It is no coincidence that religions are more stable than forms of government. They mostly tend to sink their roots deeper into the earth; they would not be conceivable at all without this broad folk.
Speech of May 10, 1933 in Berlin
In that the government is determined to undertake the political and moral detoxification of our public life, it creates and secures the prerequisites for a really deep return of religious life.
Speech of March 23, 1933 in Berlin
The Reich government, which sees in Christianity the unshakeable fundaments of the folk’s ethics and morality.
Speech of March 23, 1933 in Berlin
And no less have we taken up the struggle against the decomposition of religion. Without us committing ourselves to any denomination, we have nonetheless again given faith the prerequisite, because we were of the conviction that the folk requires and needs this faith. We have thus taken up the struggle against godlessness not with a few theoretical declarations, we have exterminated it.
Speech of October 14, 1933 in Berlin
The discussion of the new state with both Christian denominations: Filled with the wish to secure for the German folk the great religious, ethical and moral values anchored in both Christian denominations, we have eliminated the political organizations, but strengthened the religious institutions. For a contract with the energetic National Socialist state is more valuable to a church than the struggle of denominational federations, which in their coalition-determined politics of compromise must also buy personnel advantages for party supporters with the surrender of ideals and of the really inner religious education and consolidation of the folk. We all, however, live in the expectation that the merger of the evangelical provincial churches and denominations into a German evangelical Reich church may give real satisfaction to the yearning of those, who believe they must fear in the absent-mindedness of evangelical life a weakening of the strength of the evangelical faith in itself. In that the National Socialist state has in this year proven its respect for the strength of the Christian denominations, it expects the same respect from the denominations for the strength of the National Socialist state!
Speech of January 30, 1934 in Berlin
We have endeavoured to produce the reconciliation of the denominations with the new state, are determined – insofar as the evangelical denominations are meant – to end their purely organizational fractionalization in a great evangelical Reich church, filled with the conviction that it is not acceptable to make a virtue out of the respect and consideration for the individual states, forced on Martin Luther by need, in a time when the states themselves already no longer exist. And we know: If the great reformer stood among us, then he would – happy to have escaped the need of that time – just like Ulrich von Hutten in his last prayer, think not of provincial churches, rather of Germany and his evangelical church.
Proclamation of September 5, 1934 in Nuremberg
The national government sees in both Christian denominations the most important factors for the preservation of our folkdom. It will respect the contracts made between them and the provinces. Their rights should not be infringed. It expects, however, and hopes that the work on the national and moral rejuvenation of our folk, which the government has made its task, likewise receives the same appreciation. It will deal with all other denominations with objective justice. But it cannot tolerate that membership in a specific denomination or in a specific race could be a release from the general legal obligations or even a license for unpunished committing or toleration of crimes. The concern of the government is directed at the honest coexistence of church and state.
Speech of March 23, 1933 in Berlin
Not we, rather those before us, distanced themselves from it (from Christianity). We have merely made a clean separation between politics, which concerns itself with earthly things, and religion, which must occupy itself with the spiritual.
Speech of August 27, 1934 at Ehrenbreitstein
And above all, we have removed the priests from the marsh of political party conflict and led them back into the church again. It is our will that they should never return to an area, which is not created for them, which degrades them and must invariably bring them into opposition to millions of people, who inwardly want to be devout, but who want to see priests who serve God and not a political party!
Speech of October 24, 1933 in Berlin
Lord, you see, we have changed. The German folk is no longer the folk of dishonour, of shame, of self-mutilation, of faint-heartedness and of small faith. No, Lord, the German folk is strong again in its will, strong in its perseverance, strong in the endurance of all sacrifices. Lord, we will not depart from you! Now bless our struggle for our freedom and thus our German folk and fatherland!
Speech of May 1, 1933 in Berlin
by David Duke
This is a video preview of Dr. David Duke’s new book, The Illustrated Protocols of Zion is an historical and literary valuation of the original Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.
