← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · xmetalhead

Thread 359

Thread ID: 359 | Posts: 19 | Started: 2002-04-03

Wayback Archive

xmetalhead [OP]

2002-04-03 18:46 | User Profile

David Duke Online Radio Report 03/24/2002

What is Anti-Semitism?

Jewish Supremacist Chutzpah knows no bounds. But, when you are the supreme people, the superior people, God's Chosen people, normal rules don't apply to you.

It is perfectly acceptable to criticize any nation on the earth for its errors and wrongs, but lo and behold, don't you dare criticize Israel; for if you do that, you will be accused of the most abominable sin in the modern world, the unforgivable sin of anti-Semitism!

Ruth Wisse, professor of Yiddish literature at Harvard University wrote a very revealing letter in the Harvard newspaper the Crimson. We should not be surprised to learn that she and the major Jewish publication, Commentary, now declare that any criticism of Israel constitutes anti-Semitism and therefore represents genocide. She basically says in the article that any student or professor at Harvard who dares to criticize Israel is anti-Semitic and then goes on to say, well, I will just quote to you from her article. This is from Ruth Wisse, Harvard Crimson February 25, 2002:

"…Aggression against the Jews is the common denominator of many of the greatest tyrannies of the modern age, and the epidemic of anti-Semitism in Arab lands is all too disturbing evidence of the drift of their political culture.

"To be sure, those who blame Israel for the aggression against it usually deny that they are anti-Jewish. They say that they are merely anti-Israel and anti-Zionist, not against the Jewish people as such. But as Hillel Halkin sums it up in the latest issue of Commentary, "Israel is the state of the Jews. Zionism is the belief that the Jews should have a state. To defame Israel is to defame the Jews. To wish that it never existed, or would cease to exist, is to wish to destroy the Jews."…

So, now we know that criticizing Israel is quote "anti-Semitism" and thus is morally equivalent to the so-called holocaust in Nazi Germany. Jews and Israel must never ever be criticized, no matter what crime is committed, no matter how one might feel the need to speak out.

We learn that to criticize the campaign of terror and ethnic cleansing that drove 800,000 Palestinians from their homes, businesses, and farms during the creation of Israel is "anti-Semitism."

That to criticize hundreds of Israeli massacres of unarmed men, women and children, such as at Dier Yassin and the Sabre and Chatila massacre in Lebanon, is "anti-Semitism."

That to criticize the thirty-year, brutal military occupation of the West Bank and its 1.5 million people is anti-Semitism.

That to criticize the Israeli torture of over 100,000 Palestinians in their prisons is "anti-Semitism."

That to criticize Israel for firing thousands of missiles over the last few years into crowded cities and refugee camps is anti-Semitic."

That to criticize the repeated Israeli spying against and damaging of the United States of America as in the Jonathan Pollard case, is just anti-Semitism.

That to criticize the Israeli terrorism against the United States in the Lavon Affair and the murderous attack on the USS Liberty is "anti-Semitism."

Jewish supremacists such as Ruth Wisse think that they are the new Gods, and that any criticism of them and the supremacist state of Israel is equivalent to blasphemy and heresy!

Such an attitude exposes the powerful Jewish Supremacism that threatens not only Palestinian life and freedom, but also our own, for supremacists such as professor Ruth Wisse of Crimson are attempting to make legitimate criticism of Israel considered the moral equivalent to genocide and thus beyond consideration by thinking Americans. It is really disheartening to consider the current state of the American media and culture.

Jewish Supremacists and Israeli Partisans thoroughly dominate our major media. They can blackmail any politician or public figure into silence. But this supremacy is not enough for them, now they seek to make any criticism of Israel the equivalent to a great moral sin. When will the American people wake up? When will we break this Jewish supremacist stranglehold on the American media and on the American mind?

In the recently revealed Richard Nixon tapes, Billy Graham is quoted as saying that the Jewish stranglehold on the American media is destroying the country. Nixon completely agrees but warns Graham not to ever publicly say anything about it. Of course not, for obvious reasons, because they knew that by discussing it publicly, they would bring upon their heads the unbridled wrath of that Jewish supremacist power.

But if Graham and Nixon truly believed the obvious facts of the terrible damage caused by Jewish Supremacy in the media, not to speak out openly against it, considering their own great influence and respect, displayed a great moral failing on their part.

