By Donald Jeffries
"I Protest"
May 6, 2024
"Our" House of Representatives recently passed perhaps the most odious piece of legislation in our history. This is quite a feat, considering that, in this millennium alone, they were responsible for the Patriot Act and Banker Bailout monstrosities. This act stamps the imprimatur of Zionist power on Congress, like a scarlet letter.
If you want to know why so many "haters" believe "the Jews" control everything, look at the Antisemitism Awareness Act. Look at how overwhelmingly it passed. It was not a close vote. If someone can explain how a foreign nation holds such power over our elected officials, I'm waiting to hear it. Sure, you had the Alien and Sedition Acts, and the Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR administrations acted as if it was illegal to criticize the government. But as bad as all that was, at least it concerned our nation. It has never been illegal to criticize another country, in any other nation on earth, to my knowledge. Until now. Sure, the Soviets supposedly outlawed "anti-Semitism," but this is hard to source credibly. This odious congressional legislation is very real.
The act goes well beyond the current state of Israel. It warns against any claims that Israel's creation was problematic in any sense. More importantly, it references Holocaust "denial," and condemns it. Thus, America now joins every other country on earth in forbidding any discussion of the particulars of the German concentration camps. And finally, it suggests that statements about the Jews killing Jesus Christ are "anti-Semitic." I was raised a Catholic. I was very small, but I remember the Latin mass, before Vatican II. I've read Father Feeney, and listened to Father Coughlin. This act basically repudiates pre-Vatican II Catholicism. There are Biblical passages about the Jews being responsible for killing Christ. This shouldn't mean that any Jew today bears any blame. But this act in effect makes parts of the Bible "anti-Semitic."
I get weary of talking about Jewish control and power. But this legislation is about as clear an indication as you could ask for, that the "anti-Semites" are correct. What other group has ever been protected from criticism by an act of law? Confining it to just Israel, what other nation has ever been exempted from criticism, by a legal act in another country? The pretext for this legislation is the alleged mistreatment of Jewish students on college campuses. To whatever degree this is happening, all reasonable people would certainly condemn it. I support the right of Jews to free speech, free assembly, and everything else guaranteed them under the Bill of Rights. But I don't support that any more strongly than I support the rights of Palestinian students, or the Nation of Islam, or whatever Eskimos exist in this once great land.
Most conservatives demonstrated that they really don't support free speech any more than the "Woke" Left does, with their willingness to suppress pro-Palestinian demonstrations on campuses. Their portrayal of them reminded me of the way the establishment dishonestly depicted the January 6 Stop the Steal rally. It seems the Left tolerates free speech, unless you say something "racist," or "homophobic," or "transphobic." I'm pretty sure they also are concerned with "anti-Semitism," but this would only apply to "White Nationalist" types. In other words, Whites who don't hate White people. The Right, on the other hand, tolerates free speech, unless you criticize Israel, or say something unpleasant about Jews in general. Actually, both sides can become apoplectic if you criticize any Jew they agree with.
Candace Owens is engaged in a battle royal with Daily Wire founder Ben Shapiro. Shapiro's ethnocentric hysteria on the subject of Israel and "the Jews" in general resulted in Owens leaving his company. Now we find that Shapiro tried to slap a gag order on Owens, after agreeing to debate her on the subject of anti-Semitism. This debate is unlikely to ever transpire, because Shapiro has revealed himself to be as unbalanced as the "wokest" pussy hat wearer. Owens would mop the floor up with him. Especially since her primary contention is that there is no universal definition of "anti-Semitism." She wants Shapiro to define it. Obviously, neither he nor anyone else can do that, because it's an emotional, subjective term, like "racist," or "White Supremacist," or "terrorist," or "insurrectionist." 10-Minute Strength Tra... Best Price: $12.24 (as of 07:17 UTC - Details)
When they invented the term "politically correct," in skits on Saturday Night Live, starring the late Phil Hartman, very few objected. After all, once you get the notion of "political correctness" embedded in your culture, you assure that you marginalize discourse even further, by ostracizing "political incorrectness." When they invented the Orwellian term "hate speech," very few objected. Hate is a human emotion. We all hate. You can't criminalize an emotion, and you certainly can't ethically pick and choose when to invoke it. Some hate is more equal than others. So, since it's "hate" to question anything about Jews, from the Kosher grift that allows rabbis to be paid for "blessing" food for sale, to Israeli treatment of Palestinians, but not "hate" to disparage Christianity, for example, this legislation was sadly predictable.
"Hate," in fact, is now most associated with criticism of Jews in the public mind. Why wasn't it "hate" when the Soviets targeted priests and nuns for genocide following the Bolshevik Revolution? Why weren't tax-funded "art" projects like "Piss Christ" considered "hate?" Instead, it was "hate" to object to it. Picture a government-funded "artist" creating something called "Piss Talmud," with a copy of the Talmud, instead of a crucifix, submerged in urine. You know what the response to that would be. It certainly wouldn't be called "art," and it certainly wouldn't be funded by taxpayers. We talk about American exceptionalism, but in reality our culture is fueled by Jewish exceptionalism. The "chosen" people. Their pain and suffering is different, and no mere gentile can hope to compete with it.
