Tag Archives: jewish influence

Blog

When Revolting Elites Revolt

9 Comments

secretprojectrevolution

Watch Madonna’s Insufferable 17 Minute Black & White Video About Persecution, Roger Friedman, Showbiz411:

Madonna wants to start a revolution. No one will take her seriously. So she’s made this video with photographer Steven Klein. This is what she wants to know: “If I was a black man and had an Afro would you take me seriously? If I was an Arab waving a hand grenade would you take me seriously?”

This sophomoric nonsense is the product of a 55 year old woman whose view of the world really comes from her own isolation from reality.

It’s called “secretprojectrevolution.” It’s dedicated to anyone who’s suffered persecution.

Madonna’s ‘secretprojectrevolution’ should stay hidden, Kyle Smith, New York Post:

“Economic markets are collapsing,” she intones. “People all over the world are suffering.” But the real enemy is intolerance. “I keep telling everyone I want to start a revolution, but no one is taking me seriously,” she complains, and it’s all because, “I’m a woman. I’m blond. I have t - - s, an ass and an insatiable desire to be noticed.”

Madonna Screens ‘Secretprojectrevolution’ in New York, Megan Buerger, WSJ/Speakeasy:

If shock value were currency, Madonna would be the richest woman in the world.

At last night’s premiere of her new short film, the previously top-secret “Secretprojectrevolution,” she pulled out all the stops to get her political message across: Asking everyone in the audience to sit on the floor of New York’s Gagosian Gallery, including several A-listers, she blurred the lines between pop art and interpretive dance in the name of fighting oppression and discrimination.

The 17-minute short, a black-and-white collaboration with photographer Steven Klein, is indeed disquieting. Madonna plays a jailer and a prisoner, sings an eerie rendition of “My Country, ‘Tis of Thee” and there are guns and blood and a stroller on fire (things to know before cueing it up at the office). She also serves as the narrator, issuing a call to arms for the world to join her in a “revolution of love.” In Madonna-speak, this means standing up for those who are discriminated against because of their race, gender, religion or sexuality.

STEVEN KLEIN STUDIO: #secretprojectrevolution.

Madonna and Steven Klein Foment Revolution For Art Piece, Erik Maza, Women’s Wear Daily:

In a press release days earlier Madonna said “secretprojectrevolution,” as the film is formally called, would be a “call to action and give people a place to voice their own creative expression to help fight oppression, intolerance and complacency.”

For a party, there were an awful lot of instructions from the pop star. Before the projection began, Madonna requested that everyone sit down, and so the black-and-white short film played out with everyone cross-legged on the floor, like in art class. The bar staff was instructed to stop serving or refilling wine until after the performance was over. And no one was allowed to leave until the end

From Merriam Webster:

rev·o·lu·tion noun ˌre-və-ˈlü-shən

: the usually violent attempt by many people to end the rule of one government and start a new one

: a sudden, extreme, or complete change in the way people live, work, etc.

: the action of moving around something in a path that is similar to a circle

An elite revolt against the revolting elite? Not even close. It’s the dog chasing his tail sense of the word revolution that applies here. The point of Madonna’s secretprojectrevolution is not to foment violence or change. Quite the opposite.

A more accurate name would have been projectlookatmelookatmemoreofthesame. It’s just more of the same old hypocritical moralizing against oppression, persecution, discrimination and intolerance – of “minorities”. As every member of the “minority” at the tippity-top of the judaized elite well knows by now, whether you’re a jew or not you had better be able to mouth all the right jewish platitudes. Or else.

Even well-established critics find Madonna’s performance art recasting of the well-established jewish narrative “insufferable”. Why? The message is too overt, too vague, too heavy-handed, too flip. The messenger is also at fault. She’s too privileged and prosperous, too obviously posturing and self-absorbed.

Though challenging the judaized elite or their sensibilities is probably the last thing on Madonna’s mind, her “sophmoric nonsense”, this 17-minutes of burlesque holocaustish harangue, is so absurd it might do some harm.

There’s no real need for her to supply such nonsense. The jews, their media and their puppets already provide a constant stream of authorized and offical nonsense.

Sophmoric reinterpretations and regurgitations of the jewish narrative pose a threat to the extent they broaden and thereby dilute and distort that narrative. The whole purpose of favoring “minorities” is to benefit the jewish “minority” that’s on top, pimping that narrative. Thus Madonna, so celebrated for vulgarizing all things goyishe, becomes “insufferable” in this case exactly because she’s vulgarizing something so ineffably jewish.

