Is Discussing Jewish Dual Loyalty Anti-Semitic?

Left — Steven Steinlight, former head of national affairs for the AJC, the most powerful Jewish organization in America, writes of Jewish extremist loyalty to Israel as the “true homeland” and Jews as superior to the inferior and dangerous Gentiles. Is Steinlight anti-Semitic for saying this? Is David Duke anti-Semitic for quoting him or believing him?

David Duke: My Response to the Boston Globe Article
Is Discussing Jewish Dual Loyalty Anti-Semitic?

Boston Globe Opinion Piece Calls Me Anti-Semitic

By David Duke

On April 2, 2006 the Boston Globe ran an article by Geoffrey Wheatcroft called “Most Favored Nation.” Wheatcroft is a “shabbez goy” Gentile who has paved his way to fame and fortune in the heavily Jewish-influenced media by offering the always sought-after Gentile voice for pro-Zionism. His utterly Israeli-biased book called Controversy of Zion won the National Jewish Book Award.

Now, the Boston Globe has given us Wheatcroft to lecture the good people of Boston on the “controversy of Harvard,” a controversy because Jewish power brokers do not like what they themselves boast about privately, their overweening influence, to be bantered about in public, especially not by a dean in the most prestigious University in the Land. Davidduke.com writing about it makes them nervous, Harvard publishing it, makes them livid!

The interesting thing is that the overwhelming obviousness of the power of the “Jewish Lobby” (politely called the Israeli lobby even though this lobby is the handiwork of the largest Jewish organizations in the United States) can’t be hidden even when somebody condemns the very notion of it. Those unaware of the lobby and its power can’t help but be somewhat enlightened even by Wheatcroft’s opinion piece in the Globe.

Wheatcroft disparages me along the way to telling the reader that the Israeli Lobby is really nothing to be concerned about and that even if it was the driving force behind the Iraq War, (a catastrophic war for America) Israelis don’t see it as a war that will be good for Israel anyway.

Still, a few quotes from the article actually reveal the underlying truth of the Harvard paper, “The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy.” Wheatcroft writes:

One of Mearsheimer and Walt’s claims is that a pro-Israel lobby-with the formidable AIPAC (America Israel Public Affairs Committee) to the forefront-has powerfully influenced American policy in the Mideast. But that in itself is not really controversial: After all, AIPAC likes to boast of its own influence…

If Mearsheimer and Walt had wanted to show that they were saying the unsayable, then they appear to have made their point-the ferocious response suggests a taboo being broken.

Wheatcroft talks about the Atlantic divide:

And yet the American reaction is puzzling to Europeans: This question is yet another illustration of the great transatlantic rift. On the eastern side of the Atlantic, it has long been recognized that there is an intimate connection between the United States and Israel, in which AIPAC clearly plays a major role. The degree to which this has affected American policy, up to and including the war in Iraq, has been discussed calmly by sane British commentators-though also, to be sure, played up maliciously by bigots.

Of course, there is one overriding reason why Europe and the rest of the world know about the power of Jewish lobby over American politics, although Europe has disproportionate Jewish media influence much like America, the American media is more pro-Jewish extremist than much of even Israel’s media. I learn more truth about Jewish extremism and Israeli crimes from the Israeli Daily Haaretz than I do from the NY Times or Washington Post. Wheatcroft goes on:

In America, by contrast, there has been an unmistakable tendency to shy away from this subject. As Michael Kinsley wrote in Slate in the autumn of 2002, both supporters and opponents of the coming war did not want to invoke classic anti-Semitic images of cabals, arcane conspiracies, and malign courtiers whispering into the prince’s ear. Such motives are honorable, and yet there is always a danger when something is willfully ignored. As Kinsley said, the connection between the invasion of Iraq and Israeli interests had become ”the proverbial elephant in the room. Everybody sees it, no one mentions it.” Until now, at any rate.

