''The penalties under the legislation include ... up to 20 years [in prison] for supporting calls to boycott Israel ... or furnishing information about whether someone is associated with [AIPAC].''
Great article. Unbelievable how these republicans are criminalizing freedoms.
I feel like no matter how hard I try to prove I love America and belong here, there are always people questioning my loyalty or treating me like an outsider.
I love this country and our western values more than anything. And those who are a threat to it are my enemy.
Meanwhile, Israeli-American dual citizen get a free pass to push their own agendas, even when its clear their agendas do not align with what’s best for our country. There are many dual citizens in our government. It’s insane to me. No dual citizen should be able to exert influence in our country.
It’s frustrating to see Israelis avoid that same scrutiny the rest of us go through
Dear Vicki, the last thing I'd want is to have some random 34yr old, unemployed, childless, mentaIly ill French Canadian mental patient, who larps as a neo-Nazi from his mom's basement to get "engagement", on my show
"As a Jewish convert to Orthodox Christianity with a fairly wide set of historical books under my belt, it troubles me to see some hierarchs and channels following the world's narrative about "anti-Semitism" and all the things that have been done to "combat anti-Semitism." I'll tell you directly, as a 100% pure blooded Ashkenazi man, how to fix "anti-Semitism:" Anti-Semitism will end when faithless Jews leave other groups of people alone and stop trying to transform their nations and cultures in ways that invariably harm the populations in question. It is really not that complicated.”
The communists pretending to be Jews/Zionists who have infiltrated Israel like the communists have infiltrated all Western governments (a.k.a. the synagogue of Satan to whom Christ referred in Revelation) are the ones pushing laws against "hate speech" to end the free speech which is the cornerstone of the free West.
Read "Pawns in the Game" by William Guy Carr. Puts everything in historical perspective.
Oct. 7th was done with their cooperation like 9/11 was done with the help of the American deep state.
God bless you and yours.
MAGA and all Western countries. End the communist globalist coup.
America First. "I support Israel,... I'm a Gentile Christian Zionist,"? Really? Sounds like you're anti-American? The only thing you should support is America, and the only thing you should be is an American.
I asked Gemini to list all the logical fallacies in this article - here it is (not short but an eye opener):
Based on the article you provided, here is an analysis of the logical fallacies present in the text. The analysis focuses on the structure of the arguments and the rhetorical techniques used, rather than the validity of the author's political positions.
Analysis of Logical Fallacies
The article employs several logical fallacies to build its case, primarily relying on emotional appeals, misrepresentation of opposing arguments, and unsubstantiated leaps in logic.
1. Straw Man Argument
This fallacy occurs when someone misrepresents an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack. The article uses this technique repeatedly, especially when interpreting laws and definitions.
Definition: The author takes the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism and provides his own uncharitable "Read:" interpretations.
Example: For the IHRA point about "Applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation," the author translates this as: "Read: you can’t criticize Israel."
Analysis: This is a straw man because the original text does not forbid criticism; it speaks against applying a unique standard of criticism to Israel that is not applied to other democracies. The author ignores this nuance and replaces it with an absolute, easier-to-refute position.
Legislation: The author makes exaggerated claims about the effects of proposed laws.
Example: "Imagine going to jail for 20 years for publicly refusing to buy Sabra hummus. ... Zionists believe boycotting Sabra hummus in the grocery store is worse than rape."
Analysis: This misrepresents the "IGO Anti-Boycott Act." The bill is aimed at companies complying with boycotts from international governmental organizations (like the UN), not an individual's personal grocery choices. By creating the absurd scenario of being jailed for not buying hummus, the author attacks a distorted and ridiculous version of the legislation.
2. Slippery Slope
This fallacy asserts that a relatively small first step will inevitably lead to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.1
Example: "If you publicly question U.S. aid to Israel, you will be in violation of the Civil Rights Act and labeled an antisemite under federal law. And once that label is applied, it opens the door to every kind of punishment: deplatforming, blacklisting, job loss, academic censorship, bank account closures..."
Analysis: The author argues that the "Antisemitism Awareness Act," which requires the Department of Education to consider the IHRA definition when investigating discrimination, will automatically lead to a cascade of severe punishments for merely questioning U.S. aid to Israel. This is a logical leap that assumes a worst-case-scenario chain reaction without sufficient evidence.
3. Ad Hominem & Appeal to Motive
This fallacy attacks the character, motive, or other attributes of the person making an argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.2
Example: After quoting Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massie, the author adds: "I'm no fan of Marjorie Taylor Greene—frankly, I think she's low IQ—but I'll take a dumb patriot over an ‘elite human capital’ traitor every day of the week."
Analysis: While he ultimately supports her action in this case, the author attacks Greene's intelligence ("low IQ") and labels his opponents "traitors." This is an ad hominem attack that focuses on the character of the individuals rather than the merits of their arguments or the legislation itself.
Example: "Zionists clearly hate Western Civilization and treat the U.S. Constitution not as a foundation to honor and protect, but as a hurdle to be cleverly sidestepped..."
Analysis: Instead of engaging with the arguments for the legislation, the author attacks the presumed motives and character of an entire, broadly defined group ("Zionists"), accusing them of hating Western Civilization and the Constitution.
4. Loaded Language and Appeal to Emotion
This technique uses words with strong positive or negative connotations to stir up emotions in the reader, rather than to make a logical argument.3
Example: Describing the situation in San Marcos, the author states: "It’s about whether cities in America can make autonomous decisions to not be Israeli slaves without being blackmailed by their own governors..."
