Blog

The First Law of Jewish Influence

27 Comments

As many regular visitors here probably know, Lawrence Auster has been writing for years about an idea he calls “The First Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society”. The essence of it is that “liberalism” dictates that “minorities” who behave worst must be treated best by “the majority”. It’s a valuable insight, but I use sneer-quotes where Auster’s terminology obscures reality. The law is more precisely stated in less euphemistic terms. Neo-liberalism dictates that non-Whites or non-Christians who behave worst must be treated best by White Christians. Jews behave the worst and must be treated the best.

This explains how news and opinion are reported by the media, how subjects are taught in academia, and how policy is formed by the government. Day in and day out they tell us that Whites are monsters and jews are saints.

When I first pointed out that Auster’s law applies to jews he responded first by making an attempt, lame beyond belief, to explain why it shouldn’t, can’t, doesn’t, and musn’t. Then he shifted the argument to what a bad person I was, based in part on my pseudonym. No shit. He eventually settled, and remains settled to this day, on the logically unassailable position that only a “serious anti-semite” would think negatively of jews, therefore such thoughts should be ignored.

That summarizes the exchange until now. I refer those who want more detail to Auster and Anti-Anti-Semitism, which contains my initial challenge and his response. Criticizing Auster reviews the argument eight months later. Other comments regarding Auster are here.

What prompts me to write today is that a few days ago Chechar posted “Auster’s Law and Corollary”. I left a comment there with the two links above and some short comments.

A few days later Auster linked Chechar in The more the Other threatens us , the more we accommodate ourselves to him, yet another pithy formulation of his law that fits jews. Auster no doubt thinks it is a safe statement to make. In his mind anyone who says they feel threatened by jews is declaring themselves a threat to jews, and this in no way represents any special accomodation whatsoever.

Don Marco Jawsario and Hesperado left comments on Chechar’s post arguing against Auster’s law applying to jews. It seems they are unaware of or don’t care what has already been written, but I made some brief responses.

It’s important to know where these commenters are coming from, as Auster is fond of saying. Don Marco Jawsario appears to be Auster’s frequent correspondent Mark Jaws, AKA Marco Jawsario, who is jewish (“in the Army I was usually the only Jew in my regiment”). I have previously written about Hesperado in Hesperation. He has made it clear that he thinks “support for Judaism and the Jews is a non-negotiable virtue”.

Auster obviously formulated his law with muslims and blacks in mind, not jews. He and his supporters want to exclude muslims and blacks (and “anti-semites”) from “our” society, but not jews. They’d like to roust “the majority” to do the heavy lifting, and they point to just the portion of the anti-White system they want us to dismantle. It’s a gambit. They know “the majority” might notice that a particular minority has long been dictating the terms for their own benefit. (After all, here I am saying it.) So for appearences they try to keep their version of the law jew-safe by adding subtle qualifications only indirectly exempting jews. “Oh, misbehavior doesn’t include things like fraud, opening the borders, hate speech laws, bribery, organ trafficing – misbehavior means violence!” Of course when this doesn’t fly it’s right back to the same old story. Blame “anti-semitism”. Jews are exempt and only jew-haters/conspiracy theorists/bad stupid evil subhumans think otherwise.

The question is, why should Whites heed this jew-serving double-talk? The law itself explains this aspect of “majority-minority relations” perfectly. In fact it fits better when they make their excuses and sling their insults than it would if they didn’t. We can pretend the law doesn’t apply to jews, and came from who knows where. Or we can say it does apply to jews, serves their interests, and has been promulgated by them for that very reason.

At the root of this double-talk is Auster’s dissembling. “The majority” is White, and we are quickly being reduced to a minority, not by “liberalism” but by anti-White/pro-jew neo-liberalism. We can argue about whether “the majority” means White Christian, but Christian is an increasingly imperfect proxy for White. Non-White Christians don’t get shit on by neo-liberalism. Non-Christian Whites do. Whites are distinct from “whites”, which is Auster’s term for an amalgam of Whites and jews inseparable except when jews see fit to distinguish themselves for special treatment. The regime is not anti-“white”, it is anti-White. If what is being done to Whites were being done to jews, even as part of an anti-“white” regime, they would call it genocide, and people who tried to paint it as “suicide” would be accused of aiding and abetting that genocide. Auster may get warmer at times, but I don’t believe he will ever come clean about these crucial distinctions. He’s more concerned with the consequences for jews than anything else.

