Transcription
You wake up in 2026, and our closest ally is using our weapons to kill and displace people because of how they were born. And not only is that okay, the only real crime is complaining about it. Well, that tells you, well, it tells you a lot of things, but it tells you we've got a whole new set of rules. We have a whole new civic religion. And that civic religion, once again, is called Israelism. What you're watching play out in the United States and in the Middle East by the United States is your brain on Israelism. This notion that there's a new civic religion and it is beholden to a foreign country over the domestic populace. Tucker explains that here and gets into Trump's plan, which he lays out right out in the open to crack down and, in fact, terminate criticism toward Israel. So, let's break this down. Please like the video and subscribe to the channel.
And it means that any criticism of Israel is by definition bad, and any praise of Israel is by definition virtuous because the only truly good thing is Israel. And we know that by the actual definition, and there is one, of anti-semitism. So, what is anti-semitism? And if you've been called it, or if someone's ever implied it, you you have a problem with the Jews. You're kind of obsessed with the Jews. Say people who are completely obsessed with the Jews. You're probably wondering, like, what are they accusing me of? Well, here it is. This is the IHRA, International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. IHRA, you may hear this. The IHRA definition of anti-semitism. Do you know what it is? It's on their website. It's worth looking at. Spent the morning reading it. Fascinating.
So, here's the actual definition of anti-semitism. And by the way, this is a now globally recognized definition, enshrined in law around the world in more than 40 countries. This is the definition, and I'm quoting: "Anti-semitism is a certain perception of Jews which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews." Huh? So anti-semitism is a perception. It's a feeling. Okay. I thought you were allowed to have any feeling or perception you wanted. You could look at facts and come to any conclusion you wanted. No. No, no, no. So, first of all, they're telling you this is a thought crime. And how do you enforce thoughts? How can you ascertain someone else's thoughts? Well, you really can't. Broadening the definition as far as possible to skewer people. That's all this is. Certain perceptions are inherently immoral. They're quote "anti-semitic," which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews. Oh, so you don't have to hate the Jews to be anti-semitic? No. Well, that answers the question for those of us who don't hate Jews at all. How could you be anti-semitic if you don't hate Jews? Well, you can be, according to the official definition of it.
Continuing the quote: "Rhetorical, rhetorical meaning talking, words, speech, formerly protected, no longer. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities." Wait a second. So anti-semitism is not necessarily hatred of Jews, and it can be expressed toward non-Jews. So you don't have to hate Jews, and you don't have to express or have these perceptions, these feelings toward Jews. You can be non-Jews, too. Yeah. They just give the game away. It's not about Jew hatred. They framed this definition around anti-semitism to just bash over the head critics of Israel. That's what this is all about. That's why they're saying it's not necessarily hatred of Jews because they don't care about the Jew hatred. They only care about the weapon to wield for the advances of Netanyahu's territorial ambitions in the Middle East. It has nothing to do with Jews in general. That's why, you know, Donald Trump can fall into, you know, announcing all these things that you and I would be called anti-semitic for, like saying, "Hey, Miriam Adelson's allegiances might be more to Israel than the United States, and look at what I did in my first term. All I did was deliver for the Adelsons on behalf of Israel. Everything that they asked from the recognition of the Golan Heights to shredding the JCPOA, etc." He has boasted about that, and he doesn't get accused of anti-semitism for that. Why? He served the desires of that foreign country, of Israel. So he doesn't get called a Jew hater. But if you or I, or Tucker, or Candace, or Nick Fuentes, said that same exact thing, we would be skewed as being a Jew hater, a blood libelist. That's what we would be told.
What is this? Well, the people who wrote it at the IHRA probably anticipated this would be confusing to you. So, they gave 11 examples of what anti-semitism is. Just so you know, like, how do I know if I'm being anti-semitic? Well, here are 11 examples. Of those 11 examples, and we did the math, 23 are criticism of Israel, the state of Israel, the nation. With the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, Bibi. There it is. Criticism of Israel in two-thirds of the examples that the IHRA gave. That's anti-semitism. Including, here we go, drawing, quote, "drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis." Oh, in other words, if you think what's happening in Gaza is genocide, well, Nazis committed genocide. Now, the state of Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, meaning they're trying to eliminate people on the basis of their blood. You are an anti-semite. It's awful convenient they passed that that statute, that portion of this, by the way, as they openly boast about consummating the greater Israel project in Lebanon, annexing all the territory south of the Litani River. Katz and Smotrich and Netanyahu have all talked about that. They used that to short-circuit the ceasefire between the US and Iran, by the way, and Israel was supposed to be a party to that. As they talk about settlements in Gaza, as they pass resolutions allowing for expanded West Bank settlements. That's what they say. You can't have these allusions to Nazism, even when that plays out in front of our eyes. The genocide in Gaza over the last few years, as well. That's anti-semitic. Just look the other way. Don't pay attention to what Israel is doing. Awfully convenient, especially when that is happening in front of all of our eyes. Oh, okay. You're an anti-semite if you think that.
