Mark Dankof is the former 36th District Chairman of the Republican Party in King County/Seattle. He was an elected delegate to Texas State Republican Conventions in 1994 and 1996 and entered the United States Senate race in Delaware in 2000 as the nominated candidate of the Constitution Party against Democratic candidate Thomas Carper and Republican incumbent William Roth.
Dankof has been disturbing the Zionist party for many years through his podcast (The Ugly Truth) and political activism. Here we are going to discuss an article written by Katie Zavadski of The Daily Beast last December on the subject of “Anti-Semitism” and the accompanying issues of Zionism in America. The text of the interview follows:
Alexis: Last December, Katie Zavadski of the Daily Beast called you “an anti-Semite.” She didn’t define what she meant by the term, but we all know that she was articulating the promiscuous and perverse idea that criticism of Zionism and its influence on much of the West is anti-Semitism.
This is not to say that anti-Semitism does not exist. In fact, the essentially Talmudic or Pharisaic idea that Jewish behavior is genetic is arguably and irresponsibly anti-Semitic. It is philosophically contradictory, morally repugnant, and logically untenable.
I still don’t know why people who profess to be rational cannot see the internal contradiction within that system, and this has been my frustration for years now. I am certainly not willing to drop practical reason and embrace this incoherently risible system. Let’s get this straight: are you an anti-Semite?
Dankof : You basically and effectively expose the nature of the problem with reckless and promiscuous use of the term. Zavadski and those of her ilk almost invariably fail to provide meaningful and quantifiable definition for the terms “anti-Semite” and “anti-Semitism.” And so I must ask the legitimate rhetorical question. According to whose meaningful and quantifiable definition is Mark Dankof an “anti-Semite” or not?
If the term is utilized to describe one who is motivated by racial bigotry, hatred, and doctrines linking morally and politically repugnant behavior to genetic and biological determinism, the answer is an unequivocal “No.”
If we accept at face value the way Katie Zavadski and the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai Brith use the term against those who disagree with their respectively sinister and malicious roles, motives and methods, especially in the United States and Europe, the answer would be “Yes.”
I agree with the devout Roman Catholic traditionalist and scholar, Dr. E. Michael Jones of Culture Wars, who has emphasized that the use of the term “anti-Semitism” is connected to the insistence of those who employ it in ad hominem attacks on disfavored individuals and groups that there needs to be Jewish control of narrative and Jewish demonization of dissent.
The definition of “anti-Semitism” bequeathed to us by Jayne Gardner is even more succinct than that of Dr. Jones. She states unequivocally that “Anti-Semitism is not an irrational hatred of Jews by Gentiles. It’s a rational and reasonable response to Jewish supremacist behavior in their host countries.”
Finally, I will simply say that the utilization of the term “anti-Semitism” as a politically weaponized canard is an attempt to conceal what I believe the truth to be about the doctrine of Jewish racial supremacist ideology as the philosophical underpinning for land thievery, terrorism, and genocide in Palestine, along with the systematic concealment of the evidence of overwhelming Jewish financial and political support in the United States and Europe for fiat money and central banking; globalist trade treaties; Israel’s usurpation of American foreign policy; the overwhelmingly Jewish ownership position in the major media consortiums operating in the West; the amount of Jewish and pro-Israel PAC money routinely buying American Presidential elections and Congressional seats and committee assignments on Capitol Hill; and the probably disproportionate role played by Jewish interests in promoting the Cultural Marxism which has engulfed the United States and Western Europe in my lifetime, especially in the advancement of the LGBT agenda, the abortion industry, the pornography industry, and so forth.
Ultimately, the Talmudic doctrine of Jewish racial supremacy is a frontal assault not simply on the rights of Palestinians and other Middle Eastern peoples, but in an American context should be properly seen as a frontal assault on the political and cultural autonomy of millions of Americans and on the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States. The corroborative proof for this statement is perhaps best found in the draconian Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004 signed into law by George W. Bush.
This law is a unique synthesis of the Orwellian, the un-Constitutional, and the Stalinistic. It establishes a special department within the American State Department to monitor Global Anti-Semitism, which in turn is to report annually to Congress. This Act defines a person as being anti-Semitic if they hold any of the following beliefs:
- Any assertion, “that the Jewish community controls government, the media, international business and the financial world.”