When Auster discusses Whites (euphemized as “the majority”, or “white gentiles”, or “white Christians”) it is only to blame us. He does not blame jews. For example, in Black racial preferences at Annapolis; and a conversation with Paul Gottfried about white guilt,, Jews, and Protestants, Auster writes (my emphasis):

What distinguishes Jewish liberalism from Protestant liberalism is the following: Jewish liberals see white Christians as guilty. The Jews feel OK about themselves, they think the white gentile majority is the problem.

By contrast, white Protestant liberals feel guilty about themselves. This leaves them without a confident group selfhood. They believe only in equality, only in their own guilt for somehow standing in the way of equality. It is this lack of collective and even individual selfhood, this inner nothingness, this willingness to be destroyed, that makes the white Protestants the true liberals.

The Jews, whose collective and individual psyche is not guilty under liberalism (since in the liberal world view Jews are victims and the champions of victims), have psychological power and self-confidence and thus are not true liberals.

Here Auster reveals that when he blames “liberalism” daily for the West’s various ills he’s really blaming White Christians. What do these Protestants feel so guilty about? Has nobody ever pointed out to them that guilt-free White-blaming jews love to conflate misguided liberal equalitarianism with consciously anti-White anti-Christian neo-liberalism?

Auster says jews know what’s going on and think the white gentile majority is the problem. It certainly describes his own view. It explains his regular commands for “the majority” to “reassert itself” by throwing off just those parts of neo-liberalism he doesn’t like. He regularly asserts that “we” are “suiciding” ourselves, as if jews are standing idly by in some ghetto watching instead of actively leading, funding, and participating in the destruction of White society while doing their utmost to protect jews.

The fact that some weak-minded Whites have been convinced to blame themselves and protect jews does not absolve the jews who are involved. What justifies treating jews as a group is how they leap as a group to the defense of the jews who are complicit. Auster got my attention because he’s one of the handful of jews who comments on these things. Even he ultimately sides with the misbehaving jews.

C’est la guerre.

Blog

California Scheming

13 Comments

Send California inmates to Mexico, says Schwarzenegger – Yahoo! News, Jan 25:

“I think that we can do so much better in the prison system alone if we can go and take, inmates for instance, the 20,000 inmates that are illegal immigrants that are here and get them to Mexico,” Schwarzenegger said.

“Think about it — if California gives Mexico the money. Not ‘Hey, you take care of them, these are your citizens’. No. Not at all.

“We pay them to build the prison down in Mexico. And then we have those undocumented immigrants down there in prison. It would half the costs to build the prison and run the prison. We could save a billion dollars right there that could go into higher education.”

California has some of the most overcrowded prisons in the United States, with an estimated 170,000 inmates housed in facilities designed for 100,000 people, according to 2007 figures.

Yes, think about it. The cost of the alien invasion never came up during the budget crisis just a few months ago, and here we’re getting just a small glimpse of it.

What Schwarzenegger admits is that about 12% of the prisoners in California are known to be illegal alien mexicans who cost the state some $2B per year. This does not account for the cost of criminal aliens who aren’t here illegally or aren’t mexican. It also doesn’t account for the cost to apprehend and prosecute these aliens, nor the costs to their many victims in human and financial terms.

California has been overrun by non-White aliens. Now it’s bankrupt. And the other most populated, most invaded states – Texas, Florida, New York – are following California’s lead. There is no clearer example than this that our government is corrupt and illegitimate. In any other time or place a governor worthy of the title would indeed say, “Hey, you take care of them, these are your citizens”, and he would have said it while sending them home, before they had a chance to do us any harm.

Blog

Celebrating Insane Alienated Anti-Heroes

6 Comments

Catcher In The Rye author shaped the popular culture he came to shun – Times Online:

For a man who spent half his life as a recluse, J. D. Salinger left an extraordinary, indelible imprint on popular culture. His influence transcended his literary fame and shaped future directions in film, television, music, and theatre as well as popularising the term “to screw up”.

Salinger’s classic is frequently cited as proof that culture cannot be held responsible for acts perpetrated by the people who consume it.

Really? That’s not at all what they say about The Turner Diaries or The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

J. D. Salinger: Author of The Catcher in the Rye | Times Online Obituary:

J. D. Salinger shot to worldwide fame with his novel The Catcher in the Rye, which appeared in 1951. With its disenchanted adolescent anti-hero, perpetually at war with adulthood, especially as embodied in his own parents, it seemed to encapsulate the mood of an entire generation. Perhaps more remarkably it simultaneously exercised a considerable effect on that generation’s behaviour.

