Potential Republican presidential candidate and former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke told RT’s Thom Hartmann Thursday that Jews were the greatest threat to American democracy.
“Who, in your opinion, David Duke, are the Republicans most afraid of?” Hartmann asked the former Louisiana state representative. “Would it be the Jews, the African Americans or the gays?”
Most politicians would have dodgef that question, but not Duke.
“I think the fact is that both Democrats and Republicans are very afraid of the Jewish extremists, the Zionists, because the Zionists have incredible amounts of media power,” Duke said. “They’ve got the most powerful lobby in Washington, which is AIPAC, of course. And they’ve got enormous financial power. I mean, they control the Federal Reserve.”
“If the Jews really run the world then how did we end up with five Catholics running the U.S. Supreme Court?” Hartmann pressed.
“First off, we have two Jews on the Supreme Court. They’re very powerful and the point is that’s it’s not a question of whether a Jew is in a particular position of power. But Jewish extremists’ interests are. Israel is truly a terrorist state. Israel has even attacked America with terrorism.”
“I’m not saying that all Jews do,” he continued, “and I’m not against all Jewish people.”
“Well, thanks for that,” Hartmann said sarcastically.
“The Jewish extremists who control the Jewish people also control these critical aspects of power. I call it the Jewish matrix of power,” Duke remarked. “They control massive international finance, like the IMF, like the Federal Reserve, like a lot of the international banking, like Goldman Sachs… they also control the media.”
“David, enough of the anti-semitism,” Hartmann interrupted.
“It’s not anti-semitic, it’s reality,” Duke replied. “You start talking about Jewish extremists’ power, there comes the smears.”
Watch this video from RT’s The Big Picture, broadcast July 8, 2011.
“I think the fact is that both Democrats and Republicans are very afraid of the Jewish extremists, the Zionists, because the Zionists have incredible amounts of media power,” Duke said. “They’ve got the most powerful lobby in Washington, which is AIPAC, of course. And they’ve got enormous financial power. I mean, they control the Federal Reserve.”
Is that true? Hmmm...
An interesting quote from none other than Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa: "The Israeli government is placed on a pedestal [in the US], and to criticize it is to be immediately dubbed anti-Semitic," he said. "People are scared in this country, to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful -- very powerful."
Is even THAT true? Well, what do all the following people have in common?
Ben Bernanke Michael Chertoff Alan Greenspan Bernie Madoff Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel Obama's senior adviser, David Axelrod. Jared Bernstein Chief Economist and Economic Policy Advisor to the Vice President Danielle Borrin Special Assistant for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement to the Vice President Rahm Emanuel Chief of Staff Lee Feinstein Campaign Foreign Policy Advisor Gary Gensler Chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Elena Kagan (2009-2010) Solicitor General of the United States Ronald Klain Chief of Staff to the Vice President Jacob Lew Director of the Office of Management and Budget Eric Lynn Middle East Policy Advisor Peter Orszag Director of the Office of Management and Budget Dennis Ross Special Advisor for the Gulf and Southwest Asia to the Secretary of State Mara Rudman Foreign Policy Advisor Mary Schapiro Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission Dan Shapiro Head of Middle East/North Africa desk at the National Security Council; U.S. Ambassador to Israel Susan Sher First Lady's Chief of Staff Steven Simon Head of Middle East/North Africa desk at the National Security Council Gene Sperling Director National Economic Council James B. Steinberg Deputy Secretary of State Lawrence Summers Director National Economic Council Mona Sutphen Deputy White House Chief of Staff
Yeah, you guessed it: they're all Jewish.
A last quote:
"It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish power and prominence in popular culture. Any list of the most influential production executives at each of the major movie studios will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names." -- Michael Medved, a well-known Jewish author and film critic --
Typical response from the 50 Cent Party, by going right back to the Rules of Disinformation playbook, which we all know so well:
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviates”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
#17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can “argue” with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
#18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how “sensitive they are to criticism”.
#19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the “play dumb” rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
#20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