Blog

Syria: Organized Jewry Organizing War

24 Comments

Mainstream jewsmedia reports:

Pro-Israel and Jewish groups strongly back military strike against Syria – The Washington Post

Simon Wiesenthal Center calls for action against Syria

Adelson New Obama Ally as Jewish Groups Back Syria Strike – Bloomberg

AIPAC in Full Court Press on Syria – The Daily Beast

Jewish groups back Obama on Syria, but downplay Israel angle | Jewish Telegraphic Agency

Jewish organizations in US support Syria strike | The Times of Israel

Simon Wiesenthal Center calls for action against Syria

Andrew Anglin’s Daily Stormer:

Jewess Debbie Wasserman Schultz Justifies Planned Syrian Slaughter by Invoking the Holohoax: ‘As a Jew … Never Again has to Mean Something’

Top Israeli Intelligence Chief Confirms Israeli Interest in Toppling Syrian Government

Top Jew Kissinger Says Not Invading Syria Would Have ‘Enormous’ Consequences

Bloodthirsty Zionist Billionaire Sheldon Adelson is Obama’s New Ally as Jewish Groups Back Syria Strike

Kevin MacDonald at Occidental Observer:

The Israel Lobby and the Organized Jewish Community Want Regime Change in Syria

How the media works: David Makovsky on the non-existent AIPAC 800-lb gorilla

Pat Buchanan: Just Whose War Is This?

Gregory Hood at Counter-Currents provides the most comprehensive analysis: Standing With Syria

– – –

By far the best indication of the poisonous nature of jewish power is the confused reaction of some patriots in the US military: Tea Party Troops Protest Syria Strike On Facebook, Raise Questions About Military Code Of Conduct.

Jews and jewish organizations are the driving force lobbying for US/European miliary strikes aimed at degrading/toppling the Assad regime in Syria. Their weaponization of the jewish narrative is blatant. The bottom line of all the jewish moralizing is that non-jews must kill and die in order to protect jews.

The mainstream jewsmedia is openly reporting on both the who and the why of this jewish drive for war. The White servicemen who will be doing the killing and dying sense something is wrong, but cannot properly identify what. They are disturbed at the prospect of serving inimical alien interests, but cannot accept that they already do.

Blog

Much Ado About Who Betrayed Whom

9 Comments

A new book is sparking controversy amongst judeo-cons. Laura Wood calls it The War over “American Betrayal”. Baron Bodissey describes it as Cordon Sanitaire: FAIL.

Jewess Diana West’s book, American Betrayal, is subtitled “The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character”. The synopsis at Amazon begins:

In The Death of the Grown-Up, Diana West diagnosed the demise of Western civilization by looking at its chief symptom: our inability to become adults who render judgments of right and wrong. In American Betrayal, West digs deeper to discover the root of this malaise and uncovers a body of lies that Americans have been led to regard as the near-sacred history of World War II and its Cold War aftermath.

The argument began when a fellow “conservative” jew, Ron Radosh, wrote McCarthy On Steroids, criticizing West’s book. The thrust of it was to accuse West of conspiracy theorizing, to compare her to judeo-communist bugbears Senator Joseph McCarthy and the John Birch Society, and to pick nits about whether this or that individual was actually a Soviet spy. All very jewish in character.

Radosh’s primary concern comes through in his description of West’s thesis:

She argues that during the New Deal the United States was an occupied power, its government controlled by Kremlin agents who had infiltrated the Roosevelt administration and subverted it. Like McCarthy, whom West believes got everything correct, she believes a conspiracy was at work that effectively enabled the Soviets to be the sole victors in World War II and shape American policies in the postwar world.

Writing sixty years later, she claims that the evidence that has come to light in the interim not only vindicates McCarthy’s claims but goes well beyond anything he imagined. Throughout American Betrayal, West uses the terms “occupied” and “controlled” to describe the influence the Soviet Union exerted over U.S. policy through its agents and spies. She believes she has exposed “the Communist-agent-occupation of the U.S. government” during the Roosevelt and Truman eras, and that her discoveries add up to a Soviet-controlled American government that conspired to strengthen Russia throughout World War II at the expense of American interests, marginalize anti-Communist Germans, and deliver the crucial material for the Atomic Bomb to Stalin and his henchmen. It also conspired to cover up the betrayal. In West’s summation: “The Roosevelt administration [was] penetrated, fooled, subverted, in effect hijacked by Soviet agents… and engaged in a “‘sell-out’ to Stalin” that “conspirators of silence on the Left…would bury for as long as possible, desperately throwing mud over it and anyone who wanted the sun to shine in.” According to West, it was only because Washington was “Communist-occupied” that the United States aligned itself with the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany.

Radosh worries:

West has evidently seduced conservatives who are justifiably appalled by the left’s rewriting of history, its denials that Communists ever posed a threat, and its claim that Communist infiltration was a destructive myth created by witch-hunters intent on suppressing dissent. For these readers, West’s credibility derives from her aggressive counter vision.