Its protagonist Holden Caulfield instantly became the symbol of teenage alienation in America and his influence spread rapidly across the Atlantic. Not merely, as is so often the case, for his own generation, but for those that followed, the character of Caulfield continued to stand for the seeming impossibility for the younger generation of communicating in any meaningful way not only with their parents but also with the friends and associates of those parents. When the Sixties opened, with teenage rebellion in Western society taking on a different hue and, under the influence of rock’n’roll, sexual emancipation and drugs, having apparently a different set of preoccupations, the gospel of Catcher in the Rye remained as potent as ever.

Jerome David Salinger was born in New York in 1919, the son of a kosher cheese salesman of Polish ancestry, and his wife, who was a convert to Judaism.

Here is an example why distrust of even partial jews is justified. Their racial confusion can express itself in highly destructive forms. Yet Salinger’s refusal to bask in the media’s adulation seems to confound and bemuse them, though they seem to know more than they let on about why. Perhaps what drove Salinger to become a recluse was shame and disgust at the negative impact of his novel, and perhaps that sprang from his non-jewish side.

Why did J D Salinger spend the last 60 years hiding in a shed writing love notes to teenage girls? | Mail Online:

Born in New York on January 1, 1919, J.D. (Jerome David) Salinger’s early life gave little hint of what he would become, although there were several factors that affected him deeply.

One was the shock of believing he was Jewish and then discovering that he was only half-Jewish – his mother was, in fact, a Catholic.

More scarring still, however, were his experiences in World War II, in which he saw numerous comrades killed around him.

He landed on Utah Beach on D-Day and fought all the way to Paris. There, he met Ernest Hemingway who encouraged his writing.

Still in Europe when the war ended, he was sent to Germany to interrogate Nazis.

There, he fell in love with a girl called Sylvie – later believed to be a former Nazi official – whom he married and, after eight months, divorced.

He later described her as ‘an evil woman who bewitched me’.

Salinger went back to his life of seclusion in the hidden cabin, around which he now owned 450 acres. Dressed in a blue boiler suit, he wrote every day, although not for publication – a possible treasure trove of up to ten novels are believed to lie in his locked safe.

I get the distinct impression these later writings would be hated by the same people who love Catcher. Ironically, in today’s anything-goes, sexually-liberated environment smears of a sexual nature are a typical treatment for heretics. “Nothing to see here! Don’t pay any attention to what this pervert has to say!” Tellingly, Salinger didn’t hole up in Manhattan, Palm Beach, or the Hollywood hills where he could have much more freely slaked his supposed tastes sheltered alongside other celebrated perverts.

How alienating it is to witness the media today looking back and celebrating the impact of Salinger’s novel, even as they ridicule the author and his own reaction. But then they celebrate everything destructive about the White/jewish “culture war”. Caulfield’s alienation makes sense to them, it’s laudable even, while the alienation engendered by themselves they paint as malevolent “ignorance” and “hate”.

It is for good reasons that Francis Parker Yockey described jews as Culture-distorters and the bearers of Culture-disease. In a culture free of jewish influence novels such as Catcher in the Rye would be disparaged, not celebrated.

Blog

The Importance of Growth to an Increasingly Jewish Plutocracy

33 Comments

I ran into an interesting statement in the February issue of Wired that neatly captures the essence of the plutocracy’s current dilemma. The statement came from Peter Thiel – “billionaire”, “staunch libertarian”, and “VC philanthropist” – in Utopian Pessimist Calls on Radical Tech to Save Economy:

Wired: What happens if we don’t get the growth everyone expects?

Thiel: If it doesn’t happen, people will go bankrupt in retirement. There are systemic consequences, too. If we don’t have enough growth, we will see a powerful shift away from capitalism. There are good things and bad things about capitalism, but inequality becomes completely intolerable to society when everything’s static.

“The economy”, such as it is today, is essentially a pyramid scheme. Its “health” hinges entirely on growth. More people, more consumption, more loans, more interest, and more profits, especially for those on top. The plutocrats fear that if the growth ever stops, or even pauses for any length of time, the jig is up.

Is Thiel, like so many other “philanthropist” plutocrats, jewish?

He’s hated for supporting NumbersUSA and has written a book criticizing multiculturalism, two things rather untypical of jews.