Whatever flaws I may have, I will continue, as I have all my adult life, to speak honestly and openly about Jewish supremacism. Doing so has caused me to be branded as Professor Wisse suggests, an anti-Semite, a term I disagree with and greatly object to. And I have suffered much hardship as well as political, and government persecution because of my stance.

But, unless we men and women of honor begin to speak out, far more people than the Palestinians will suffer from Jewish supremacism. American lives and interests will continue to fall to terrorism such as occurred on 9-11, a terrorism born from treasonous American officials who have put supporting Israel's criminal actions above the true interests of the American people.

Professor Wisse should be very careful in her pronouncements, for if legitimate criticism of Israel has become quote "anti-Semitic," then millions of Americans and other people around the world will no longer fear that term and it will have lost all meaning. In fact, I think the term, has already lost its meaning.

Joe Sobran put it very well when he said that anti-Semite used to be a term denoting those who don't like Jews, now it more aptly describes those people whom the Jews don't like.

Until next time, this is David Duke sharing my most recent thoughts with you.

Home

Texas Dissident

2002-04-03 20:02 | User Profile

With my not having any real knowledge of Mr. Duke outside of the media's portrayal of him as the devil incarnate of the Cajun KKK, I must admit that the tone and ideas expressed in this piece are relatively tame.  He says nothing here that I would not expect to read from a Sobran, Reese or Buchanan, all of whom I admire greatly and consider quintessential paleo-conservatives.

As regards to Jewish influence in our society, I must admit my being impressed by the works of Kevin McDonald.  Perhaps the greatest single event that brought me to the point of even talking about it was the cruel, incessant slandering of Patrick J. Buchanan as an anti-semite during his respective presidential campaigns.  I never saw a reason for such libel directed towards that American patriot and even other great America Firsters like Charles Lindbergh.

With the current events in the Middle East the way they are and the very real potential of more American blood being spilt, as an American citizen I dang well believe we ought to be able to at least talk about such things without provacateurs and agents of foreign influence shutting down all discussion with shrill cries of anti-semitism over the slightest criticism of the actions of the state of Israel.

xmetalhead

2002-04-03 20:08 | User Profile

Texas Dissident, I've had a similiar awakening as you did over the "controversy" over Pat Buchanan many years back. If you want to learn more about David Duke go to: http://www.davidduke.com I highly recommend it, the guy is a genius.