- The expression of, “Strong anti-Israel sentiment.”
- Expressing, “Virulent criticism,” of Israel’s leaders, past or present. The State Department gives an example of this occurring when a swastika is portrayed in a cartoon decrying the behaviour of a past or present Zionist leader.
- Any criticism of the Jewish religion or its religious leaders or literature with the emphasis on the Talmud and Kabbalah.
- Any criticism of the United States Government and Congress for being under undue influence by the Jewish-Zionist community, which would include Jewish organizations such as the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
- Any criticism of the Jewish-Zionist community for promoting globalism or what some call the “New World Order.”
- Placing any blame on Jewish leaders and their followers for inciting the Roman crucifixion of Christ.
- Citing any facts that could in any way diminish the “Six Million” figure of Holocaust victims.
- Claiming that Israel is a racist state.
- Making any claim that there exists a, “Zionist Conspiracy.”
- Offering proof that Jews and their leaders created Communism and the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia.
- Making, “derogatory statements about Jewish persons.”
- Asserting that spiritually disobedient Jews do not have the Biblical right to re-occupy Palestine.
- Making any allegations of Mossad involvement in the 9/11 attack.
I have three concluding observations about the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004 . First, I suspect the Bolshevik mentality of this legislation is what actually undergirds the accusation against me leveled last December by Katie Zavadski of The Daily Beast.
Second, the Christian Zionist crowd which worships the modern Zionist state needs to contemplate the implications of the President of the United States signing into law a bill which defines the Synoptic Gospel and Johannine and Pauline New Testament witness of the facts surrounding the arrest, trial, and crucifixion of Jesus Christ as “Anti-Semitism.”
Third, as if the 2004 version of the law isn’t Stalinist enough, as recently as February 27th of 2015, an attempt was underway in the American House of Representatives to make it even worse. I plan on tracking this again in the Congressional Record to see if there are any updates.
Alexis: I agree completely. The Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004 cannot be defended on a moral or rational ground at all. In fact, if it is true, then Jewish historiographer Heinrich Graetz must have been one of the most virulent anti-Semites in recent memory for saying this about Polish Jews:
“A love of twisting, distorting, ingenious quibbling, and a foregone antipathy to what did not lie within their field of vision, constituted the character of the Polish Jews. Pride in their knowledge of the Talmud and a spirit of dogmatism attached even to the best rabbis, and undermined their moral sense…
“Integrity and right-mindedness they had lost as completely as simplicity and the sense of truth. The vulgar acquired the quibbling method of the schools, and employed it to outwit the less cunning.
“They found pleasure and a sort of triumphant delight in deception and cheating against members of their own race; cunning could not well be employed, because they were sharp-witted; but the non-Jewish world with which they came into contact experienced to its disadvantage the superiority of the Talmudic spirit of the Polish Jews.”
If the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004 is legitimate, then there are countless Jewish anti-Semites out there—and many of them are academics. For example, Jewish scholar Nathan Abrams explicitly declares in his book The New Jew in Film:
“[O]lder generation of Jewish filmmakers and actors, here [Woody] Allen, [Stanley] Kubrick and [Ron] Jeremy, arguably not only increased the Jewishness of their work, but updated it to match the new post-1990 sensibility by defining it in increasingly sexualized (and pornographic) terms.”
Abram’s work has been published by academic centers like Rutgers University Press, and no one has ever accused him of being an anti-Semite. In fact, he gets great accolades for writing such provocative works.
Another Jewish “anti-Semite” is Yuri Slezkine, author of The Jewish Century, published by Princeton University Press. Slezkine gets right to the point when he states: “The Modern Age is the Jewish Age, and the twentieth century, in particular, is the Jewish Century.” “Modernization,” he adds, “is about everyone becoming Jewish.”
I am still waiting for the day when Slezkine will be branded a full-blown anti-Semite. I am still waiting for organizations like the ADL to call Princeton University and ask them to repudiate that book. As you argue quite sharply, what we are seeing again and again is that the word “anti-Semitism” has been weaponized. And this has been confirmed by Israeli officials such as Shulamit Aloni. Aloni told syndicated columnist and investigative reporter Amy Goodman back in 2002 that “anti-Semitism” is actually
“a trick. We always use it. When from Europe somebody is criticizing Israel, then we bring up the Holocaust. When in this country people are criticizing Israel, then they are anti-Semitic. And the organization is strong, and has a lot of money, and the ties between Israel and the American Jewish establishment are very strong and they are strong in this country, as you know. And they have power, which is OK.