With friends like these … Tom Hodgkinson on the politics of the people behind Facebook, 14 January 2008:

But Thiel is more than just a clever and avaricious capitalist. He is a futurist philosopher and neocon activist. A philosophy graduate from Stanford, in 1998 he co-wrote a book called The Diversity Myth, which is a detailed attack on liberalism and the multiculturalist ideology that dominated Stanford. He claimed that the “multiculture” led to a lessening of individual freedoms. While a student at Stanford, Thiel founded a rightwing journal, still up and running, called The Stanford Review – motto: Fiat Lux (“Let there be light”). Thiel is a member of TheVanguard.Org, an internet-based neoconservative pressure group that was set up to attack MoveOn.org, a liberal pressure group that works on the web. Thiel calls himself “way libertarian”.

Thiel says that PayPal was motivated by this belief: that you can find value not in real manufactured objects, but in the relations between human beings. PayPal was a way of moving money around the world with no restriction. Bloomberg Markets puts it like this: “For Thiel, PayPal was all about freedom: it would enable people to skirt currency controls and move money around the globe.”

Thiel is #377 on the 2009 Forbes 400, but he isn’t counted as jewish (“either personally or in their giving”) by Jacob Berkman in Jewish Philanthropy Navigates The Economy’s Rough Seas.

The authors of Jews On The Internet and The Jewish hand behind Internet come from polar opposite views on jewish influence, but they both agree Thiel is a jew.

George Soros, another plutocrat who definitely is a jew, was quoted in the news today offering his underling in the White House some public advice.

Davos Soros: Obama reform plan not tough enough – Times Online:

Mr Soros told delegates: “To tax the banks when they are doing everything they can to get out of a hole is the exact opposite of the policy you are trying to pursue…This development came too soon because the banks are not out of the woods.”

Mr Soros also said governments around the world needed to continue spending, even if they had sizeable budget deficits, to avoid the risk of a double dip recession.

What Soros is saying is: tax and indebt the masses, not the plutocrats.

Other bankers expressed concern over “stifling growth”.

As Hunter Wallace put it:

Democracy: the theory that you have as much power and influence as George Soros.

You could say the same about any plutocrat. But the power and influence of Thiel, Soros, David Gelbaum, and other jewish plutocrats is compounded by its tribally-networked nature. What comes through clearly in the Berkman article is the “supremacism” with which jews view their collective power, and the unapologetically “racist” way in which they direct so much of their “philanthropy” to fellow jews. What should make this situation troubling for any White, rich or poor, is that jews do it under the aegis of a regime which favors and defends jews and jewish interests even as it directs fear and hatred toward Whites.

Where are the mainstream media’s fierce critics, the speakers of truth to power? Like the figureheads in our illegitimate government they’ll bash powerless White “teabaggers” with glee, but they’re afraid to question their jewish overlords.

Blog

Antisemitica

24 Comments

Hunter Wallace, whose blog Occidental Dissent I regularly visit and comment at, recently created a new blog called Antisemitica whose byline is “Reasoned Analysis of the Jewish Question”. Visitors who sympathize with the topics and attitudes discussed at this blog can find a much greater and steadier source at either of these blogs.

At Antisemitica Hunter has been especially successful at eliciting responses from prominent opinion-shaping jews. I enjoyed the recent critique of James Howard Kunstler, who I recently wrote about in Who Thinks Thinking is Unthinkable and Why. Hunter wrote Kunstler and Whites, then he answered Kunstler’s dismissive response in Kunstler on Antisemitica. I left comments on both posts.

Beyond this, HW’s new blog regularly provides brilliant insights into exactly the kind of White/jew faultlines that have drawn my attention for the past two years. HW offers pro-White views and explanations that have been excluded from mainstream discourse even as unapologetically pro-jew views and explanations have become more common. I’ll excerpt and comment on a few points I found of particular interest.

The Jews and Obamacare:

In a racially homogeneous country, an Iceland or Finland, I think such a system could work. In America, it will become just another mechanism for wealth redistribution from Whites to non-Whites. The “47 million uninsured” are disproportionately blacks and Hispanics. I don’t want to see scarce resources drained away from the White community and wasted on people who nurse racial and ethnic grievances against us. I oppose the bill for that reason.

With that in mind, I wasn’t surprised at all to learn this morning that “Jewish groups have been at the forefront of lobbying the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives for health care reform, framing their support within the Talmudic mandate of Tikkun Olam, repairing the world.” In other words, Jews as Jews are lobbying the government for wealth redistribution from Whites to non-Whites. The Jewish community is the vanguard of the interests pushing for this destructive piece of legislation.