amundsen

2002-04-04 12:42 | User Profile

**Quote** (Texas Dissident @ April 03 2002,16:02)
With my not having any real knowledge of Mr. Duke outside of the media's portrayal of him as the devil incarnate of the Cajun KKK, I must admit that the tone and ideas expressed in this piece are relatively tame.  He says nothing here that I would not expect to read from a Sobran, Reese or Buchanan, all of whom I admire greatly and consider quintessential paleo-conservatives.** Yes, it seems he, like the others, has been demonized.  Most of what I've read by him seems very reasonable and not even anywhere close to being 'hateful.'  So I've always wondered what wrongs did he commit?  As far as I know he was only a leader of the Klan.  I'm unaware of him ever being accused of assault, rape, or murder.  Am I wrong?  If not, this certainly gives him a more moral standing then the average US Congressmen.  If he has never assaulted someone then he is merely being smeared for what he believes in this land of freedom of belief (if you believe what we tell you to believe).   Moreover, where is the Christian compassion for this man?  Where is the acceptance of his repentance from what he did in his youth?  We are told we have to forgive murders every day.   Especially if they did so because of their upbringing.  Heck, we are supposed to forgive Klinton for getting oral sex from a woman, not his wife, in the oval office.  We are to forgive him for a 'victimless' crime.  We are to forgive him immediately after the fact (ignoring that it is not ours to forgive his tresspass, but his wife's, we can forgive his lying of course). Even though he clearly lied to his wife and had done this before, frequently, and lied about it.  But Mr. Duke must forever be punished for his beliefs.  He can never be forgiven. Some people assume that reading Duke makes you agree with him.  What would be the reaction of the average American who sees you reading Duke?  They'd think you are a hateful racist.  Guess what, I have Karl Marx on my bookshelf.  I read him.  I think he is a nutcase trying to justify robbery, who is barely coherent.  I dont agree with him at all and I'm certainly not a communist.  Yet no one would be shocked to see him on my bookself.  No one would call me a communist for having his book.  He is acceptable.  This tells us much about our society and where it stands.    :( By the way, I got Duke's latest book, 'My Awakening.'  I'm way behind in reading so his is not likely to be read for a month or so.  But I have to say the cover looks great.  He is in a suit looking very confident and strong.  But the back cover shows him sitting casually on a tree trying to look more soft, casual, and dare I say vulnerable.  I dont like it at all.  We need more unyielding men we have enough men with soft sides in our country today. --- ### mwdallas *2002-04-04 20:09* | [User Profile](/od/user/81)
**Quote**
With my not having any real knowledge of Mr. Duke outside of the media's portrayal of him as the devil incarnate of the Cajun KKK, I must admit that the tone and ideas expressed in this piece are relatively tame.  ** I got banned from Free Republic [sic] simply for asking what Duke advocated that was so outrageous.  Like you, I really didn't know, but I also wanted to point out the way so many "conservatives" at FR buy into the propaganda they are fed by the same communications media they recognize as very "liberal".  No one could point to anything, either because there isn't anything or because they simply accepted the media's portrait.  Sure, he did apparently dress up in Nazi outfits in his youth, but Podhoretz & Kristol were genuine Commies, Reagan was a Leftie, Clinton was a rapist, etc. -- and all is forgiven unless you oppose the anti-white racial agenda.
**Quote**
As regards to Jewish influence in our society, I must admit my being impressed by the works of Kevin McDonald.  ** Like MacDonald, I started out as a left-liberal (a classic deformed Protestant of the Lutheran stripe) and attended college at one of the most radical campuses in the US.  Like MacDonald, I got to look behind the curtain and see who was pulling the levers.  I noticed that the campus radicals had no concern for blacks, the poor, or whomever they were purportedly militating on behalf of.  It seemed they simply desired power for power's sake, though none of them -- individually -- seemed particularly power-hungry.  At that point, I rejected the Left and turned rightward.  I knew I was onto something, but I did not fully understand what I had witnessed until MacDonald connected the dots for me.   A usenet post touting MacDonald's SAID got my attention, and, I must say, all of his theories dove-tail with my empirical observations, history, and current events.  Truly, the most amazing work I've ever read.  Whites are notoriously non-ethnocentric, but if another race is attacking, it is my right -- indeed my duty -- to react in self-defense. --- ### mwdallas *2002-04-04 20:16* | [User Profile](/od/user/81) From Amundsen, the Tar Heel:
**Quote**
We need more unyielding men we have enough men with soft sides in our country today.** I'll take Danny Ford over Matt Doherty any day.  It wasn't till last Thanksgiving that I heard the real story about Ford's departure from Clemson, but you might want to talk to your friends in the SC Upstate about reviving that talk of nominating Ford for Congress.  He's still a man of the people, and he is unyielding. --- ### Fliegende Hollander *2002-04-05 04:03* | [User Profile](/od/user/68) Also in re Amundsen's remark on the rear cover picture on *il Duke's* book: I see the cover as representing his love and respect for nature. That said, I would have preferred him in cammies and toting a main battle rifle like the M1 Garand. --- ### londo *2002-04-05 05:04* | [User Profile](/od/user/88)