“It’s very easy to blame people who criticize certain acts of the Israeli government as anti-Semitic, and to bring up the Holocaust, and the suffering of the Jewish people, and that justifies everything we do to the Palestinians.”
That pernicious trick is virtually everywhere. For instance, in 1988, Jewish journalist and Hollywood historian Neal Gabler wrote his influential book An Empire of their Own: How Jews Invented Hollywood. Six years later, in 1994, British journalist William Cash adopted Gabler’s premise, arguing that Jews largely controlled Hollywood in an article for the highly-read British journal Spectator. Gabler, seemingly oblivious to the fact that Cash was simply reiterating and articulating the sentiments of An Empire of their Own, called Cash’s article “an anti-Semitic bleat from a reactionary crackpot.”
E. Michael Jones concluded, “Gabler attacked Cash for saying what Gabler had said in his own book!” This attitude is appalling, but unfortunately it is becoming the rule rather than the exception among many Jewish writers and ideologues. In 2003, E. Michael Jones was universally called an anti-Semite for writing “Rabbi Dresner’s Dilemma: Torah v. Ethnos,” an article which meticulously and methodically detailed Jewish involvement in pornography. One year later, Jewish scholar Nathan Abrams took Jones’ thesis and expanded on it in the Jewish Quarterly. Abrams declared quite bluntly that the obvious reason why Jews are in the pornography business is that pornography
“is a way of defiling Christian culture and, as it penetrates to the very heart of the American mainstream (and is no doubt consumed by those very same WASPs), its subversive character becomes more charged…
“Extending the subversive thesis, Jewish involvement in the X-rated industry can be seen as a proverbial two fingers to the entire WASP establishment in America…Jewish involvement in porn, by this argument, is the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority: they are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion.
“Astyr remembers having ‘to run or fight for it in grammar school because I was a Jew. It could very well be that part of my porn career is an ‘up yours’ to these people’…Jews were also at the vanguard of the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Wilhelm Reich, Herbert Marcuse and Paul Goodman replaced Marx, Trotsky and Lenin as required revolutionary reading.”
Hopefully people now understand why directors like David Cronenberg and Eli Roth devote their entire careers defiling the American culture in films like A Dangerous Method, Cosmopolis, Videodrome, Hostel, etc. Cronenberg meant it when he told the Rolling Stone back in 1992:
“Yes. I´m putting art in opposition to religion—or as a replacement of religion, in the sense that if religion is used to allow you to come to terms with death, and also to guide you how to live your life, then I think that art can do the same thing. But in a much less schematic way, in a much less rigid and absolute way.”
Pornography, then, is no longer an abstract principle as in Freud’s psychoanalysis, but is a psychological weapon aimed at the heart of the moral and political order. This diabolical enterprise is being propagated in films in the name of “democracy” and “freedom.” How else would critics ceremoniously crown Eli Roth as the “torture porn” director?
Alexis: Let us go back to Zavadski. She disparagingly wrote, “Dankof made a splash by thanking Jews for bringing gay marriage to America.” The Jerusalem Post faulted you for the same thing. Why didn’t Zavadski and the Zionist media blame Joe Biden for making the same statement? How about the Times of Israel saying that “US Jews” are “among the most supportive of gay marriage”? It states that “Pew figures show 76% of Jews support legalizing gay marriage, higher than all but the youngest and most liberal of Democrats.”
The Jewish Daily Forward went even further to say that 80% of American Jews support gay marriage. Jewish scholar Josh Lambert, in his study Unclean Lips, meticulously documents that Jewish organizations and radicals challenged virtually all the laws against obscenity in the United States,
“including the sexual rights of gays and lesbians and women’s rights to contraception. In the postwar decades, many of the most influential lawyers who took on obscenity cases were Jewish…In addition to their legal work, these lawyers also wrote or edited books and essays for popular audiences in which they agitated against the suppression of literature and art, presenting the relevant arguments to authors, publishers, and general audiences who were unlikely to consult articles in legal journals.”