He presents the case that Protocols of Zion could well be titled the Protocols of „Zionism“ in that it predicts many of the horrific wars and conflicts right down to the issues in the Israel or „Zion“ of today and associated with Zionist power and influence that goes far beyond the borders of Israel.
In this video and his book upon which it is based, he shows that many of the most radical claims of the Protocols are today proclaimed by Zionists themselves around the world. such as domination of media, banking, and extensive power and influence in America, the EU and in many governments around the world.
He quotes leading and influential Zionists and Zionist media in showing that many of the most important underlying themes can be documented in historical and contemporary terms.
Dr. Duke points out its true history. He argues that the Protocols is obviously not the secret meeting of earlocked „Elders of Zion“ anymore than 1984 is a true account of Big Brother or Oceania.
He examines it as dystopian literature that is amazingly prescient and predictive since its publishing well over a century ago.
This video and the powerful underlying book The Illustrated Protocols of Zion are essential materials to understanding the Zionist issue from all perspectives.
A Phd in History, Dr. Duke shows how vital assertions of the Protocols can be historically and contemporaneously documented and that many of the most shocking claims of the Protocols can be found in even more extreme expression by modern Zionism.
Source: American Dissident Voices broadcast of February 5, 2000
by Dr. William L. Pierce
The biggest threat to our people – the biggest obstacle to our survival and progress – is the Jewish control of the mass media of news and entertainment. I’ve said that to you many times. Today I want to talk about some very specific examples of the way in which this threat works. Last month a special television documentary program began airing on the History Channel, which is a subsidiary of A&E Television Networks. The “A&E” stands for “arts and entertainment.” The name of the program is “Nazi America: A Secret History.” It purports to be a serious history of the growth of the Nazi movement in America, starting with the German-American Bund and its precursor organizations in the 1930s and taking us right up to the present
I don’t have the time to view many television programs except the national and international news each day, primarily to see what the party line is: that is, to see what “spin” the Jews are putting on the news. This History Channel documentary was of special interest to me, however, because I was part of it. Beyond the fact that I’m in the program, I knew intimately another person who was given major coverage in the program, and I have detailed knowledge of several other persons and events covered by the program. So when I viewed the program I paid careful attention and took notes. What I noted generally about the program is that in addition to the standard slant, which they put on everything they produce, there were a number of very clear-cut and blatant lies: lies of both omission and commission. And it occurred to me that these lies are so clear and so easily refuted by anyone who knows the facts that I should share them with you. They provide useful clues to Jewish motives – and also perhaps an antidote to other Jewish lies.
One other thing about this particular History Channel program: it will be shown more than once. You can keep your eyes open for it and watch it the next time it is shown, keeping in mind the facts I’ll share with you today. If you’re really serious about what’s happening to America, you can even order a copy of the tape from the History Channel and then study it yourself the way I did. It’ll cost you $29.95, but the lesson is worth it.
The first thing to note is the general slant of the program. That slant is to lump together everyone the Jews consider a threat to their own plans for America as a “Nazi” and then to portray Nazis as dangerous subversives and terrorists who need to be locked up in order for the country to be safe. Nazis are portrayed as weird and unpleasant people, strange and dangerous people, not at all like you and me. The purpose behind this is not just lingering Jewish hatred for the German Nazis, who put a real crimp in the Jews’ plans for Europe 60 years ago. It is a current concern of the Jews that too many people are speaking out against them today, and too many people are listening, especially with the Internet not yet subject to Jewish censorship. The Jews’ aim is first to demonize the people who don’t like them and then to outlaw them, cut them off from contact with the public, keep them from speaking out.
So let’s look at the specifics. The first part of the program deals with 1930s organizations such as Friends of the New Germany and the German-American Bund, which tried to counter the Jews’ hate-propaganda against Germany in America, to build unity among German-Americans, to help Americans generally understand what Adolf Hitler was doing in his rebuilding of Germany, and to a lesser extent to propagate Hitler’s National Socialist ideas in America.