It also tells us that the suggestion that Jews killed Jesus is quote "classic anti-semitism." Classic anti-semitic. So there goes the New Testament. The whole New Testament is anti-semitic, too. Read, read the Gospels. Yeah, that's absolutely crazy because obviously the Romans crucified Jesus, but it was the high priests and the Pharisees that handed Jesus over to the Romans and pleaded for his execution. So, both were involved. But if you're going to say that that's anti-semitic, then the just the Gospel is anti-semitic. And that's what this definition holds. That's what this definition holds is that if you or I, or any other Christians, adhere to the Gospels as truth, as divine truth, with Jesus as our martyr and savior in it, being put to death at the behest of Pharisees clamoring to the Romans, then you're an anti-semite. That's literally what their definition is saying. And see if they they fall under that definition. They do.
Why does this matter? Well, because about 40 US states and the District of Columbia and our biggest cities, Miami, Los Angeles, have adopted this. This is their standard that they voted on and adopted. It's in the law. This standard, the one that tells you that criticism of the secular state of Israel or portions of the New Testament are quote "anti-semitism." The government of almost 40 states in the United I think 39 states, 40 countries around the world, but not just countries, NGOs, sports teams, the British Soccer League, Chelsea, United, all of them have adopted this standard. Now, why would a sports team adopt this? Well, who knows why? Well, that tells it all right there is the fact that this goes far beyond the reaches of politics, far beyond that landscape to sports teams. This is a new civic religion. Israelism is not a joke. This is what is taking hold not only in political environments but sports and cultural environments handed down through this organization where this has to be the baseline for everything. And what anti-semitism is, it just seems a way to crack down on speech. They say it's hate speech, but no, they actually just hate speech. That's what Jimmy Dore says about it, and I'll echo his words there. That's exactly what this is. It's policing thought crimes and not the immoral actions that lead to mass atrocities, let's say, in Gaza or in Iran right now. Not any of those things. Those aren't atrocities. What you really have to pay attention to and condemn is anti-semitism. And again, that's just criticism of Israel. It's just adhering to basic tenets in the Bible and having impure thoughts that can't be adjudicated by any man or any government.
Think about it for a minute. Why, why would you declare something illegal? Oh, because you want to punish people who violate it. That's why this happened today. Ukraine, that beacon of democracy and freedom that we've sent hundreds of billions of dollars to, just made it law today that anti-semitism, in other words, criticism of Israel, is a felony punishable by up to eight years in prison. Eight years in prison. How could a rational person understand that? Well, a rational person could not understand that. Why would a citizen, a citizen of one country, be sent to prison for criticizing the leadership of another country, a country not his own? Why would a citizen of one country be sent to prison for having opinions about historical events that he did not participate in and that were almost a century ago? Does that make any sense? Of course, it makes no sense. But it also means that you're going to have to dissolve, if you're being abiding by the same standard for everyone in Ukraine, you're going to have to dissolve the Azov Regiment, a literal group of neo-Nazis incorporated into Ukraine's military. Used to hear about them a lot in mainstream publications before there was this war fervor to fight against Russia, open up Bellose relationships with Russia in favor of expanding NATO, which is essentially America's military arm, an extension of the military war machine in Europe that you that just got buried under the rug. The Azov Regiment is a group of neo-Nazis with true Jew hatred. They would have to be dissolved. But this law won't be applied equally such that they're dissolved. Why? It's just to target critics of regimes and namely the Israeli regime. And anyone that supports the Israeli regime is to be elevated and protected and safeguarded against all criticism. That's what this is for. Something tells me that the Azov Regiment isn't going to go down because of this law in Ukraine. No, except in religious terms. Those are blasphemy laws. Same as the old blasphemy laws. And for all the talk of how the mullahs are bad, the mullahs are bad. Well, the mullahs probably are bad. Not defending the mullahs, but why are we told the mullahs are bad? The mullahs are bad because they're religious extremists. They have blasphemy laws. They'll hurt you if you say certain things. Okay. Well, that looks a lot like what we're seeing here. Almost 40 states.