Analysis: The terms "slaves" and "blackmailed" are emotionally charged and inflammatory. They frame a political dispute over state and local funding as a master-slave relationship, which is a form of extreme exaggeration (hyperbole) meant to provoke outrage rather than critical thought.
Example: The author repeatedly uses the word "treason" to describe the actions of lawmakers. "Treason is a strong word, but not too strong..." and "The 'Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2025' is the most serious anti-American threat to the Constitution that I’ve seen in my lifetime. It’s literally treason."
Analysis: Treason has a specific legal definition (levying war against the U.S. or giving aid and comfort to its enemies).4 Applying it to lawmakers who support legislation the author dislikes is an extreme and emotionally manipulative use of the word.
5. Anecdotal Fallacy
This fallacy uses a personal experience or an isolated example as evidence for a broad generalization, instead of using sound arguments or compelling evidence.
Example: The author heavily relies on the story of the Texas speech pathologist who was fired and the Hurricane Harvey victims who were required to sign an anti-boycott pledge for aid.
Analysis: While these events did happen and were highly controversial (and subject to legal challenges), the author uses these specific, emotionally powerful stories to "prove" his broader, exaggerated claim that any boycott of Israel is now a "hate crime" in Texas and that all citizens are being forced to "swear allegiance." A few examples, however compelling, do not logically support such a sweeping generalization.
6. False Dichotomy (False Dilemma)
This fallacy presents only two choices as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.
Example: The author frames the debate as a choice between absolute freedom of speech (including what he terms "vile speech") and a European-style system where "you can't say anything."
Analysis: This presents a false choice. The debate over hate speech legislation and Section 230 involves a complex spectrum of possibilities between absolute, unregulated speech and total censorship. The author ignores this nuance and presents only two extreme options.
First, you outsourced your critical thinking to an AI -- which tells me everything I need to know. If Gemini is doing the heavy lifting for you, maybe sit this one out.
Second, the IHRA definition is intentionally vague and interpretive. That’s the whole danger. Your AI doesn’t grasp that because you didn’t even feed it the legislative text. The point of highlighting extreme interpretations is to show what’s legally possible under ambiguity. That’s basic constitutional analysis -- not rocket science.
Third, imagine not recognizing sarcasm in the hummus line. The joke flew so far over your head it entered Israeli airspace.
Fourth, if you think slippery slopes don’t exist in censorship law, I suggest brushing up on Mao, Stalin, and every regime that started with “just a few speech restrictions.”
Finally, yes, anecdotes, motives, emotional language, and the occasional ad hominem are part of persuasive writing. This isn’t a Supreme Court brief. It’s Substack. If you want sanitized technocratic prose, head to Brookings.
Best of luck out there in the real world. You’ll need it.
And the ad hominem continues - if I sourced my critical thinking to AI then you already know everything you need yo know (talk about loaded language).
Is IHRA's "definition is intentionally vague and interpretive" unique as a legislation? Many many US (past and present) laws are exactly that - vague and interpretive (for good or bad reasons), yet its in this particular case that it is suddenly a problem. If vague laws are a problem, then attacking just one of them and disregarding the rest shows double standards. If vague laws are not a problem, then why attack this law and not the rest on this grounds? again - double standards.
Of course slippery slopes exists, but using it as an argument (and even in this example - comparing a functioning western democracy to ruthless dictatorships) and claiming we are heading this way (and not addressing many other potential slippery slopes that might be at least as dangerous as this one) is a text book definition of logical fallacy. With the current data we have, all we can claim is that it is a vaguely possible, extremely unlikely outcome. That's not the article's conclusion.
I didn't understand the last comment (anecdotes, motives etc) - are you actually suggesting I shouldn't take this article seriously?
Be outraged about the evil Zionists taking over the US but brush it off as just some "persuasive writing"?
Is "persuasive writing" a license for sloppiness and argumentative laziness?
So which is it - a serious, well thought, well organized argument, depicting a looming danger that must be addressed, or just some mindless, baseless amusement to read while spending my daily 15 minutes in the toilet?
Let's be clear about the end goal. This is a foot in the door towards global enforcement of Noahide laws, by an AI powered Sanhedrin virtually based in Israel.
Many Jews consider the state of Israel and/or world Jewry to be a manifestation of god himself. The second Noahide law prohibits blasphemy of god. You can see how a boycott could be considered a form of blasphemy.
Let's also be clear about who is supporting this. There are more Zionist Christians than Zionist Jews. They are the ones making this possible.
What you say is true about the raw numbers of zionist Christians, however, the financially and politically overpowered nature of zionist jews is, and has always been, the reason we even have to talk about this.
I don't think the TX "antisemitism" law goes as far as you read it, but can't rule out a corrupt judge taking it that far.
I agree with MTG and Rand Paul that none of us should be told that we must buy products from any particular entity, or can't boycott any particular entity.
It is true that if speech is criminalized, it incentivizes violence, to the extent that the penalties converge.
The word “Zionists” is not the correct description of the culprits in all of this, although I understand the purpose (assuming it is NOT ignorance) is to provide a thin layer of protection by your entire argument having the following words attached to it: But I am NOT saying it’s the Jews as a group. DEFINITELY NOT. It’s only the Zionists. The rest of the Jews are fabulous people!”
Churchill made the same argument about the communist Jews who did the Bolshevik revolution in Russia versus the Zionist Jews, but his argument was that the Zionists were the good Jews!
Just use the word JEWS!!! It is far more accurate.