I haven’t heard a peep of this from conservatives, libertarians, or race realists.

The only peep I think we’re likely to hear is the unthinking accusation that the whole problem is unthinking “jew-hate”.

Why Jews Hate Palin:

Ultimately, Jews hate Sarah Palin for the same reason White conservatives adore her. They hate her for the same reason John McCain picked her as his running mate. She is the goddess of implicit Whiteness. Palin appeals to the demographic that American Jews have alway considered their traditional enemy: rural and suburban White Christians from the Southern and Western states.

She is one of them. If Palin was ever elected president, she could unite this demographic and represent their small town values at the highest level of the American government. Jews would feel threatened by “hope and change” of this sort. Dire warnings about the “new anti-Semitism” would be issued by Jewish organizations. Emigration to Israel would be contemplated. Jews would feel even more alienated from America than they already do now.

Fear and loathing of White Americans, “leukophobia” or “anti-Whitism,” is normal, acceptable, and mainstream in the Jewish community. It is a form of racial prejudice like any other. It is also a driving force behind Jewish support for Barack Obama. What better way to drive a stake through the heart of White America than to elect a mulatto as President of the United States?

I noted this jewish fear and loathing in The Election is Over, written directly in the wake of the 2008 election. Only now, more than a year later, are famously hyper-sensitive, hyper-critical, and hyper-opinionated jews frankly discussing the issue. Of course a major portion of that discussion consists of denial that the issue is real, or that it’s worth discussing.

Swastikas and Hate Crimes:

Trivial property crimes against Jews routinely get national press coverage. Violent crimes against Whites are buried in local newspapers. This is one the small daily reminders of Jewish privilege.

In the comments to If Hasan Were White I noted how while everyone in the media and government was telling everyone not to jump to conclusions about Hasan’s motives a shooting near an LA synagogue inspired an instant and publically announced assumption that the cause was “anti-semitism”. Nobody in media or government criticizes jews for words or actions that go beyond what is pathologized as “hate” or “racism” in Whites. To even call attention to these White/jew double standards is considered “anti-semitism”.

Israel and Jewish Privilege:

Jewish privilege is real. White privilege is non-existent. Just recently, Switzerland was widely condemned around the world for its ban on the construction of minarets. The rejection of this bill in Israel [that would force the Israeli Lands Administration to allocate land equally between Arabs and Jews] (and dozens like it over the years) hasn’t set off a similar backlash in the United States. It is understood that Israel has a right to remain a Jewish state whereas the right of Switzerland to remain a White Christian nation is highly controversial.

White/jew double standards are palpable. See my related posts Whose Country Is This Anyway? and Switzerland Minus Minarets.

Neocons are Anti-Semites:

This is a great example of what Kevin MacDonald calls Jewish self deception. The charge happens to be true. Jews look at Sarah Palin and they see the most white bread conservative leader since Pat Buchanan. They see the implicit whiteness in the metastasizing Tea Party crowds.

Their cultural antennae has a visceral negative emotional reaction. It goes far beyond public policy disagreements. Their gut instinct tells them crowds of angry White people are “bad for the Jews.”

When White Americans respond to negro and Hispanic chauvinists in this way, Jews decry it as “racism.” In a sense, they are right. It is racial prejudice at work; an emotional short cut that bypasses reason.

I think this view of the Tea Party phenomena is correct. There’s much, much more to be said about it. It strikes me as similar not only to the prismatic polarization Palin has provided, but Polanski as well. The pattern is this: White/jewish visceral disgust, followed by jewish/White instinctual reaction to that disgust, followed by largely jewish opinion-shaping aimed at obscuring the White/jew divide, often mixed with one-way blame on supposedly irrational “jew-hate” emanating from Whites.

I’ve read brief allusions to this supposed jewish self-deception, but I haven’t read MacDonald’s original argument. Can someone point out in which book it is made? Perhaps I misunderstand the idea.

Ironically, the idea that jews don’t know what they’re doing or why seems to me an unconscious attempt to downplay the significance of the obvious stereotypical jewish lack of scruples and utter contempt for the notion that lying or hypocrisy is something to be avoided or to be ashamed of, at least when it comes to serving their own personal or wider jewish interests. I see true self-deception in Whites, especially those who won’t judge jews, or judge them by softer standards than jews themselves see fit to judge non-jews by. We don’t have to make excuses for the harm jews cause us any more than jews feel the need to excuse what they deem to be harm caused by Whites. You never see them excusing “racists”, “haters”, “tea baggers”, “rethuglicans”, “neo-nazis” – which are all codewords for Whites – as self-deceivers. In jewish eyes any White who acts White is simply a threat. The enemy. For example, when accused of being anti-White Kunstler answered:

I’m not against white people… I’m just against white people who are against other people….