We didn't arrive at this point, where our "representatives" could overwhelmingly approve something like the Antisemitism Awareness Act, suddenly. The groundwork was laid for this over the decades. Our government has allowed the Anti Defamation League- which should be forced to register as an agent of a foreign nation- Israel- to be our national hall monitor on public discourse for a very long time. Many a career has been ruined by the ADL, and it started long before anyone heard of "cancel culture." Is it "anti-Semitic" to ask why they are often the sole arbiters of what can and can't be written, or said, in the United States? Apparently the Catholic League of Decency died and left them boss. Their emphasis on naked bodies has given way to the ADL's regulation of communication and/or policy impacting the state of Israel.
The ADL drove Liberty Lobby, and its feisty little populist newspaper The Spotlight, into bankruptcy in 2001. They managed to reemerge with the American Free Press, a bi- weekly newspaper that I regularly contribute to. This was kind of an early warning shot, which would culminate in the deplatforming of Alex Jones and many other YouTube channels with large subscriber bases less than twenty years later. The ADL was after Jones for years, even though he bent over backwards to not criticize Israel, something that caused many listeners to question his sincerity. The ADL would contend that Jones's constant references to "the globalists" were code for "the Jews." It's a "dog whistle" thing, you wouldn't understand.
Indeed, the ADL and their ilk have protested terms like "international bankers." They know that you really mean "the Jews" when you say that. Just talking about the Rothschilds, the most preeminent banking family in the world, brings an instant charge of "anti- Semitism." The Rothschilds are such shadowy figures that, when I was writing Survival of the Richest, I really couldn't include much about them. Unlike all the other One Percenters, their wealth is hard to calculate, and their influence seems purposefully hidden. There's just no information out there about them, other than the allegations of "conspiracy theorists," who by mentioning them become, of course, dastardly "anti-Semites."
I wrote about Henry Ford's pacifism in Crimes and Cover-Ups in American Politics: 1776-1963. He has been condemned by court historians, who were obviously influenced by the ADL, as a hopeless "anti-Semite." Ford desperately wanted to stop the U.S. from becoming involved in World War I. He used his substantial wealth to organize an effort to get advocates of peace together on an ocean liner. This was condemned by the state controlled media as a pointless excursion on a "ship of fools." Ford's invitation was turned down, even by enlightened men like his good friend Thomas Edison, and Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan, the only member of the Wilson administration to oppose our entrance into the war. Wilson's handler "Colonel" Edward Mandel House called Ford "crude and ignorant."
It would be interesting to see how the court historians would view Henry Ford if he hadn't ventured into the world of "anti-Semitism" with the publication of The International Jew, a periodical that he distributed for free to all his employees. In fact, most of the antiwar voices that have come from the right-wing over the decades, were smeared as "anti-Semitic." See Pat Buchanan as a recent example. Consider the thinking here; to object to American involvement in a foreign war is to be "anti- Semitic." Is this an inadvertent admission that "the Jews" are behind all wars, which is the contention of many extreme voices in the conspiracy world? Remember the flack Buchanan got for his comment about Israel's "amen corner?" Well, it looks like the "amen corner" is alive and well, with the Antisemitism Awareness Act.
I have talked about how things are coming to a head, between the Zionists that have ruled this nation completely for my entire lifetime, and the nonwhites all across the country, who have been enabled like spoiled trust fund babies. Because the anti- White agenda has inculcated a fierce hostility towards all Whites in them, this confrontation over Israel was inevitable. Perhaps the Zionists wanted this, or perhaps they're not as clever as we give them credit for, and didn't think things through thoroughly. Dr. Frankenstein created a monster, and it's coming back to bite him, just as it did in all those universal horror films. Nonwhites see Israel as just another White colonial power, who has terribly mistreated the nonwhite Palestinians.
I shouldn't have to keep saying this, but I want to make it clear that I am not condemning all Jews. I am not suggesting that "the Jews-" meaning an entire group, are conspirators ruling the world. The vast majority of Jews are just like the rest of us in the eighty percent who lose to varying degrees in our casino economy. This includes an unknown number of partial Jews, like most of my cousins in my very large family. But it cannot be denied, and the fact it cannot be openly discussed is the big issue here, that a tiny minority of Jews wield an extraordinary power in this country, and have wielded that wildly disproportionate power for a good century now. Almost all the major motion picture studios, from the very beginning, were headed by Jews. Every television network was, and continues to be, run by Jews.
Now this kind of concentration of power cannot happen naturally, when the group involved constitutes only about two percent of the American population. But you can't mention that, and perhaps now will be subject to prosecution for making a simple, provably true statement. Do you think if the Unitarians were in charge of every film studio and television network that you might hear something about it? Or the Moonies? Would every politician be scared to speak out against the Unitarians or the Moonies? As the old expression goes, if you want to know who's in charge, look at who you can't criticize. Well, the Antisemitism Awareness Act has made it crystal clear who you can't criticize. And by any logical standard, who's in charge.