Look at the IHRA definition of antisemitism that you mentioned. Does it look like this definition, which is now being used by Texas and more (as you said), is designed to give only the Zionist Jews special treatment, or is it ALL OF THEM COLLECTIVELY OR INDIVIDUALLY? Be honest with yourself. Perhaps you are new to seeing the light (or in this case, the darkness) on this issue, and if so, I can understand. It is hard in the beginning to shed all the nonsense that has been thrust upon us, as it is so thorough as to comprise some portion of our foundational beliefs of “what is.” The extent of what they have taken from us justifies extreme acts that we should normally never even consider for the worst of violent criminals.
Look, I’m not saying “every single last one of those Jews is a monster.” Certainly, there are good Jews out there, but they make up such a small portion of the population of Jews that merely saying “the Jews” is still accurate. If I were to say “the pygmies are short,” I am not trying to say every single last one of them must be short. If I say “men are taller than women,” am I actually saying every single last one of each group fits here?
Part of the problem with Jews is that their entire identity is based on a malevolent Jewish supremacism so encompassing that were one to remove this disgusting factor from the identity, what is left would not be recognized by self-identifying Jews as Jewish. Basically, take all the nonsense they have incorporated into our collective perception of reality about evil “white supremacism” and how it stains white people so badly it is our duty to destroy ourselves with massive non-white immigration to render us homeless, adopt one of the only positive identities allowed for whites (nonsensical identities based exclusively on one’s sexual fetishes), etc. Take that supremacy and square it, and it still doesn’t touch what they’ve done to this world.
Jewish Proverb: “It is not enough that I succeed, but others MUST FAIL”
Good article. After October 7th it felt thrust into an even deeper clown world. I opposed the war in Ukraine because it was obviously provoked by NATO with the Ukrainian army growing from 350,00 to 1.2 million when he left office with massive arms shipments. I still remember before Trump took office, Lindsay Graham visited the Donbass AZOVs and saying something along the lines "I will lobby Washington for weapons so you can take the fight to the Russians".
Then came 10/7 where conservatives dyed their hair blue and called everyone that didn't support Israel's expansionist war after the first month a traitor and Anti-Semite.
I genuinely don't understand the choices Israel is making from a strategic perspective. World opinion of Israel has absolutely cratered over the relentless assault on Gaza and yet, like Nandor the Relentless, they just.... don't relent. The United States is their best friend in the world. So: they directly and publicly assault a central pillar of American identity, the First Amendment. This draws a tremendous amount of attention to something that AIPAC had long tried to be kind of quiet about: how much influence they have, how much funding goes to Israel.
It honestly feels like the founders and original overseas supporters of Israel had, to use your own phrasing, at least 40 IQ points on the current leadership and overseas supporters of Israel. It's hard to see how it ends well for Israel, which you would THINK would be a major concern of that leadership and those supporters.
Huh? Israel didn't write any of these bills. American legislators did. The annual US aid to Israel is what, 0.5% of their GDP? Doesn't matter much. Netanyahu has said they should phase it out.
The communists pretending to be Jews/Zionists who have infiltrated Israel like the communists have infiltrated all Western governments (a.k.a. the synagogue of Satan to whom Christ referred in Revelation) are the ones pushing laws against "hate speech" to end the free speech which is the cornerstone of the free West.
Read "Pawns in the Game" by William Guy Carr. Puts everything in historical perspective.
Oct. 7th was done with their cooperation like 9/11 was done with the help of the American deep state.
God bless you and yours.
MAGA and all Western countries. End the communist globalist coup.
Short answer. It's the only explanation which fits all the facts including MSM supposedly controlled by Jews (it's not; they're all ZINO's...Zionists in name only) immediately demonizing Israel for responding to terrorist attacks and favoring pro-Palestinian protestors with their sympathy. Happened under Ovomit too.
All everyday Americans are about to realize their very freedom is at stake.
Once that happens, probably this summer, the election security movement will get the widespread public support it needs and these communists will be thrown out of power.
The reason RNC & SCOTUS will never do anything to secure our elections is that the communists in control rely upon their stolen elections to remain in power.
WE need to secure our elections with public pressure from the bottom as President Trump works from the top including executive action.
These communists at the top are demented and evil. Power hungry. Satanic. Drug, women and child sex traffickers. Satan worshipers in some cases. Pedophiles.
They see us as cattle, and they killed your friends with a pandemic to win an election.
The communists have been infiltrating Western governments for decades. They're organized worldwide around the UN and its affiliates...WEF, IPCC, IMF, HRC, IOM, etc.
Stands to reason that the communists seeking to tear down the West would have started this war for division and profit as they have many others.
Douglas Murray said the UN watched Hamas build their tunnels in Lebanon from the towers there.
In many cases, we won't have a "smoking gun" from communist and Islamic con artists who rely upon deception and propaganda to effect their subversive coup. They won't unmask until they're in control and it's too late for us to do anything. Thieves can break down your front door in broad daylight or enter through the back under cover of night. These communist clowns don't have the force or the courage to attempt to take our freedom directly. So the little weenies must resort to decades-long incremental subversion to steal it bit by bit.
This connects the Frankfurt Scholl Marxists of the 1920's and 1930's to today's Democrats and the UN.
"Agenda: Grinding America Down (2010)" (JoJoSmitty1, Rumble, 11/19/23, 87 min)
Masters of Deceit above demonsrates their long march through the institutions including churches and the unions they used to seize and control the Democrat Party via donations.
Yuri Bezmenov, former KGB, describes the plan for subversion.
From 1958...written by W. Cleon Skousen, well-known and respected author, professor and FBI researcher for 15 years. They're almost done.
"'The Naked Communist'....45 goals to destroy the United States of America" (Daniel Mark Waghelstein, LinkedIn, Jan. 20, 2017)
I’m not a fan of these laws but it’s not a free speech issue per se. It’s more like laws against refusing to do business with black people, which I’m also not a fan of. This is just with Israelis in place of black people.