It’s one of the same responses I got from the anti-White “reality-based community”. Only those who see Whites as some kind of lesser beings have a problem with us saying “I’m not against non-White people… I’m just against non-White people who harm White people…” Jews don’t like that, and it’s not because they’re unaware or lie to themselves about their own outrageous, self-serving hypocrisy. They don’t like it because they are hyper-aware of their own group’s interests and don’t give a shit what anybody else thinks about that. It reflects a fundamental difference in mental function, not some innocent oversight.

On Antisemitica’s Kunstler thread I responded similarly to “David F” (David Frum?), who seemed eager to explain away Kunstler’s behavior as unconscious. “David F” dissembled, claiming Kunstler is “just writing about the underclass the way everyone in his social circles does”, without noting that it’s very visible, very outspoken jews like Kunstler, Frum, Horowitz, Brooks, etc. shaping and pruning and leading the way – pathologizing and excommunicating Whites who question the pro-jew/anti-White social circle norms.

Another illustration of what I’m getting at is faux-White jew Lawrence Auster, who strikes an explicitly pro-“white” pose and urges “the majority” to reassert our interests. Simultaneously he considers Whites who criticize jews to be worse than an evil enemy. To him we’re subhuman. He’s not lying to himself, he’s lying to everyone else. Auster is an extremely self- and group-aware pro-jewish chauvanist who simply lacks the honesty to plainly state his priorities, which are clear from his frequent and energetic attacks on “the anti-semites”. He absurdly maintains that the recognition of this fact itself represents irrational “jew-hate”. This has been pointed out to him and he has read the critiques, repeatedly, and he continues to maintain his position (see for example, Is Majority Rights cleaning up its act?, Anti-Semitism and the Jews–a collection, What the anti-Semites believe, An apostate anti-Semite, and The Darwinian anti-Semites’ self-contradiction). To paraphrase his co-tribalist Kunstler, Auster isn’t against “white” people… He’s just against White people who resent jewish interests being misrepresented as identical to “white” interests. Both men have stated their positions clearly and openly in response to being challenged.

Paul Gottfried on Neocons:

Gottfried bluntly says that Jews control the American Right. From their throne in Manhattan, Jewish neocons enjoy the privilege of being able to manipulate the status system (using their own ethnic interests as a litmus test) to determine who is “mainstream” and “respectable” and thus who can be granted entry into the national political conversation.

In the end, Gottfried sounds more like an apologist than a truth teller.

Gottfried is yet another faux-White, pale-conning jewish critic of “liberal” jews. In the end he blames Whites and his strongest vitriol is reserved “the anti-semites”. Neither he nor his friend Auster actually hold jews responsible for anything. In their minds the fault for all White/jew conflict lies entirely with Whites, whom they blame under cover of euphemisisms such as “the majority”, “WASPs”, “gentile whites”, etc. much like Kunstler blames “yeast people” and “cornpone nazis”. Pro-Whites can use whatever euphemisms or qualifiers we want in expressing negative opinions about jews, however precise, and for all their hair-splitting these brainy critics will unanimously identify and denounce that as “anti-semitism”. The exception is when the criticism comes from themselves, because that’s motivated by what they believe are the best interests of jews.

The Jews and NBC:

In the Jewish Journal, a recent article explicitly discusses Jewish control of NBC. White Nationalists have claimed for years that “Jews control the media” and use it to brainwash the White masses in anti-racist mores.

An excellent example of how jewish media influence allows jews to have their cake and eat it too, discussing the jewish power brokers behind the scenes at NBC amongst themselves while the mainstream discussion focuses almost exclusively on the roles and personalities of the pampered hired help who work out front. Jewish media influence is usually painted, both by jews and those currying favor with jews, as a ridiculous “canard” motivated by “jew-hate”. One typical and true canard they respond with is that “[insert non-jew here] isn’t jewish!” Another is that jews argue all the time. Of course as the Jewish Journal admits in its reportage intended for fellow jews, at NBC it’s a “whole bunch of jews” doing the arguing. And of course it’s jewish influence that keeps such frank discussions of jewish influence from being printed on the front page of the New York Times and Wall Street Journal.

Politics + Technology = Nonsense at the Speed of Light