And I should tell you now that this part of the program on the German-American Bund, just like all the rest of the program, is chock full of errors which are the result of ignorance and sloppy research more than malice. For example, the program states that Hitler’s Mein Kampf was published in 1924 and that Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany in 1932. Both dates are incorrect, as anyone can determine by reference to an encyclopedia. In 1924 Hitler was in prison for revolutionary activity and was just beginning to write Mein Kampf. And he didn’t become chancellor until 1933. I point out these errors simply to remind you that the controlled media very often are wrong in their facts even when they’re not consciously lying, but they present those facts in an apodictic way, and few Americans question them.
In its treatment of the Bund, however, the program goes beyond sloppiness in its errors and turns to deliberate deceit. It talks, for example, about New York Congressman Samuel Dickstein’s investigation and harassment of the Bund and his labeling of it as a subversive organization. What the people who wrote the program certainly knew but neglected to tell the audience was that Congressman Dickstein was also a Soviet espionage agent – not just a communist or communist sympathizer like so many of his fellow Jews, but a secret agent actually on the payroll of the Soviet NKVD. So in the 1930s what we had was a Jewish-Soviet espionage agent pretending to be an American patriot denouncing what he called the “un-American” influence of the Bund. Dickstein’s role as an NKVD agent was revealed as old NKVD archives were opened following the collapse of communist power and the breakup of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. But there wasn’t a word of that in the History Channel program. Dickstein was represented simply as a concerned congressman. But because he was a congressman and a Jew, both the Roosevelt administration and the Jewish media collaborated with him in railroading the Bund’s chairman, Fritz Kuhn, into prison on a trumped-up embezzlement charge in 1939.
Not revealing Dickstein’s employment by the NKVD was a lie of omission. A really outrageous lie of commission occurs a little later in the program when it moves into the postwar period and focuses on George Lincoln Rockwell, the World War Two Navy flier and combat veteran who organized the National Socialist White People’s Party in the 1960s. The program shows news footage of some of Rockwell’s public meetings in Washington, while the program’s narrator comments that Rockwell – quote – “added gays and Catholics to his list of threats to the future of the White race.” – end quote – Then, between scenes of Rockwell speaking, a headline fills the screen. It reads, and I quote: “Hate-Document Bared: ‘I will kill every Jew, Catholic and Negro.’” – end quote – The clear implication is that this statement about killing every Jew, Catholic, and Negro was made by Rockwell. But it wasn’t. It was pure invention by the people who made this program.
I knew Rockwell quite well and worked with him closely on the production of a magazine for a year before his murder in 1967. He was totally removed from any sectarian bickering between Catholics and Protestants and accepted them on an equal basis. He had a number of practicing Catholics in his organization. This Jewish trick of trying to divide Catholics from Protestants has been used before, but in Rockwell’s case it is especially inappropriate. Furthermore, Rockwell never made a statement about killing all homosexuals, although he certainly disapproved of homosexuality.
The deliberate deceit continues as the program moves into the period after Rockwell’s death. The narrator announces that Rockwell’s organization floundered after his death. . . until the next Nazi leader came forward. Frank Collin emerged from Rockwell’s shadow in 1970 . . . . I’m using the narrator’s exact words here. The clear implication is that Frank Collin, a short, dark, hook-nosed, little man with a flair for theatrics, was Rockwell’s successor. There is no mention at all of Rockwell’s actual successor, a man named Matt Koehl.
And there is no mention that Collin was a Jew. Not only was he a Jew, but he was a poseur and an exhibitionist, pretending to be a National Socialist leader while putting on a media sideshow which attracted to him a small group of losers and misfits who liked to wear uniforms and strut around in public. While the media focused on Collin, whose sole claim to fame was the uproar he generated when he announced that he intended to march his uniformed freak show through Skokie, Illinois, a Jewish suburb of Chicago, Rockwell’s real successor was left without access to the media.