Huh? This law is about Israelis, a nationality of people, not Jews per se. 20% of Israelis are Arab. The reason is that there is a giant publicized third-wordlist campaign to boycott Israel. Anyway, Jews are both an ethnic group and a religious one.
You seem to be using "Zionist" as a euphemism for "Jewish".
This goes beyond it. It defines jews as Zionist. That's the problem. It's like defining all Christian sects as people of the Vatican. In the book "The rabbis speak out" The rabbis from every country that represented the Jewish Community condemned Zionism and creating a state of Israel and voting. Israel was setup as a British project to be the wedge in the Muslim world because of oil. If Israel was setup as a Jewish state, how come all the people don't wear hats or at least Kippahs in the famous declaration of independence photo? Don't they know Jews are supposed to wear hats as a sign of respect toward God? They were mainly atheists. Rabbi Weiss does a great breakdown of this. You can see the predicament that the IHRA definition this causes. I also don't like the "holocaust denial" aspect because the godfather of Austrian School Libertarianism who studied under Ludwig Von Mises was a vocal critic of the numbers that died as he said it was massively inflated to justify a "Just War" post war consensus argument of Good Guys vs Bad Guys.
He was a Jew named Murray Rothbard. No war in history makes those arguments with the exceptions of every war that the US got entangled in since. I don't think the numbers matter much but if you say only 2 million were killed, that will get you labeled as antisemitic denier. It's almost crazy how religious terms "denier" is being used to enact blasphemy laws.
A business cannot refuse black customers but civil rights law doesn't tell anybody what business they HAVE to shop at. It doesn't say to racists: hey if they nearest bakery is black-owned you are obligated to shop at it. Your analogy is misdirected. Customers can still choose to avoid whatever business they want for whatever reason they want. If a bunch of racists boycotted a black bakery I think most Americans would find that behavior repellent but I don't believe it would be illegal.
Consumer boycotts have happened for tons of reasons (environmental, human rights). To say Americans CANNOT boycott Israeli business invents a new thing: it sounds sort of civil-rightsy (what the backers of these bills are hoping for) but it's not analogous to civil rights law at all. Customers are not a public service which the American government is obliged to guarantee to Israeli businesses; customers are not a public service the American government is obliged to provide to any business.
Sorry I do think it's the same. A business cannot boycott black customers. This is a law about contractors with the government and private companies. It was introduced in 2017 and will not pass. See here: https://archive.is/qjnI0 .
To be clear I oppose all anti-discrimination laws, including this one. I'm a big believer in free association.
It's the same in the same way that "the cat sits on the mat" is the same as "the mat sits on the cat". If you think those two things are the same I can't help you really.
Huh? This law applies to businesses. If an individual who is no a government contractor refuses to buy Israeli-owned products it's not banned under this law.
Great article. Unbelievable how these republicans are criminalizing freedoms.
I feel like no matter how hard I try to prove I love America and belong here, there are always people questioning my loyalty or treating me like an outsider.
I love this country and our western values more than anything. And those who are a threat to it are my enemy.
Meanwhile, Israeli-American dual citizen get a free pass to push their own agendas, even when its clear their agendas do not align with what’s best for our country. There are many dual citizens in our government. It’s insane to me. No dual citizen should be able to exert influence in our country.
It’s frustrating to see Israelis avoid that same scrutiny the rest of us go through
patriot
Thanks for bringing this issue to light. I had no idea about these legislative efforts to stifle free speech.
Dear Joe Rogan - You might want to read this article and invite Christopher Brunet on to your show.
Dear Vicki, the last thing I'd want is to have some random 34yr old, unemployed, childless, mentaIly ill French Canadian mental patient, who larps as a neo-Nazi from his mom's basement to get "engagement", on my show
Vicki wasn't talking to "RealJoeRogan." She was addressing Actual Joe Rogan.
Knowing the difference could save your life.
Bullshit from an antiSemitic author
"As a Jewish convert to Orthodox Christianity with a fairly wide set of historical books under my belt, it troubles me to see some hierarchs and channels following the world's narrative about "anti-Semitism" and all the things that have been done to "combat anti-Semitism." I'll tell you directly, as a 100% pure blooded Ashkenazi man, how to fix "anti-Semitism:" Anti-Semitism will end when faithless Jews leave other groups of people alone and stop trying to transform their nations and cultures in ways that invariably harm the populations in question. It is really not that complicated.”
– Brother Augustine (Michael Witcoff)
The communists pretending to be Jews/Zionists who have infiltrated Israel like the communists have infiltrated all Western governments (a.k.a. the synagogue of Satan to whom Christ referred in Revelation) are the ones pushing laws against "hate speech" to end the free speech which is the cornerstone of the free West.
Read "Pawns in the Game" by William Guy Carr. Puts everything in historical perspective.
Oct. 7th was done with their cooperation like 9/11 was done with the help of the American deep state.
God bless you and yours.
MAGA and all Western countries. End the communist globalist coup.
America First. "I support Israel,... I'm a Gentile Christian Zionist,"? Really? Sounds like you're anti-American? The only thing you should support is America, and the only thing you should be is an American.
Feel free to leave.
They're burning Jews alive in Colorado while you proclaim a Zionist plot?
Jews are burning tens of thousands of children alive in Gaza ...
'They'
This article is a joke.
I asked Gemini to list all the logical fallacies in this article - here it is (not short but an eye opener):
Based on the article you provided, here is an analysis of the logical fallacies present in the text. The analysis focuses on the structure of the arguments and the rhetorical techniques used, rather than the validity of the author's political positions.
