Left — Convicted spy Jonathan Pollard, an American citizen so loyal to Israel that he was willing to devastate America’s intelligence network. The fact that high officials in America’s most powerful Lobby, the Israeli lobby AIPAC, are now charged with espionage should suggest to any thinking American that dual-loyalty among extremist Jews is a serious problem for our country, despite the protests of Clarice Feldman in the following article.
Charging Dual Loyalty for American Jews: Then and Now
Commentary by David Duke — The following excerpt is an article written by a pro-Israel, Jewish partisan, Clarice Feldman. Her article appeared in the “American Thinker.” In it she condemns Gentiles who would dare to think that the loyalties of many Jews in American politics lie with Israel rather than the United States. In the process of damning this very accurate opinion she quotes a number of well known Americans from Cindy Sheehan to Joseph Wilson to Tim Russert and more. However, she never really refutes their opinions, she simply condemns the implications. It is one thing to condemn non-Jews who make such charges. Why doesn’t Clarice Feldman condemn leading Jews who admit to their fellow Jews what Sheehan, Wilson and others have dared to suggest to their fellow Gentiles?
For instance, in a Jewish magazine the former head of National Affairs for the most powerful Jewish organization in the United States, the American Jewish Committee, writes the following:
I’ll confess it, at least, like thousands of other typical Jewish kids of my generation, I was reared as a Jewish nationalist, even a quasi-separatist. Every summer for two months for 10 formative years during my childhood and adolescence I attended Jewish summer camp. There, each morning, I saluted a foreign flag, dressed in a uniform reflecting its colors, sang a foreign national anthem, learned a foreign language, learned foreign folk songs and dances, and was taught that Israel was the true homeland. Emigration to Israel was considered the highest virtue, and, like many other Jewish teens of my generation, I spent two summers working in Israel on a collective farm while I contemplated that possibility. More tacitly and subconsciously, I was taught the superiority of my people to the gentiles who had oppressed us. We were taught to view non-Jews as untrustworthy outsiders, people from whom sudden gusts of hatred might be anticipated, people less sensitive, intelligent, and moral than ourselves. We were also taught that the lesson of our dark history is that we could rely on no one. (Stephen Steinlight — From Center For Immigration Studies — Backgrounder — October, 2001)
You see, if one of the most influential Jews in America in a Jewish publication says that typical Jewish kids are reared as Jewish nationalists believing that Israel is their true homeland and are taught by the Jewish establishment that Jews are superior to the Gentiles who are “less sensitive, intelligent, and moral than ourselves,” that’s fine. But if a non-Jew dares point out this arrogant Jewish supremacism and Jewish disloyalty to America, then he is an anti-Semite and bigot of the worst order. Heck, he might even be compared to David Duke!
You see if you expose elements of Jewish intolerance, supremacism and disloyalty, you will be the one accused of supremacism, hate, intolerance. Here is the first few paragraphs of the Feldman article and a link to the rest of it at “The American Thinker.”
December 1st, 2005
An old and dishonorable tradition has returned to American politics: charging that American Jews are not to be trusted because their loyalties lie elsewhere. Once upon a time, such charges earned scorn and ostracism for those who made them. Today, however, “respectable” heavyweights in the American media and powerful Democrats embrace such slanderers, and the purported defenders of American Jewry turn their attention to imaginary threats rather than confront them with the fury they merit.
Some were surprised when Cindy Sheehan said her son had died for Israel:
“Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by George [W.] Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11.”
Yet, this was the very argument that Joseph A. Wilson IV made from the moment he abandoned his moderate Scowcroftian stance and leveled his serial lies at the Bush administration.
Wilson first tied the President’s foreign policy in the Middle East to the Likud Party. In April 2003 in an online Washington Post chat, Wilson made his first attacks on the Administration’s sympathies toward Israel:
“Fairfax, Va.: (At the risk of sounding anti-Semitic, which I don’t intend), if Saddam didn’t support Palestinian suicide bombers, do you think we’d be in a war to liberate Iraq?