At the end of the Collin episode, the narrator does reveal to us that Collin was convicted and sent to prison in 1979 for sexually molesting little boys, but we are left with the impression that this smirking, prancing, child-molesting little Jew was a real National Socialist, the successor of George Lincoln Rockwell. That’s the image of a National Socialist, the image of a “Nazi,” that the writers of this program deliberately and deceitfully plant in the public mind.
Actually, Collin was exposed as a Jew in the Chicago press back in the 1970s. Interviews with his parents were published in the newspapers. But that was more than 20 years ago, and the folks at the History Channel figured that the public has forgotten about that. And Frank Collin is not the only Jew trotted out as a “Nazi” by this program which is supposed to tell us about the history of Nazis in America. The Columbine killers, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, also are represented as “Nazis,” although they are not named directly in the program. Instead, as images flash across the screen, we hear the narrator naming a series of people involved in recent killings, and the narrator tells us, one at a time, that they are Nazis.
James Burmeister, an 82nd Airborne soldier at Fort Bragg, who shot a convicted Black drug dealer in Fayetteville, North Carolina, in December 1995, is described as a “Nazi,” although there has never been any evidence presented in this regard. Certainly, he was not a member of any National Socialist group, or that fact would have been brought out at his trial. Then there is John King, convicted in the dragging murder of a Black in Jasper, Texas, in 1998. King also is described by the narrator as a “Nazi,” although again there is no evidence to suggest this. What we do know about King is that he acquired a burning hatred for Blacks after being gang-raped by them while in prison.
Perhaps we are supposed to assume that everyone who doesn’t like Blacks is a “Nazi” – perhaps even everyone who is not Politically Correct. One of those in this series of supposed “Nazis” is Benjamin Smith, who killed a Black and a Korean in drive-by shootings in Illinois last year. Another is the apparently deranged Buford Furrow, who shot a Filipino postman in California last year after wounding several Jews in a Jewish community center. So far as we know, none of these killers was a “Nazi” in the sense of having a serious belief in National Socialism and belonging to a National Socialist group.
So the way the program worked the Jewish Columbine killer Dylan Klebold into this series was to have the narrator recite a series of names of killers while their faces flashed on the screen and assert in each case that the killer is or was a “Nazi.” It went like this: James Burmeister (face), John King (face), the Columbine killers (no face), Benjamin Smith (face), Buford Furrow (face). Clever aren’t they? They know how to lie without actually lying. Even a reasonably intelligent and perceptive viewer will be tricked by this technique, unless he happens to know the facts. The facts, of course, are that Dylan Klebold was a Jew, and both he and his partner were outspoken anti-racists. But the average couch potato certainly doesn’t know that, and so he falls into the trap of believing that the perpetrators of the worst school massacre in U.S. history were “Nazis.”
Timothy McVeigh also is represented in the program as a “Nazi” and the Oklahoma City bombing as an act of Nazi terrorism. The narrator tells us: “McVeigh was a . . . neo-Nazi . . . .” There is no evidence to suggest that he was or is. What we know about him is that he hated the Clinton government and decided after the government burned all of those women and children to death in the Branch Davidian church in Waco that he would send the government a message. We also know that he read one of my books, The Turner Diaries. If everybody who has read The Turner Diaries is a Nazi, then the media Jews really have a problem on their hands, because the number of readers is now somewhere close to half a million. But really, that’s like saying that everyone who reads the New Testament is a Christian, and everyone who reads the Old Testament is a Jew, and everyone who reads the Koran is a Moslem.
A Nazi – a National Socialist – is a person who holds a very specific set of beliefs, a person who accepts the doctrine set forth in Hitler’s Mein Kampf, just as a Christian is a person who accepts the teachings of Jesus and the claims made in the New Testament about his miraculous origin and his resurrection, and a communist is a person who believes the economic and social doctrines of the Jew Karl Marx. This History Channel program starts with real Nazis – the leaders of the Bund – continues with another real Nazi of a different sort – George Lincoln Rockwell – and then cleverly ties these real Nazis into a series of Jewish child molesters, antisocial freaks and exhibitionists of various sorts, and people who have committed racial killings or acts of terrorism. And it’s all done very smoothly, in a very slick way, a very Jewish way.