Analysis of Logical Fallacies
The article employs several logical fallacies to build its case, primarily relying on emotional appeals, misrepresentation of opposing arguments, and unsubstantiated leaps in logic.
1. Straw Man Argument
This fallacy occurs when someone misrepresents an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack. The article uses this technique repeatedly, especially when interpreting laws and definitions.
Definition: The author takes the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism and provides his own uncharitable "Read:" interpretations.
Example: For the IHRA point about "Applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation," the author translates this as: "Read: you can’t criticize Israel."
Analysis: This is a straw man because the original text does not forbid criticism; it speaks against applying a unique standard of criticism to Israel that is not applied to other democracies. The author ignores this nuance and replaces it with an absolute, easier-to-refute position.
Legislation: The author makes exaggerated claims about the effects of proposed laws.
Example: "Imagine going to jail for 20 years for publicly refusing to buy Sabra hummus. ... Zionists believe boycotting Sabra hummus in the grocery store is worse than rape."
Analysis: This misrepresents the "IGO Anti-Boycott Act." The bill is aimed at companies complying with boycotts from international governmental organizations (like the UN), not an individual's personal grocery choices. By creating the absurd scenario of being jailed for not buying hummus, the author attacks a distorted and ridiculous version of the legislation.
2. Slippery Slope
This fallacy asserts that a relatively small first step will inevitably lead to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.1
Example: "If you publicly question U.S. aid to Israel, you will be in violation of the Civil Rights Act and labeled an antisemite under federal law. And once that label is applied, it opens the door to every kind of punishment: deplatforming, blacklisting, job loss, academic censorship, bank account closures..."
Analysis: The author argues that the "Antisemitism Awareness Act," which requires the Department of Education to consider the IHRA definition when investigating discrimination, will automatically lead to a cascade of severe punishments for merely questioning U.S. aid to Israel. This is a logical leap that assumes a worst-case-scenario chain reaction without sufficient evidence.
3. Ad Hominem & Appeal to Motive
This fallacy attacks the character, motive, or other attributes of the person making an argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.2
Example: After quoting Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massie, the author adds: "I'm no fan of Marjorie Taylor Greene—frankly, I think she's low IQ—but I'll take a dumb patriot over an ‘elite human capital’ traitor every day of the week."
Analysis: While he ultimately supports her action in this case, the author attacks Greene's intelligence ("low IQ") and labels his opponents "traitors." This is an ad hominem attack that focuses on the character of the individuals rather than the merits of their arguments or the legislation itself.
Example: "Zionists clearly hate Western Civilization and treat the U.S. Constitution not as a foundation to honor and protect, but as a hurdle to be cleverly sidestepped..."
Analysis: Instead of engaging with the arguments for the legislation, the author attacks the presumed motives and character of an entire, broadly defined group ("Zionists"), accusing them of hating Western Civilization and the Constitution.
4. Loaded Language and Appeal to Emotion
This technique uses words with strong positive or negative connotations to stir up emotions in the reader, rather than to make a logical argument.3
Example: Describing the situation in San Marcos, the author states: "It’s about whether cities in America can make autonomous decisions to not be Israeli slaves without being blackmailed by their own governors..."
Analysis: The terms "slaves" and "blackmailed" are emotionally charged and inflammatory. They frame a political dispute over state and local funding as a master-slave relationship, which is a form of extreme exaggeration (hyperbole) meant to provoke outrage rather than critical thought.
Example: The author repeatedly uses the word "treason" to describe the actions of lawmakers. "Treason is a strong word, but not too strong..." and "The 'Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2025' is the most serious anti-American threat to the Constitution that I’ve seen in my lifetime. It’s literally treason."
Analysis: Treason has a specific legal definition (levying war against the U.S. or giving aid and comfort to its enemies).4 Applying it to lawmakers who support legislation the author dislikes is an extreme and emotionally manipulative use of the word.
5. Anecdotal Fallacy
This fallacy uses a personal experience or an isolated example as evidence for a broad generalization, instead of using sound arguments or compelling evidence.
Example: The author heavily relies on the story of the Texas speech pathologist who was fired and the Hurricane Harvey victims who were required to sign an anti-boycott pledge for aid.
Analysis: While these events did happen and were highly controversial (and subject to legal challenges), the author uses these specific, emotionally powerful stories to "prove" his broader, exaggerated claim that any boycott of Israel is now a "hate crime" in Texas and that all citizens are being forced to "swear allegiance." A few examples, however compelling, do not logically support such a sweeping generalization.
6. False Dichotomy (False Dilemma)
This fallacy presents only two choices as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.
Example: The author frames the debate as a choice between absolute freedom of speech (including what he terms "vile speech") and a European-style system where "you can't say anything."
Analysis: This presents a false choice. The debate over hate speech legislation and Section 230 involves a complex spectrum of possibilities between absolute, unregulated speech and total censorship. The author ignores this nuance and presents only two extreme options.
Your response is a joke.
First, you outsourced your critical thinking to an AI -- which tells me everything I need to know. If Gemini is doing the heavy lifting for you, maybe sit this one out.
Second, the IHRA definition is intentionally vague and interpretive. That’s the whole danger. Your AI doesn’t grasp that because you didn’t even feed it the legislative text. The point of highlighting extreme interpretations is to show what’s legally possible under ambiguity. That’s basic constitutional analysis -- not rocket science.
Third, imagine not recognizing sarcasm in the hummus line. The joke flew so far over your head it entered Israeli airspace.
Fourth, if you think slippery slopes don’t exist in censorship law, I suggest brushing up on Mao, Stalin, and every regime that started with “just a few speech restrictions.”