Now, it's interesting. The president has been all of a sudden, it makes sense. This may, this may be the Rosetta Stone that helps us interpret events we're watching now that are very confusing. And those would include the president advocating for re-upping FISA. Now, FISA, without getting too boring about it, is the law, which has to be voted on periodically by Congress, that allows the US government to spy on Americans, to spy on them. Now, the whole point of it is supposed to be to spy on foreigners who are threatening us, but the nature of the technology being what it is, there are cases where we pick up communications from Americans, and in order to make that legal, we need this thing called FISA. Yeah. And what this is is a serious violation of the Fourth Amendment because what it does is it allows the government to create lists of foreigners that are foreign terrorists. And if they intercept communications between Americans and those foreigners, they suddenly deny your due process. They suddenly deny the fact that you have privacy, violate the Fourth Amendment in the process, and then without any warrant, just surveil you. They can take your belongings that were involved in these communications, seize your records, etc. Despite again, the Fourth Amendment saying that the feds can't do this, making you in the crosshairs of the DOJ and pinning blame on terrorism on you. It's criminal. It's horrific. But it's exactly what we have here. And John Ratcliffe, the head of the CIA, played a key role in expanding FISA 702 just a few years ago. Many people built their political careers in this administration from opposing FISA 702, like Tulsi Gabbard. Now, when she was in confirmation hearings, she reversed on that and said, "Yeah, FISA 702 can't be reversed" to get into the good graces of the Trump administration, I suppose. But nonetheless, even when Trump was out of power just a year and a half ago, he was blasting FISA 702 because it was literally used against him and his campaign to try to frame him as a Russian agent. But now you have Trump in power, entrenched in this Israel-first regime, this surveillance regime tied at the hip at Palantir and Peter Thiel, by the way, now supporting FISA 702.
Now, what's interesting is that the president himself was a victim of the misuse of these laws in his first term. They were used against him in what became a kind of bureaucratic attempted coup against him that we call Russiagate. And so, the president was personally very sensitive on this question. He'd been the victim of the misuse of these laws. And so, he said many times, "I'm not for that. I don't think Americans should be spied on by their own government. I don't think you pay your taxes. Today's tax day, by the way, in order to be spied on by your government when you've done nothing wrong. But we are. Everyone knows that. And this allows it to be legal." All of a sudden, the president is advocating for this new law. He wants the Congress to allow the US government to spy on Americans. Why could that possibly be? Well, there are a couple of clues. One comes from the documents unearthed and made public, God bless him, by Ed Snowden some years ago that showed that the NSA, the National Security Agency, the largest of all of our spy agencies, turned over raw data to, can you guess? Oh, the Israeli government that included private information about Americans. So they sweep up all this information, the comms, the communications of American citizens, and they just turn it all over without taking private information about Americans, our citizens. It's turned over to a foreign government and its intel service to be used, God knows how. That's one. Two is a very revealing moment in Congress two and a half years ago with a man, a congressman from Ohio called Mike Turner, who at the time was the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and he was arguing, as chairman of the House Intel Committee always do, for more spying on Americans. So, the House and Senate Intel committees are supposed to provide oversight of the intelligence agencies because you don't really know what they're doing. You don't know what their budget is. The whole thing is secret. You can't know. So your representatives on these committees oversee just to make sure that they're not violating the US Constitution or your human rights given to you by God and protected by the US government. That's the whole point. But for my lifetime, those committees have worked in concert with the intel agencies to violate the civil rights of Americans. And they've almost always been run by some of the most dishonest and personally screwed-up people in the entire Congress.