The aim, of course, is not only to persuade viewers that Nazis are very unpleasant people – as if more than 60 years of anti-German propaganda films from Hollywood haven’t already done that – but also to persuade us that Nazis are dangerous, and we need to do something about them. We need new laws to protect ourselves from these dangerous Nazis.
You might wonder why they don’t just tell us the truth about Nazis and let the chips fall where they may. Why not just tell us that Nazis don’t believe in equality, that Nazis don’t believe in multiculturalism and enforced diversity, that Nazis don’t believe that men and women are the same? Why not just tell us that Nazis don’t approve of homosexuality? Why not just tell us that Nazis aren’t democrats, that Nazis believe in self-sufficiency and self-discipline and personal honor and a natural hierarchy? Why not just tell us that Nazis are racists, and they don’t like Jews? That should be enough, if all of the Jewish television propaganda about equality and diversity and democracy has had the desired effect. That should be enough to make every Politically Correct viewer hate Nazis. Why do they feel it’s necessary to lie to us and try to make us believe that Nazis are people like the Jewish child molester Frank Collin and the Jewish mass murderer Dylan Klebold? Why do they feel it’s necessary to try to make us believe that everyone who has tattoos and doesn’t like Blacks is a Nazi? Why do they feel that it’s necessary to lie to us by telling us that Nazis want to kill Catholics? Are they afraid that all of their anti-German hate propaganda and all of their Political Correctness propaganda haven’t “taken”?
I’ll tell you what they’re afraid of. They’re afraid of the truth. Listen to the part of this History Channel program which is about me – that’s about 90 minutes into the program – and what they’ll tell you is that all of the violence and strife in America during the past few decades is the result of people reading my books, of people listening to the ideas I talk about. If I hadn’t written The Turner Diaries, if I didn’t have a radio broadcast every week, if I weren’t on the Internet, they’ll have you believe, there wouldn’t have been an Oklahoma City bombing and a dragging in Jasper, Texas, and a Columbine High School massacre, and we’d all be getting along and loving one another in multicultural comfort and security.
And then they very slyly tell you: Pierce is protected by his right to free speech, and they say it in a way that means, Pierce was able to get away with putting people up to all of this violent activity because he hides behind the First Amendment. What we need, they suggest, are new laws to keep Pierce from hiding behind the First Amendment. And you know, there are a lot of couch potatoes out there, a lot of women of both sexes, who believe that.
I get hate mail every day from people who ask me, “Aren’t you ashamed for causing all of those people to die in Oklahoma City?” Others blame me for the Columbine High School massacre. Really. They don’t blame the Clinton government. They don’t blame the liberals for making a pigsty of America. They don’t blame the people who force the races together and generate racial hatred by doing it. That would require independent thinking. No, they blame me, and they nod their heads wisely and agree with the History Channel narrator that we need new laws to keep people like Pierce from causing violence.
The Jews and their hangers-on are afraid of the truth getting to large numbers of people, especially through new media such as the Internet, and they do want to put a stop to it. That’s why they tell the sort of lies that this History Channel program is full of. They want to scare the couch potatoes. And I want to make sure that the independent thinkers see those lies and understand that they are lies and also understand why they’re being told.
If you want to help me with this work, then this History Channel program, “Nazi America: A Secret History,” is a tool that you can use too. Talk to people you know about the lies in it. Help people to understand the poisonous and destructive way in which the Jews use their control of our mass media. Help people to understand that they’re not being educated when they watch the History Channel; they’re being brainwashed; they’re being lied to. And talk about the details.