Finally, yes, anecdotes, motives, emotional language, and the occasional ad hominem are part of persuasive writing. This isn’t a Supreme Court brief. It’s Substack. If you want sanitized technocratic prose, head to Brookings.
Best of luck out there in the real world. You’ll need it.
And the ad hominem continues - if I sourced my critical thinking to AI then you already know everything you need yo know (talk about loaded language).
Is IHRA's "definition is intentionally vague and interpretive" unique as a legislation? Many many US (past and present) laws are exactly that - vague and interpretive (for good or bad reasons), yet its in this particular case that it is suddenly a problem. If vague laws are a problem, then attacking just one of them and disregarding the rest shows double standards. If vague laws are not a problem, then why attack this law and not the rest on this grounds? again - double standards.
Of course slippery slopes exists, but using it as an argument (and even in this example - comparing a functioning western democracy to ruthless dictatorships) and claiming we are heading this way (and not addressing many other potential slippery slopes that might be at least as dangerous as this one) is a text book definition of logical fallacy. With the current data we have, all we can claim is that it is a vaguely possible, extremely unlikely outcome. That's not the article's conclusion.
I didn't understand the last comment (anecdotes, motives etc) - are you actually suggesting I shouldn't take this article seriously?
Be outraged about the evil Zionists taking over the US but brush it off as just some "persuasive writing"?
Is "persuasive writing" a license for sloppiness and argumentative laziness?
So which is it - a serious, well thought, well organized argument, depicting a looming danger that must be addressed, or just some mindless, baseless amusement to read while spending my daily 15 minutes in the toilet?
Let's be clear about the end goal. This is a foot in the door towards global enforcement of Noahide laws, by an AI powered Sanhedrin virtually based in Israel.
Many Jews consider the state of Israel and/or world Jewry to be a manifestation of god himself. The second Noahide law prohibits blasphemy of god. You can see how a boycott could be considered a form of blasphemy.
Let's also be clear about who is supporting this. There are more Zionist Christians than Zionist Jews. They are the ones making this possible.
What you say is true about the raw numbers of zionist Christians, however, the financially and politically overpowered nature of zionist jews is, and has always been, the reason we even have to talk about this.
I don't think the TX "antisemitism" law goes as far as you read it, but can't rule out a corrupt judge taking it that far.
I agree with MTG and Rand Paul that none of us should be told that we must buy products from any particular entity, or can't boycott any particular entity.
It is true that if speech is criminalized, it incentivizes violence, to the extent that the penalties converge.
The word “Zionists” is not the correct description of the culprits in all of this, although I understand the purpose (assuming it is NOT ignorance) is to provide a thin layer of protection by your entire argument having the following words attached to it: But I am NOT saying it’s the Jews as a group. DEFINITELY NOT. It’s only the Zionists. The rest of the Jews are fabulous people!”
Churchill made the same argument about the communist Jews who did the Bolshevik revolution in Russia versus the Zionist Jews, but his argument was that the Zionists were the good Jews!
Just use the word JEWS!!! It is far more accurate.
Look at the IHRA definition of antisemitism that you mentioned. Does it look like this definition, which is now being used by Texas and more (as you said), is designed to give only the Zionist Jews special treatment, or is it ALL OF THEM COLLECTIVELY OR INDIVIDUALLY? Be honest with yourself. Perhaps you are new to seeing the light (or in this case, the darkness) on this issue, and if so, I can understand. It is hard in the beginning to shed all the nonsense that has been thrust upon us, as it is so thorough as to comprise some portion of our foundational beliefs of “what is.” The extent of what they have taken from us justifies extreme acts that we should normally never even consider for the worst of violent criminals.
Look, I’m not saying “every single last one of those Jews is a monster.” Certainly, there are good Jews out there, but they make up such a small portion of the population of Jews that merely saying “the Jews” is still accurate. If I were to say “the pygmies are short,” I am not trying to say every single last one of them must be short. If I say “men are taller than women,” am I actually saying every single last one of each group fits here?
Part of the problem with Jews is that their entire identity is based on a malevolent Jewish supremacism so encompassing that were one to remove this disgusting factor from the identity, what is left would not be recognized by self-identifying Jews as Jewish. Basically, take all the nonsense they have incorporated into our collective perception of reality about evil “white supremacism” and how it stains white people so badly it is our duty to destroy ourselves with massive non-white immigration to render us homeless, adopt one of the only positive identities allowed for whites (nonsensical identities based exclusively on one’s sexual fetishes), etc. Take that supremacy and square it, and it still doesn’t touch what they’ve done to this world.
Jewish Proverb: “It is not enough that I succeed, but others MUST FAIL”
Perfectly articulated.
Good article. After October 7th it felt thrust into an even deeper clown world. I opposed the war in Ukraine because it was obviously provoked by NATO with the Ukrainian army growing from 350,00 to 1.2 million when he left office with massive arms shipments. I still remember before Trump took office, Lindsay Graham visited the Donbass AZOVs and saying something along the lines "I will lobby Washington for weapons so you can take the fight to the Russians".
Then came 10/7 where conservatives dyed their hair blue and called everyone that didn't support Israel's expansionist war after the first month a traitor and Anti-Semite.
I genuinely don't understand the choices Israel is making from a strategic perspective. World opinion of Israel has absolutely cratered over the relentless assault on Gaza and yet, like Nandor the Relentless, they just.... don't relent. The United States is their best friend in the world. So: they directly and publicly assault a central pillar of American identity, the First Amendment. This draws a tremendous amount of attention to something that AIPAC had long tried to be kind of quiet about: how much influence they have, how much funding goes to Israel.