**Quote**
Like you, I really didn't know, but I also wanted to point out the way so many "conservatives" at FR buy into the propaganda they are fed by the same communications media they recognize as very "liberal".** This says it all in a nutshell.  "Conservatives" follow Podhoretz, Safire, Goldberg, et al, like little puppies without questioning their motives.  Tell a "Conservative" that the press is liberal, and they'll heartily agree.  Tell them that it's pro zionist, and they'll call you an antisemite.   Outstanding observation! --- ### amundsen *2002-04-05 12:51* | [User Profile](/od/user/5)
**Quote** (Fliegende Hollander @ April 05 2002,00:03)
That said, I would have preferred him in cammies and toting a main battle rifle like the M1 Garand.** YES! --- ### amundsen *2002-04-05 12:53* | [User Profile](/od/user/5)
**Quote** (mwdallas @ April 04 2002,16:16)
It wasn't till last Thanksgiving that I heard the real story about Ford's departure from Clemson** This is not something I know about.  What happened? --- ### mwdallas *2002-04-05 20:16* | [User Profile](/od/user/81) Amundsen, I sent you a private message on Ford. --- ### edward gibbon *2002-04-09 23:08* | [User Profile](/od/user/24) **David Duke and His Battle Rifle** Amundsen and FH:
**Quote**
That said, I would have preferred him in cammies and toting a main battle rifle like the M1 Garand.** In his youth Mr. Duke had his chance to carry a "main battle rifle", an M16.  If he were a LRRP, he would have had cammies or tiger stripes.  Otherwise he would he have had to settle for a plain green uniform.  Mr. Duke chose otherwise.  He like so many others chose to duck his war. --- ### amundsen *2002-04-09 23:29* | [User Profile](/od/user/5)
**Quote** (edward gibbon @ April 09 2002,20:08)
He like so many others chose to duck his war.** Why do you say 'his' war?  I dont fault anyone for not going to Nam.  I'd be happiest if they stood up and said that conscription is slavery, and violates the 13th Amendment and a person's right to own his life.  Dying for worthless scoundrels such as Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon didn't help this country, or humanity. --- ### edward gibbon *2002-04-10 13:49* | [User Profile](/od/user/24)
**Quote**
Quote (edward gibbon @ April 09 2002,20:08) He like so many others chose to duck his war. Why do you say 'his' war?  I dont fault anyone for not going to Nam.  I'd be happiest if they stood up and said that conscription is slavery, and violates the 13th Amendment and a person's right to own his life.  Dying for worthless scoundrels such as Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon didn't help this country, or humanity.** Amundsen: Very, very few people choose to expose themselves to circumstances where they have a high chance of dying.  The great majority of troops in Vietnam did not go to fulfill a quest for danger, but out of a sense of duty. The war in Vietnam was no different than any other war.  Young men did not dodge military service because of any high principles, though they may have made them up later.  They did not want to be shot at. People with an aristocratic heritage such as the South before the Civil War have their leaders set the example.  In both wars against Germany the British aristocracy died at a rate greater than the working class.  This has never been so in modern America.  The Northern elite, Jews and other scoundrels have evaded military service for the greatest of reasons, namely that their life not be jeopardized. You wrote what you did for your own reasons.  I most emphatically disagree. If things are to change in America, the most needed quality will not be ideological purity, but courage.  Without courage everything else is useless. --- ### Avalanche *2002-11-25 05:04* | [User Profile](/od/user/243) I cannot recommend highly enough that those of you who have not yet read David Duke's book (My Awakening) -- do so as soon as you can get your eyes on the pages! Granted, it's nearly as thick as War and Peace but it leads the reader through facts and facts and facts and builds the entire system so one just canNOT stay ignorant! (It's No-Doze for Lemmings!!) He provides a well-written (mostly: sometimes he's a bit wordy ), massive, and complete introduction to ALL the things most of us "missed" in school about race, jewish control, the bolshevik-jewish connections, and on and on! I think it's a MARVELLOUS primer for introducing people to all the things we discuss on this list -- and if you can only get people to READ him, they will be hooked and horrified! There's more going on than is in his book - but WOW! I, having been raised a NY princess (albeit NOT jewish!), always thought tremendous ill of him -- believed "his press" -- but found him to be sound, solid, intelligent, and able to expose all the propaganda I'd been subjected to! --- ### xmetalhead *2002-11-26 18:45* | [User Profile](/od/user/80) Hi Avalanche! I'm glad to see you've been "Awakened" and hope to see you post more and more. Reading Duke's "My Awakening" was an epiphany for me too! These days are most terrible and uncertain, and I think it's going to be a death struggle soon for Western White Christendom to survive the coming Bolshevist blitzkrieg. David Duke and others need our support, for they do represent a visible pillar of hope to us in these darkened days. --- ### Zoroaster *2002-11-27 04:26* | [User Profile](/od/user/35) Pat Buchanan would have done much better, maybe 8 or 10 percent, in the last presidential go-round if he had picked David Duke for his running mate instead of Mrs. Foster. -Z- --- ### xmetalhead *2002-11-27 21:06* | [User Profile](/od/user/80) Z, if Buchanan had picked Duke as a running mate in '00, Pat would most likely be exiled to Corsica by now. I do, however, believe a Buchanan-Duke ticket would be most juicy and irresistable. --- ### amundsen *2002-11-28 01:06* | [User Profile](/od/user/5) > *Originally posted by Zoroaster*@Nov 26 2002, 23:26 **Pat Buchanan would have done much better, maybe 8 or 10 percent, in the last presidential go-round if he had picked David Duke for his running mate instead of Mrs. Foster.** I'm inclined to agree. It would have given him my vote for sure. People who dont like Pat wont ever like him. And those who do like him are not impressed by concession. ---