He quotes the unabashed Israeli-firster and pro-Iraq War advocate, the exceedingly Jewish, Thomas L. Freedman:

…there are doubtless a good many Jewish Americans who (even if they resent the charges made by Mearsheimer and Walt) are at the least uneasy about the work of AIPAC and its associates. Thomas L. Friedman of The New York Times is understandably dismayed when an apparently civilized and educated Arab tells him ”that the Jews control the US government.” But then elsewhere, Friedman admits that only the White House could ever have restrained Israel from what he calls its ”insane” settlement policies, but that President Bush will never do so since that ”would inevitably force a clash with US Jews, whose votes and donations he needs to protect his GOP majority in the House.” When is a distinction a difference?

For that matter, the respected foreign policy analyst Anatol Lieven of the New America Foundation in Washington has been writing about this for some time (and without igniting a media firestorm). In his view, the alliance with Israel, so far from being a source of strength, is a grave source of weakness for the United States, in dealing with the Muslim world and in combating terrorism.

One of the forbidden issues in the Jewish-influenced American media is the question of whether or not many powerful Jews in media and government put the interests of Israel over that of the United States of America. Wheatcroft dismisses the dual loyalty issue in part by attacking me.

One reason Mearsheimer and Walt have caused such anger is surely because to discuss the ”Israel lobby” is to raise the age-old question of ”dual loyalty”: Does an intense attachment to the cause of Israel compromise an American citizen’s first national allegiance? And although Mearsheimer and Walt do not claim that many American Jews have a higher loyalty to Israel, undisguised anti-Semites like David Duke-who has praised the paper-do just that.

First off, to Mr. Wheatcroft and anyone else who cares to know, I am not anti-Semitic, disguised or otherwise, simply because I expose elements of Jewish extremism and supremacism. Am I supposed to be anti-Semitic because I dare to raise the question of the loyalty of many of the major Jewish organizations, lobbies, media bosses and Zionist government bureaucrats?

I will quote once more from one of the leading Jews of the United States, former head of National Affairs (domestic policy) for the American Jewish Committee (AJC), the most powerful Jewish organization in the United States:

“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.”


This is not an off hand comment but Steinlight’s own carefully chosen words used in an article for a Jewish magazine. (Backgounder, October 2001) Steinlight clearly tells us that indeed it is true that many Jews are not merely dual loyalists, but single loyalists: whose loyalty is exclusively toward Israel combined with an open belief in Jewish superiority over and hostility toward Gentiles who comprise 97 percent of the American people! To Steinlight, Gentiles are inferior in intelligence, sensitivity and morals. He goes on to say that he and his fellow Jews have been taught that Gentiles are untrustworthy and dangerous to Jews. Steinlight says that these values were instilled into “typical Jewish kids of my generation.”

Either the Steinlight quote is bogus, or it is de facto evidence that Jewish, anti-American, anti-Gentile supremacism and disloyalty exist in the United States

The Steinlight quote is quite amazing because it comes from such a prominent Jew in the most prominent Jewish organization in America, but with a little research one can find thousands of similar quotes in Jewish literature in everything from Stephen Roth to Daniel Goldhagen.

Does this make all these prominent Jews “undisguised anti-Semites,” or is it just anti-Semitic for a Gentile to quote these supremacist Jews? Or does it become anti-Semitic simply for airing this to an audience comprised of significant numbers of people other than Jews? But it is not anti-Semitic when Jews say these same things only among fellow Jews?

For the record, I am not anti-Semitic.

I simply don’t want people who have loyalty to a foreign nation to have powerful influence over the foreign policy of the United States.

I don’t want 20,000 Americans to be maimed or killed for Israeli strategic objectives.

I don’t want the economy-crushing trillion dollar eventual costs of this war for Israel.

I don’t want America to engage in immoral wars at a huge cost of American and foreign innocent human life.

I don’t want Americans to be lied to by a press dominated by Jewish supremacists.

I don’t want Israeli control over American foreign policy to lead to hatred and acts of terrorism against the United States.

The Harvard paper is a great step toward the truth. Yet, it goes not nearly far enough in exposing the perfidy of Israel and Israeli crimes against the United States. For instance the paper doesn’t even mention Israeli acts of violent terrorism committed against America. These acts are confirmed in minor articles in the major controlled media, but are essentially ignored by the pundits who interpret the world for us. But that’s another article for another time on Davidduke.com. For more information about this issue, just browse my website.

Thanks to Mr. Wheatcroft for his attack upon me and the fact that many people reading that attack have now found their way to davidduke.com and my response!