It honestly feels like the founders and original overseas supporters of Israel had, to use your own phrasing, at least 40 IQ points on the current leadership and overseas supporters of Israel. It's hard to see how it ends well for Israel, which you would THINK would be a major concern of that leadership and those supporters.
Huh? Israel didn't write any of these bills. American legislators did. The annual US aid to Israel is what, 0.5% of their GDP? Doesn't matter much. Netanyahu has said they should phase it out.
https://jewishinsider.com/2025/05/netanyahu-calls-to-wean-israel-off-u-s-aid-amid-growing-tensions/
World opinion of Israel will improve after the war ends and the ICJ finds Israel is not committing genocide. The Saudis will join the Abraham Accords.
All that violence and protesting at the schools have paid off. Useful idiots just following orders.
Regarding how these unconstitutional bills are designed and created via IAC attorney Joe Sabag, you can see this evidenced in my article attached:
https://nationalfile.com/zionist-billionaires-and-israeli-government-behind-u-s-antisemitism-laws/
The communists pretending to be Jews/Zionists who have infiltrated Israel like the communists have infiltrated all Western governments (a.k.a. the synagogue of Satan to whom Christ referred in Revelation) are the ones pushing laws against "hate speech" to end the free speech which is the cornerstone of the free West.
Read "Pawns in the Game" by William Guy Carr. Puts everything in historical perspective.
Oct. 7th was done with their cooperation like 9/11 was done with the help of the American deep state.
God bless you and yours.
MAGA and all Western countries. End the communist globalist coup.
What kind of evidence do you have to support the "Oct. 7th was done with their cooperation" claims?
Short answer. It's the only explanation which fits all the facts including MSM supposedly controlled by Jews (it's not; they're all ZINO's...Zionists in name only) immediately demonizing Israel for responding to terrorist attacks and favoring pro-Palestinian protestors with their sympathy. Happened under Ovomit too.
All everyday Americans are about to realize their very freedom is at stake.
Once that happens, probably this summer, the election security movement will get the widespread public support it needs and these communists will be thrown out of power.
https://rumble.com/v6qw9rc-integrity-in-action-call-with-steve-stern-and-raj-doraisamy-monday-march-20.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp
The critical components of our voting machines are made by the CCP and assembled in Taiwan violating U.S. law.
Elections in 72 countries including U.S. are controlled by the world's largest cartel...Cartel del Sol (runs Venezuela), Cuba & China.
https://rumble.com/v5kd8d1-gary-berntsen-a-whistleblower-has-come-forward-with-an-explosive-revelation.html
Patrick Byrne provides more detail on history of Venezuela & Smartmatic & connection to Dominion.
https://rumble.com/v5js8po-the-cuban-venezuelan-conquest-of-the-united-states-of-america.html
By the way, Berntsen, et al spoke to FOX attorneys.
So FOX knew Dominion was guilty before caving & paying out to give MSM an excuse to hide.
The Kraken is real.
https://rumble.com/v4h3s20-free-worldwide-release-let-my-people-go-by-dr.-david-clements.html
Chapter One: INTRODUCTION TO THREAT
Chapter Two: THE CENTRALIZED ELECTION RIGGING PROCESS: 39:50
Chapter Three: GOVERNMENT TYRANNY AND PATH TO VICTORY 1:45:07
Defeat the coup.
Clips to share on "Let My People Go" Rumble channel.
Unite. Organize. Win.
Secure our elections. Get involved.
Listen to and share Steve Stern Election Integrity calls and Cause of America calls on Rumble.
https://rumble.com/user/CauseofAmerica
https://rumble.com/c/SternAmerican
.
The reason RNC & SCOTUS will never do anything to secure our elections is that the communists in control rely upon their stolen elections to remain in power.
WE need to secure our elections with public pressure from the bottom as President Trump works from the top including executive action.
Only solution to this.
These communists at the top are demented and evil. Power hungry. Satanic. Drug, women and child sex traffickers. Satan worshipers in some cases. Pedophiles.
They see us as cattle, and they killed your friends with a pandemic to win an election.
https://rumble.com/v46oxmh-the-globalists-are-communists.html?e9s=src_v1_upp
.
Goal is global slavery.
Thru inflation & regulation will make everything unaffordable to chain u to State as a dependent.
The sell is the "tax the billionaires" lie. Won't work.
DEI is driver of social credit score (whip).
Comply or ur digital passport will be shut off.
Evil bastards w/ zero morals & allegiance only to wealth, power and, in many cases, Satan.
Starting another Israeli-Palestine conflict to enrich themselves & pursue global power is well within their scope.
CIA's child sex-trafficking: "The Finders"
https://youtu.be/TCSZ9fsqsu8?si=qfpH8U-VQ7DeHJt1
.
Good question.
===
The Soviets founded Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1964.
Communism & Islam are allies. Both subversive ideologies relying on deceit.
Watch Extremist Assimilation section. 37:53. 10 min. Cued up.
https://rumble.com/vv9y8u-agenda-2-masters-of-deceit.html?start=2273
The communists have been infiltrating Western governments for decades. They're organized worldwide around the UN and its affiliates...WEF, IPCC, IMF, HRC, IOM, etc.
Stands to reason that the communists seeking to tear down the West would have started this war for division and profit as they have many others.
Douglas Murray said the UN watched Hamas build their tunnels in Lebanon from the towers there.
In many cases, we won't have a "smoking gun" from communist and Islamic con artists who rely upon deception and propaganda to effect their subversive coup. They won't unmask until they're in control and it's too late for us to do anything. Thieves can break down your front door in broad daylight or enter through the back under cover of night. These communist clowns don't have the force or the courage to attempt to take our freedom directly. So the little weenies must resort to decades-long incremental subversion to steal it bit by bit.