The Jerusalem Post itself had an article entitled, “Jewish groups hail Supreme Court’s legalization of gay marriage nationwide.” Here is a heading title by Fox News: “Conservative Jews approve gay wedding guidelines.”Brother Nathanael has said that organizations like the ADL have been promoting gay marriage to teenagers for a very long time. So, Zavadski is historically and intellectually out of touch with reality, isn’t she? She directly quoted you saying,
“It should not be ignored that the victories for abortion on demand and LGBT rights are reflective of the disproportionate influence of Jewish power, money, and activism in the United States. The key Jewish role played in the mainstreaming of abortion, LGBT, and pornography in the United States may be documented in Google search.”
What’s your thought on her perversion here?
Mark Dankof : Zavaski and The Daily Beast are guilty of moral, cultural, journalistic, and political perversion of the highest order. Obviously Joe Biden draws a free pass and laudatory coverage in the American Jewish and Israeli press for his statements on this subject since he is both an avowed Zionist and an avowed supporter of the Cultural Marxism embodied in the Obergefellv Hodges decision of the Supreme Court of the United States last June 26th. Mark Dankof is obviously an “anti-Semite” because he is neither. The deck of marked cards is clearly stacked against me. End of familiar story.
Is this outrageously unfair? Certainly. Is it un-American? It most certainly is. Is it typical behavior for Jewish journalists, media moguls, and Israeli operatives and Dual Citizens conducting their 5th Column business within the confines of American government? Clearly. It is all about repristinating what E. Michael Jones has stated in Culture Wars: Jewish Racial Supremacist Ideology, Jewish Control of Narrative, Jewish Demonization of Dissent.
Finally, I’d like fair-minded people who will be reading the text of this interview in Veterans Today to evaluate my writings on a variety of subjects on their own merits. As Francis Bacon once said, “Read not to believe and take for granted, nor to contradict and confute, but to weigh and consider.”
After all, that’s what being a real American and a decent, thinking human being is all about. The denizens of the Global Zionist Monolith in the West are clearly neither.
To get a sense of what has been going on in my situation for the last decade, I’d recommend the following: Mark Dankof Responds to the Jewish Voice for Peace Broadside of Alison Weir; my interview on the Second Letter of the Supreme Leader of Iran to Western Youth; my conversation with Kourosh Ziabari of the Fars News Agency on Israel and 9-11; my presentation on FDR and Pearl Harbor for the American Free Press National Conference in Austin in 2013; and one of my theological articles on The Hands of Time and the Appearance of Logos.
As for Katie Zavadski and the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai Brith, please reference Mark Dankof on Katie Zavadski of The Daily Beast: The Sting Beats the Beast at the End of History, and Mark Dankof’s Open Invitation to Rabbi Aryeh Tuchman of the ADL in New York: Come Out of the Closet and Join Us.
Lastly, I’d like to thank Veterans Today and a fine journalist named Jonas Alexis, for giving me the opportunity to tell a small slice of my own story to that segment of the American and international public that reads, thinks, and evaluates arguments and sources for themselves free of coercion and demonization emanating from any source.
We are individually and collectively in a war for the autonomy of the mind, the will, the conscience, and the soul in our mutual endeavors. May God be gracious in continuing to protect, empower, and inspire all of us as we battle the forces of darkness and oppression threatening Americans, Russians, Palestinians, Iranians, and all indigenous peoples and cultures on every corner of the planet. Truth will defeat falsehood. Good will overcome evil. Liberty will prevail over tyranny. We will be on the winning side at the end of our lives and at the end of history itself.
Alexis: Truth indeed will prevail. If Hegel and Solzhenitsyn are right, then there is no need to despair, despite the fact that truth is quite rare in the political firmament. We are the party of truth, and our job is to proclaim the truth loud and clear so that people of reason will finally rise up and dust the lies off their feet. Solzhenitsyn sums it up best:
“Our way must be: never knowingly support lies! Having understood where the lies begin—step back from that gangrenous edge! Let us not glue back the flaking scale of the Ideology, not gather back its crumbling bones, nor patch together its decomposing garb, and we will be amazed how swiftly and helplessly the lies will fall away, and that which is destined to be naked will be exposed as such to the world.”