So that's exactly what I was going to say. I like that he had the divide between what they tell you the purpose of these subcommittees is and what their actual function is. And it is to carry the water for the regime to actually endorse and sanction the dissolution and termination and obliteration of civil rights of Americans throughout the country in collusion with the deep state, in collusion with the CIA. That's what its purpose is. FISA 702 is part of that. And FISA 702 is just a blatant slap in the face to Americans that care about privacy, that care about individual rights that are always tarnished by government, that are always subverted for the purposes of ambitious people in power to crack down on critiques, and in this case, critiques of Israel. Maybe it's not always true, but certainly in the case of Mike Turner, it is true. You know, the guy publicly accused of corruption with a chaotic personal life, that guy winds up as the chairman of an intel committee. Hmm. I wonder why someone who's vulnerable to control winds up in charge of oversight of the intel agencies. Okay, that's definitely Mike Turner. So anyway, Mike Turner is running this, and he's making the case to about 200 staffers on the Hill, and he's saying, "We got to do this. We got to do." And he has a bunch of slides behind him, and one of the slides he puts up shows people protesting the murder of civilians by the Israeli government in Gaza, those Gaza protests. And he says, "We need this because these people clearly taking orders from Hamas. These are like college kids who were mad about babies being murdered by the IDF." That's exactly right. They did this to try to ruin the life of Mahmud Khalil and some others that were obviously critical of Israel. They just called them terrorists. They just called them sympathizers with terrorism, even while the real terrorism was coming from the IDF, was coming from Israel into Gaza, causing over 100,000 deaths, and something like 83% of those deaths were civilians, even according to Israeli intelligence from a database leak. That coverage got some play last year. But we're not allowed to talk about that. We're only allowed to talk about terrorism that comes from other countries or other peoples. Even though that Israel and the United States bankrolling Israel, especially, are the biggest purveyors of terrorism in the world, if your definition of terrorism is targeting individuals and civilians to achieve a political objective. That's what Israel and the United States does. That's what Israel does to subjugate the Palestinians, not only in Gaza, but in the West Bank as well. That's what the genocide was. But you're not allowed to call that terrorism. Despite the body counts, the disproportionate numbers of people killed. You're not even allowed to call hostages taken by the Israelis hostages. You're just supposed to call them enemy combatants to reduce and minimize the humanity of those people. Not, not even with any trial, no due process, held indefinitely, no trial whatsoever to determine whether or not they were terrorists. But on the other side, you have to call them hostages if Hamas takes them. You can just see how this plays out. It truly is a religion, and it truly is horrifying. But because Mike Turner and a lot of people like Mike Turner, because look at them and say, "You've got foreign connections. You can't have come to this conclusion on your own. You didn't just choose apostasy. You clearly were corrupted by some outside force, some foreign power. We get to spy on you." He made that case in Congress.
So, how does this connect to blasphemy laws as outlined and adopted by almost 40 states by IHRA? Really simple. If having these quote "perceptions" is a crime, then that gives the US government pretext to spy on you and then punish you. Another way of thinking about it is almost no human action or now perception, thought crime, is ever encoded by any legislative body without an eye toward punishing people who violate it. Why would you, why would you vote on it if you didn't intend to punish people who go against the standard you set? Well, you wouldn't. That's exactly what this is. The goal is to ensure the enforcement of the law. But how can you enforce the law unless you have hard data that someone is violating these tenets? Well, you expand the laws to be all-encompassing so that there is a pretext. There is a justification to punish people for saying things you don't want them to say. It's just a pure attack on free speech and on privacy at the same time, all rolled up into the same package. The same totalitarian package that we were supposed to be against. Trump and his acolytes said in 2024, rightly so. When Biden and Harris and Walls and AOC and John Kerry were all talking about the need to police against disinformation on the internet, they mocked the Ministry of Truth, and now they're setting up their own Ministry of Truth just on the basis of what adheres to the Israel-first doctrine or Israelism, as Tucker is appropriately, I think, calling it. And so the point is, this new civic religion is very much the opposite of the old civic religion in that it doesn't protect civil rights, human inherent rights. It is the enemy of those rights. It is the enemy of universalism, the belief that all of us were created by God and have equal moral worth. It is the enemy of that. And it's the enemy of the understanding of people that led to the Bill of Rights, which is we have these rights given to us by God. It does not believe that. And you know that because its first command is that you shut up, and not just shut up, but change your quote "perceptions." Change the thoughts in your head. Change your feelings, your perceptions, your conclusions. You must change those. It is a totalitarian worldview. It certainly is. That's what the surveillance state is. That's what the Israel-first doctrine