This connects the Frankfurt Scholl Marxists of the 1920's and 1930's to today's Democrats and the UN.
"Agenda: Grinding America Down (2010)" (JoJoSmitty1, Rumble, 11/19/23, 87 min)
https://rumble.com/v3wpe7s-agenda-grinding-america-down-2010.html1/2
Masters of Deceit above demonsrates their long march through the institutions including churches and the unions they used to seize and control the Democrat Party via donations.
Yuri Bezmenov, former KGB, describes the plan for subversion.
From 1958...written by W. Cleon Skousen, well-known and respected author, professor and FBI researcher for 15 years. They're almost done.
"'The Naked Communist'....45 goals to destroy the United States of America" (Daniel Mark Waghelstein, LinkedIn, Jan. 20, 2017)
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/naked-communist45-goals-destroy-united-states-america-waghelstein
Overview of the Great Reset and control through the banks using ESG scores (also a part of the World Economic Forum).
"Glenn Beck - The Great Reset Joe Biden and the Rise of 21st-Century Fascism, 2022-01-19" (cwick128, Rumble, 03/03/22, 60 min)
https://rumble.com/vwdcum-glenn-beck-the-great-reset-joe-biden-and-the-rise-of-21st-century-fascism-2.html
===
Glenn Beck exposing the Democrat Party hooked up with the terrorists...(Islam and communism are twins; both use force, one uses religion).
https://rumble.com/v5d0pat-glenn-beck-exposes-terrorist-sympathizers-infiltrating-the-democrat-party.html
This is why MSM always flips on Israel immediately after they are attacked and blames them for responding.
Would have shared this if you'd just stuck to the facts. Attacking MTG was unnecessary and counter productive.
good feedback, a couple people said the same thing, so I took out my cheapshot
This still contains cheap shots at a person in Congress who had the courage to do the right thing. 🤷♂️ Stop getting in your own way.
I’m not a fan of these laws but it’s not a free speech issue per se. It’s more like laws against refusing to do business with black people, which I’m also not a fan of. This is just with Israelis in place of black people.
why does no other religion get a special Civil Rights carveout? Why no carveout for Hindus?
Huh? This law is about Israelis, a nationality of people, not Jews per se. 20% of Israelis are Arab. The reason is that there is a giant publicized third-wordlist campaign to boycott Israel. Anyway, Jews are both an ethnic group and a religious one.
You seem to be using "Zionist" as a euphemism for "Jewish".
This goes beyond it. It defines jews as Zionist. That's the problem. It's like defining all Christian sects as people of the Vatican. In the book "The rabbis speak out" The rabbis from every country that represented the Jewish Community condemned Zionism and creating a state of Israel and voting. Israel was setup as a British project to be the wedge in the Muslim world because of oil. If Israel was setup as a Jewish state, how come all the people don't wear hats or at least Kippahs in the famous declaration of independence photo? Don't they know Jews are supposed to wear hats as a sign of respect toward God? They were mainly atheists. Rabbi Weiss does a great breakdown of this. You can see the predicament that the IHRA definition this causes. I also don't like the "holocaust denial" aspect because the godfather of Austrian School Libertarianism who studied under Ludwig Von Mises was a vocal critic of the numbers that died as he said it was massively inflated to justify a "Just War" post war consensus argument of Good Guys vs Bad Guys.
He was a Jew named Murray Rothbard. No war in history makes those arguments with the exceptions of every war that the US got entangled in since. I don't think the numbers matter much but if you say only 2 million were killed, that will get you labeled as antisemitic denier. It's almost crazy how religious terms "denier" is being used to enact blasphemy laws.
Was George Bush third worldist when he pressured Israel to not expand settlements by withholding loan gaurantees. Because it's the same sentiment
The BDS movement has been around for a long time
Israel extreme fear of a boycot should be noted
No, Bush was criticizing Israeli policies, he didn’t want to abolish Israel.
BDS is dumb. I don’t think Israelis are actually so scared of it.
BDS literally calls for the same exact thing as Bush
67 borders
Listen to Chomsky and Finkelstein on this topic
Yes BDS calls for the destruction of Israel
You're on top of it
Yes the Jewish onslaught would be more appropriate.
A business cannot refuse black customers but civil rights law doesn't tell anybody what business they HAVE to shop at. It doesn't say to racists: hey if they nearest bakery is black-owned you are obligated to shop at it. Your analogy is misdirected. Customers can still choose to avoid whatever business they want for whatever reason they want. If a bunch of racists boycotted a black bakery I think most Americans would find that behavior repellent but I don't believe it would be illegal.
Consumer boycotts have happened for tons of reasons (environmental, human rights). To say Americans CANNOT boycott Israeli business invents a new thing: it sounds sort of civil-rightsy (what the backers of these bills are hoping for) but it's not analogous to civil rights law at all. Customers are not a public service which the American government is obliged to guarantee to Israeli businesses; customers are not a public service the American government is obliged to provide to any business.
Sorry I do think it's the same. A business cannot boycott black customers. This is a law about contractors with the government and private companies. It was introduced in 2017 and will not pass. See here: https://archive.is/qjnI0 .
To be clear I oppose all anti-discrimination laws, including this one. I'm a big believer in free association.
It's the same in the same way that "the cat sits on the mat" is the same as "the mat sits on the cat". If you think those two things are the same I can't help you really.
Huh? This law applies to businesses. If an individual who is no a government contractor refuses to buy Israeli-owned products it's not banned under this law.