I don’t know about you, but I’m always skeptical when someone waves his arms and makes a general statement. I want the specifics. I want the details. I want the facts, so that I can make up my own mind. Anyway, that’s why I’ve spent so much time today talking with you about this one History Channel program. It dealt with a subject that I happen to know something about, so I could spot the lies and tell you about them. But there are literally thousands of other programs out there which also are full of lies. When you spot one, don’t keep quiet about it. Speak out. Tell other people. And let me know about it too.
* * *
In 1981, a pathologist by the name of Malvin Weisberg was found to be storing 17,000 aborted bodies on his residential property, stored at room temperature in a shipping container, his garage, and throughout his house. He had acquired the bodies between 1976 and 1981. Malvin had also been actively defrauding both the state of California and Federal governments to perform illegal pathology tests on the bodies. What was the fall out of all this? A 2-year court case by the Jewish ACLU to prevent Christians from burying the bodies, during which time all the bodies were left to sit in another steel storage container, again at room temperature. Malvin Weisberg was not charged for defrauding the government and no further investigation was done to determine why he was squirreling away aborted bodies en masse, or why a large portion of them were in a shipping container in the first place. Was that even the first shipping container he had filled? Was he even planning to dispose of the bodies?!
By Philip Giraldi
One subject that congressmen and the mainstream media tend to avoid is the erosion of fundamental liberties in the United States as a consequence of the war on terror and American involvement in the Middle East. Some of America’s legislators apparently do not even understand that freedom of speech actually means that one can say things that others might find distasteful. The assault on freedom of speech has been accelerated through the invention of so-called “hate speech,” which has in turn morphed into “hate crimes” where punishments are increased if there is any suggestion that hatred of groups or individuals is involved. Some have rightly questioned the whole concept, pointing out that if you murder someone the result is the same whether you hate your victim or not.
Freedom of speech is particularly threatened in any situations having to do with Israel, a reflection of the power of that country’s lobby in the United States. At a recent town hall gathering, Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) demonstrated how he and his colleagues run and hide whenever the issue of Israel is raised when he would not respond directly to a question over whether any criticism of Israel should or should not be protected under the First Amendment. Crenshaw is a Republican and generally reliably conservative, though he recently spoke out against the “For the People Act of 2019,” which he claimed “would limit free speech dramatically.”
A constituent specifically asked Crenshaw’s opinion about federal laws that require citizens in some states to sign a pledge that they will not boycott Israel if they wish to get government contracts or obtain a government job. The audience member also mentioned a law passed in Florida that bans anti-Semitism in public schools and universities, defining “anti-Semitism” as criticism of Israel. The constituent observed, “These laws are obviously flagrant and troubling violations of the First Amendment to free speech.”
“Will you honor your oath and denounce these laws here, now and forever?” Crenshaw was then asked. Crenshaw quickly fired back that the critic was “cloaking yourself in the First Amendment” to enable engaging in “vehement anti-Semitism.” Crenshaw then asserted that the questioner was “advocating the BDS movement,” a recent target of much of the legislation that the critic was addressing.
BDS refers to the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, which calls on people to protest Israel by pulling investments from and boycotting the country.
Israel is engaged in what might be described as a war with the objective of driving any and all criticism of the Jewish state out of polite discourse, making it illegal wherever and whenever possible. The Knesset has passed legislation criminalizing anyone who supports BDS and has set up a semiclandestine group called Kella Shlomo to counteract its message. The country’s education minister has called BDS supporters “enemy soldiers” and has compared them to Nazis. Netanyahu has also backed up the new law with a restriction on foreigners who support the BDS movement entering the country, including American Jewish dissidents, several of whom have been turned around at the airport and sent home.
Israel has been particularly successful at promoting its own preferred narrative, together with sanctions for those who do not concur, in the English language speaking world and also in France, which has the largest Jewish population in Europe. The U.S. government under Donald Trump is completely under the thumb of the Israeli prime minister’s office, with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo recently saying “our major focus is stamping out anti-Semitism.”