is. That is what these wars of choice are all about. The endless corporate welfare, all the extortion in the United States from the central bank, and the extortion apparatus, the IRS to seize funds to support this madness. That's what it's all about. It's rampant corruption at the highest levels. And it is imposing a new civic religion. I think Tucker's right to say that. And you can see the rigidity and erraticism from the proponents of supporting this right now because in the distance, they see a closing door of the greater Israel project that needs to come to fruition. Even as Americans, in their perspective, even as Americans turn away from this doctrine, turn away from this mantra, especially younger Americans that want no part of this, that they do want to focus inwardly on domestic concerns, whether it be, you know, college education, or, you know, food and all sorts of things related to immigration, or home ownership levels being through the roof, not being able to afford groceries and gas for any for many Americans are suffering. With that. But now you see this new push to expand FISA 702, expand the surveillance state in concert with these speech codes, mostly at a local level that redefine anti-Zionism as anti-semitism in so many ways. Tucker relayed some things that would conflate the Gospels with anti-semitism, of course, to make any possible enemy that could ever criticize Israel or this foreign policy regime, these foreign policy programs, to the extent that you can completely squash this dissent. It really is a horrifying prospect. And Snowden really in 2012 only scratched the surface in what was possible. It was, you know, blowing the whistle off a massive violation of the Fourth Amendment, the Prism program that gathered in mass data from telecom and internet providers that showed that the government was collecting in bulk almost everything that Americans had as a footprint online in bulk quantity without a warrant. Well, now you're seeing the usage of that data and expanding the collection of that data to be used for nefarious schemes. And if you don't believe me, just take a look at this of what Trump is talking about with this right now. This truly is something. This Truth Social post he just posted talks about the need to expand FISA 702. And by the way, if you go back to his former tweets when he was on Twitter, he was absolutely excoriating FISA 702 because it was used against him and he didn't want it used against Americans supposedly. Well, now he's in power and he wants it used against Americans again. What a, what a coincidence that is. And all the neocons in Israel-first are surrounding him and pushing this. What he says here in the second paragraph is talking about its usage against him in Russiagate. But he says in the middle, "I am willing to risk the giving up of my rights and privileges as a citizen for our great military and country. Our military patriots desperately need FISA 702." So he's just putting it right out in the open here. This is giving up rights and privileges of a citizen for the military for our country. And by military and country here, he means for the territorial ambitions of Israel as it relates to Gaza, the West Bank, southern Lebanon, and Iran. That's what he means right here. And just look at this down here. "I've spoken with many in our military who say FISA is necessary in order to protect our troops overseas." These are the words of a total tyrant. He's talking about security over liberty, and without liberty, you'll never have security, even under the auspices of promises to the contrary. Benjamin Franklin used to say, "Where my country is, where liberty dwells." Well, liberty will not dwell in a country where you've traded your liberty for security. That's what we found out, I thought, from the war on terror, from the enactment of the TSA, the erection of the DHS, the surveillance state, all these nefarious schemes, the Patriot Act. This used to be bashed by people in Trump's coalition and in fact by Trump's himself. And now he wants to wield this power in his own preferred direction, the red flavor of free speech and privacy violations heading toward Israel. Anything that would be critical of Israel, we want that to be squashed completely. That's what's at the heart of this. It is at the heart of Israelism. I think Tucker broke it down appropriately, and we'll have to see where this goes. It needs to be defeated. FISA 702 needs to be completely defeated, repealed, and the Fourth Amendment must be restored. That's what I have to say. It's a horrifying prospect to see things go this way, but it's just in line of what's happening in the world right now with this Israel-first mantra.
But what do you guys think? Do you think I'm right about this? Is Tucker right in his breaking this down and describing this as a civic religion, Israelism? Let me know in the comments down below. Please like the video. Subscribe to the channel. Also, subscribe to Tucker. Great segment. And if you like this video, please consider joining Liberty Vault as a member. You can do that by clicking the join button right down below. That makes you a member, and thus immediately gain access to all of my videos before they go live to the general public on YouTube. There's always several videos for you to watch before anyone else like that, and you'll be able to do that as a member. And also, if you want a free copy of my first book, Compact of the Republic, click the link in the description down below. That sends you to a website. You just plug in your name on that website, and I'll give you a free copy of that book. No obligation whatsoever. And look, I have a few demands from this sinister Israel-first, censorship-addicted, corrupt Epstein class regime, and I won't apologize for them. No more war, no more debt, no more inflation, and no more empire. Peace out, guys. Catch you in the next one.