent political person in the Western World publicly announced that Jews are frequently disloyal to nations where they live and that they view Gentiles as racially inferior, he would face excoriation as an 'anti-Semite'. Probably, he would be driven from office. Duke has no need to make such claims, for he simply quotes very prominent and powerful Jews who make his point for him. FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH
In the first few pages of Jewish Supremacism, Duke quotes Dr. Steinlight, a former head of National Affairs for the largest Jewish organisation in the United States. Here is the quotation taken from a 2001 magazine article written by Dr. Steinlight:-
'I'll confess it at least, like thousands of other typical kids of my generation I was reared as a Jewish nationalist, even a quasi-separatist. Every summer for two months of ten formative years... I attended Jewish summer camp. There, each morning, I saluted a foreign flag, dressed in a uniform reflecting its colours, sang a foreign national anthem, learned a foreign language... and was taught the superiority of my people to the 'Gentiles' who oppressed us. 'We were taught to view non-Jews as... people less sensitive, intelligent and moral than ourselves.'
This method of quoting major Jewish figures and sources is used hundreds of times in Duke's book to advance his thesis that there is a powerful Jewish supremacist element in Judaism and Zionism that threatens not only the freedom of the Palestinian people but all nations, including the United States.
Duke also uses direct quotes from the Talmud and other major Jewish sources, such as the Jewish Encyclopedia to expose a long-standing cadre of hateful, anti-Gentile Jewish supremacists. Shocking quotes are displayed from major Jewish magazines that boast of a Jewish supremacy over the media and politics of the United States. He finds disturbing and hateful words from Jewish leaders, such as Ariel Sharon, which openly support genocide, and he reveals quotations from Israeli leaders who equate Zionism and Nazism. Of course, he also cites many prominent Gentiles of historical and contemporary times, but the Jewish quotations and sources have the greatest power. Frankly, they are so convincing that Jewish leaders have sought to get the book banned in many nations.
Interestingly, Jewish Supremacism was published first in Russia, the same nation that gave birth to The Protocols of Zion. In 2000 it quickly became a best seller throughout the entirety of the former Eastern bloc. It even sells briskly in the corridors of the Russian Duma (Parliament) and has prompted Levinsky, Goldman and other leading Jews to seek its ban under old Soviet laws forbidding 'anti-Semitism'. In the Autumn of 2000, Levinsky and others filed a formal complaint to the Russian Prosecutor General and asked for the book to be classified as anti-Semitic and thus illegal. After a year of close examination (they painstakingly verified all 669 of the documentations), the Russian Government shocked the Jewish community by officially declaring that the book is not anti-Semitic. Jewish members of the Duma then introduced new legislation aimed at outlawing 'Jewish Supremacism', but it failed by a few votes.
Since then, the book has been sold in thousands of street corners across the breadth of the Russian Federation and has now topped an incredible 500,000 in print.
Translated into most of the Eastern European languages, the book has won Duke many academic awards for its scholarship, including an honorary Doctorate awarded by President's University, the second largest university in the nation of Ukraine.
Subsequently the university itself published a best-selling Ukrainian edition. In May of 2003, Free Speech Press published the English version of Jewish Supremacism, accompanied by a storm of interest and controversy. Jewish leaders are horrified that it is well on its way to becoming the best-read book in the world on Zionism.
SMEARS BACKFIRED
Although Zionist organisations have tried to use Duke's media characterisation as a 'white supremacist' to discredit his book, so far their exploitation of his early-life involvement in a KKK group has only backfired by making the book and its author more newsworthy. Attacks by the ADL and other pro-Zionist groups have led to sensationalist news coverage, causing even greater interest and confounding those who desperately wanted Duke's book to die a quiet death.
David Duke decries the label of white supremacist and says that while he certainly desires the preservation of his own heritage he seeks no supremacy over others. He maintains that those who scream most hatefully against him are themselves guilty of the most extreme and powerful supremacism on earth: Jewish supremacism.