Sanctions already in place in Europe consist of fines and even jail time. The legal penalties come into play for those criticizing Israel or questioning the accuracy of the accepted holocaust narrative, i.e., disputing that “6 million died.” Even attacking specific Israeli government policies, like its slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza every Friday, can be found guilty of anti-Semitism, which is now considered a hate crime in Britain, France, Germany, and, most recently, the Czech Republic. In Britain, where the Jewish lobby is extremely strong, a law passed in December 2016 made the UK one of the first countries to use the definition of anti-Semitism agreed upon earlier in the year at a conference of the Berlin-based International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).
A statement from the British prime minister’s office at that time explained that the intention of the new definition was to “ensure that culprits will not be able to get away with being anti-Semitic because the term is ill-defined, or because different organizations or bodies have different interpretations of it.”
The British government’s own definition relies on guidance provided by the IHRA, which asserts that it is considered anti-Semitic to accuse Jews of being “more loyal to Israel or their religion than to their own nations, or to say the existence of Israel is intrinsically racist.” In other words, even if many Jews are more loyal to Israel than to the countries they live in and even though Israel is in fact intrinsically racist, it is now illegal to say so in Great Britain.
One should not be surprised, as the British government’s subservience to Jewish and Israeli interests is nearly as enthusiastic as is government in the United States, though it is driven by the same sorts of things – Jewish money and Jewish power, particularly in the media. A majority of Conservative Party members of parliament have joined Conservative Friends of Israel, and the Labour counterpart is also a major force to be reckoned with on the political left.
Here in the United States, the friends of Israel appear to believe that anyone who is unwilling to do business with Israel or even with the territories that it has illegally occupied should not be allowed to obtain any benefit from federal, state or even local governments. Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and association for every American are apparently not valid if one particular highly favored foreign country is involved, as the discussion with Crenshaw reveals.
Twenty-seven states now have laws sanctioning those who criticize or boycott Israel. And one particular pending piece of federal legislation that is regularly re-introduced into the Senate would far exceed what is happening at the state level and would set a new standard for deference to Israeli interests on the part of the national government. It would criminalize any U.S. citizen “engaged in interstate or foreign commerce” who supports a boycott of Israel or who even goes about “requesting the furnishing of information” regarding it, with penalties enforced through amendments of two existing laws, the Export Administration Act of 1979 and the Export-Import Act of 1945, that include potential fines of between $250,000 and $1 million and up to 20 years in prison.
Israel, and its friends like Crenshaw, are particularly fearful of the BDS movement because its non-violence is attractive to college students, including many young Jews, who would not otherwise get involved on the issue. The Israeli government clearly understands, correctly, that BDS can do more damage than any number of terrorist attacks, as it represents a serious critique of the behavior of the Jewish state while also challenging the actual legitimacy of the Israeli government and its colonizing activity in Palestine. Much of the current hate crime legislation in places like Germany and the Czech Republic directly targets BDS, stating specifically that it is “inherently” anti-Semitic. In late July, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed its own resolution condemning BDS explicitly in a 398-to-17 vote.
Going hand-in-hand with the condemnation of BDS is a drive to maintain the exclusivity of Jewish suffering. In June, when Rep. Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez (D-N.Y.) called border detention centers holding asylum seekers “concentration camps,” she was inundated with protests from Jewish groups that claimed she was denigrating the holocaust and “insulting victims of genocide.” The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum even published a statement objecting to comparisons between “the holocaust and other events.”
It is important for Americans to realize that Israel not only spies on the U.S., digs its paws deep into our Treasury, and perverts Washington’s Middle East policy, it is also attempting to dictate what we the people can and cannot say. And Congress and much of the media are fully on board, which is the real tragedy.
Philip M. Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer who served nineteen years overseas in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. He was the CIA Chief of Base for the Barcelona Olympics in 1992 and was one of the first Americans to enter Afghanistan in December 2001. Phil is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a Washington-based advocacy group that seeks to encourage and promote a U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East that is consistent with American values and interests.
This article was originally published on American free press, found via American Herald Tribune.