Joseph C. Wilson: The literature is clear. His[The President’s] closest advisers have argued for years that the way to peace in the middle east is to crush the Palestinian resistance and it supporters. I profoundly disagree with that analysis, but it is not anti semitic or semitic. It is secular and tied to the Likud party “
By June 14, 2003 when Wilson addressed EPIC (Education for Peace in Iraq Center) he had honed the argument. He justified Saddam’s maintenance of weapons of mass destruction in violation of UN Security Council Resolutions and the terms of the Gulf War Truce, as something necessary in view of the threat Saddam faced from Israel:
I remain of the view that we will find chemical and biological weapons, and we may well find something that indicates that Saddam’s regime maintained an interest in nuclear weapons—not surprising if you live in a part of the world where you do have a nuclear-armed country, an enemy of yours, which is just a country away from you….” [Since Iran did not yet have nuclear weapons, and in any case is not “a country away,” the reference is clearly to Israel.]
What exactly that threat was, when it was Iraq which attacked Israel with Scud missiles and paid terrorists to attack it and not the other way around, was never stated by him. It was apparently enough to simply raise the Israeli boogieman to justify Saddam’s illegal and indefensible conduct.
But, that wasn’t enough for Wilson. He most certainly set in play the dual-loyalty issue:
“The real agenda in all this, of course, was to redraw the political map of the Middle East. Now that is code, whether you like it or not, but it is code for putting into place the strategy memorandum which was done by Richard Perle and his study group in the mid-90s, which was called ‘A Clean Break: A New Strategy for the Realm’. And what it is, cut to the quick, is if you take out some of these countries, or some of these governments, that are antagonistic to Israel, then you provide the Israeli government with greater wherewithal to impose its terms and conditions on the Palestinian people. . .But that is the real agenda. You can put weapons of mass destruction out there, you can put terrorism out there, you can put liberation out there. Weapons of mass destruction got hard-headed realists on board, through a bunch of lies. . .”
And he ended his speech in virtually the same terms Cindy Sheehan used:
“On the other ones, the geopolitical situation, I think there are a number of issues at play; there’s a number of competing agendas. One is the remaking of the map of the Middle East for Israeli security, and my fear is that when it becomes increasingly apparent that this was all done to make Sharon’s life easier and that American soldiers are dying in order to enable Sharon to impose his terms upon the Palestinians that people will wonder why it is American boys and girls are dying for Israel and that will undercut a strategic relationship and a moral obligation that we’ve had towards Israel for 55 years. I think it’s a terribly flawed strategy.”
Despite such views, the Democratic candidate for President John F. Kerry and his camp welcomed Joseph A. Wilson to his campaign inner circle, gave him his own web page on the Kerry for President website and Kerry’s National Security Advisor, Rand Beers, co-starred with Wilson in a Soros-sponsored film,”Uncovered”, played at home fund raising parties for Kerry throughout the country. To my knowledge this is the first time in my adult life that the Democratic party made a hero of a man who wrongfully accused some of the brightest of the President’s advisers – Jews – of supporting a foreign policy policy inimical to what he asserted was America’s interests because it helped Israel . By contrast, On September 11, 1941 Charles Lindbergh said,
Their greatest danger lies in [the Jews’] large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our Government. We cannot blame them for looking out for what they believe to be their interests, but we also must look out for ours.”
and forever diminished his reputation and credibility. … you may link below to the rest of the article.
Closing Duke Commentary Why would Lindbergh lose his reputation and credibility for stating such an obvious truth? And if you notice, Lindbergh didn’t blame them or condemn them for looking out for their interests, but simply suggested that we should also look out for ours. The fact that he lost his reputation and credibility for stating what many Jews themselves state proves that he was certainly right about their inordinate influence. For how else could a man lose his incredibly wonderful reputation for the mere utterance of an obvious truth unless Jewish supremacist power is real and oppressive.
Here is the link for the rest of the article. The American Thinker
Read the Feldman article and then come back and read some chapters from my book, Jewish Supremacism as well as some additional articles on this website. I believe that many of you reading this will be pleasantly surprised to find intelligent and compelling arguments. –DD