When Duke lectured in some Persian Gulf nations last year, Zionist leaders attempted to undercut his support by allegations of 'racism'. Those organised efforts had little affect on the overflow, mixed-race audiences that cheered almost his every word. As a former university professor and a writer who has lectured occasionally on behalf of the people of Palestine, I approached David Duke's book out of a curiosity elicited by the intense Zionist efforts to suppress it. Actually, I had readily accepted the negative portrayals of him I had read in the Jewish press, but I wanted to see what all the commotion was about. Why were they so anxious to ban this book and slander its author? To my great surprise I discovered a most amazing book!
David Duke stated that he had set out with the ambitious goal of writing the most powerful expose of Zionism ever put into print. With extreme scepticism of his ability to accomplish such a lofty goal, I began to read. Three days later, as I turned the last page, I knew that he had accomplished more than he dreamed. Rather than just assembling his facts in a dry textbook fashion, David Duke presents his thesis in the first person. It is the personal narrative of a thoughtful and enlightened young man who is sympathetic to Zionism, but is awakened to its supremacist core that not only threatens the Palestinians but his own beloved European-Americans as well. I could not find even a trace of hatred, intemperance or true anti-Semitism in this book. However, by extensive quoting of important Jewish leaders and Zionist source materials, Duke exposes a deep well of Jewish supremacist hatred against Gentiles. He points out that one is unfairly labelled an 'anti-Semite' simply for exposing the hateful pronouncements of Jewish supremacists.
ABSOLVES SOME JEWS
The book is clearly not anti-Semitic. Duke goes at length to point out that not all Jews are supremacists, and that the supremacists not only endanger the Gentile world but threaten innocent Jews by exposing them to an inevitably hostile Gentile reaction. The book is in fact dedicated to the late Dr. Israel Shahak, a Holocaust survivor and Israeli peace activist whose life was dedicated to saving both Jews and Gentiles from the dangers of 'Jewish supremacism'. David Duke cleverly turns the term 'anti-Semitic' on its head by quoting columnist Joseph Sobran's remark that the 'anti-Semite' is no longer someone who dislikes Jews; he is now simply a person whom the Jews don't like.
Jewish Supremacism begins with David Duke's first great epiphany on the Jewish question: his learning that the Russian Revolution wasn't Russian but overwhelmingly Jewish. Using powerful documentary evidence, he shows that the Bolshevik Revolution was actually financed and led by Jews who had their own agenda against the Czar. He quotes from familiar and impeccable sources such as Winston Churchill, the dispatches of the American ambassador to Russia, the chief of British Intelligence and copious Jewish sources. For instance, he quotes a report from the National Archives of the United States showing that of the 384 members of the first Bolshevik government, there were more than 300 Jews and only 13 ethnic Russians.
How could such an enormous fact of history be hidden? Duke asks. His rhetorical question is answered throughout the rest of this book by giving the clear evidence of the tremendous power exercised by Jewish supremacists in government, media and the academic establishment. Not only has the pre-eminent Jewish role in the Bolshevik Revolution and its Gulags been quietly suppressed, but also even the very existence of Jewish supremacism has been kept from public awareness. One can freely discuss the evils of white supremacism, but if one dares to expose Jewish supremacism, one will assuredly be labelled an 'anti-Semite', the ultimate term of opprobrium in modern society. In very effective arguments, Duke points out that one is not called 'anti-Christian' for exposing the excesses of the Inquisition or 'anti-Muslim' for opposing the intolerance of some extremist Moslem sects. But dare simply to quote the hateful statements of important leaders of Judaism and Zionism, and in many countries one could well wind up in prison for 'hate speech'.
One of the fascinating themes to which David Duke repeatedly turns is the easily documented Jewish supremacist strategy of fostering extreme chauvinism among their own people while at the same time working to break down the group loyalty of the Gentiles among whom they live. Jewish leaders have long made clear that Jewish communities often have agendas that conflict with their Gentile hosts. Duke describes the struggle over those agendas as similar to
...
|