In her effort to paint the Roosevelt administration as a puppet of Soviet intelligence, she argues that towards the end of the war, the American government turned down the opportunity to arm German soldiers willing to form a new army to go to war against the USSR. American leaders were so pro-Soviet, in other words, that they missed one final opportunity to halt the Red Army’s advance into Eastern Europe, thereby delivering these countries to Stalin’s tender mercies and precipitating the Cold War.

West tries to explain the Anglo-American war-time alliance with the Soviets and subsequent setbacks and concessions during the Cold War as a result of infiltration, occupation and betrayal by communists. McCarthy made a similar argument in America’s Retreat From Victory, published in 1951. He decried a series of apparently deliberate missteps, from the point of view of an anti-communist patriot at least, and pinned most of the blame on George Marshall.

Radosh, spooked by this image of Western leaders as puppets, quotes Laurence Rees in defense of the no-betrayal-required explanation he prefers:

If the Western allies had fought alongside the Germans and then reached some kind of uneasy peace with the Soviets — who would, of course, have felt betrayed by the West, probably fueling a future conflict — who would then have disarmed the German army? Germany would have been unoccupied by the Western Allies and still immensely powerful. So, thankfully, Roosevelt filed Earle’s plan in the bin.

This is the consensus of every historian of the war. The decision not to consider an entente with Hitler’s army against Stalin was a clear-headed affirmation of U.S. interests, not a betrayal, as West virtually screams.

West is trying to “diagnose the demise of the West”, to explain the “assault” Western rulers have been making on their “own nations” since the war. West’s thesis is that the enemy then was communists and traitors, and furthermore, that the enemy today remains “leftist” traitors. Radosh show little sign that any of this concerns him. His fear is that West puts too much emphasis on betrayal. He doesn’t like where this line of thinking leads.

Where it leads is to an examination of interests and who/whom. It invites one to wonder who constitutes “our nation”, who has been harming us, and why.

It helps to know that in the decades before the war the jewish role in the bolshevist revolution and consequent bloodbath was openly acknowledged and discussed. Powerful White Americans regarded jewish infiltration and betrayal a threat to US interests. I doubt West mentions any of this. She’d likely join Radosh in demonizing and pathologizing anyone who cites this history, as I do here, as evidence that the larger threat was jews and judaization.

Yet the jewish infiltration and occupation of European societies and governments did in fact proceed, in fits and starts, in various places, at various times, with the aid of a variety of traitors. Communism was but one vehicle. Today the jewish dominance of finance, media and academia amounts to hegemony over “the West”. It is the tremendous harm their rule has caused, “the demise of the West”, which compels these “conservative” jews to argue. They’re arguing about how to explain it in a way that doesn’t implicate their tribe.

Whereas West thinks it’s safe enough to finger communists and leftists, Radosh thinks the evil “nazi” consensus suffices. The irony is that even a contemporary leftist traitor speaks more clearly to the consequences of jewish power and influence.

Blog

Yes We Can

30 Comments

Why can’t we talk about IQ?, by Jason Richwine, 9 August 2013:

The American Psychological Association (APA) tried to set the record straight in 1996 with a report written by a committee of experts. Among the specific conclusions drawn by the APA were that IQ tests reliably measure a real human trait, that ethnic differences in average IQ exist, that good tests of IQ are not culturally biased against minority groups, and that IQ is a product of both genetic inheritance and early childhood environment. Another report signed by 52 experts, entitled “Mainstream Science on Intelligence,” stated similar facts and was printed in the Wall Street Journal.

“These may be harbingers of a shift in the media’s treatment of intelligence,” an optimistic Charles Murray wrote at the time. “There is now a real chance that the press will begin to discover that it has been missing the story.”

He was wrong.

For too many people confronted with IQ issues, emotion trumps reason. Some are even angry that I never apologized for my work. I find that sentiment baffling. Apologize for stating empirical facts relevant to public policy? I could never be so craven. And apologize to whom — people who don’t like those facts? The demands for an apology illustrate the emotionalism that often governs our political discourse.

What causes so many in the media to react emotionally when it comes to IQ? Snyderman and Rothman believe it is a naturally uncomfortable topic in modern liberal democracies. The possibility of intractable differences among people does not fit easily into the worldview of journalists and other members of the intellectual class who have an aversion to inequality. The unfortunate — but all too human — reaction is to avoid seriously grappling with inconvenient truths. And I suspect the people who lash out in anger are the ones who are most internally conflicted.

But I see little value in speculating further about causes. Change is what’s needed. And the first thing for reporters, commentators, and non-experts to do is to stop demonizing public discussion of IQ differences. Stop calling names. Stop trying to get people fired. Most of all, stop making pronouncements about research without first reading the literature or consulting people who have.

This is not just about academic freedom or any one scholar’s reputation. Cognitive differences can inform our understanding of a number of policy issues — everything from education, to military recruitment, to employment discrimination to, yes, immigration. Start treating the science of mental ability seriously, and both political discourse and public policy will be better for it.

The schism runs deeper than IQ. IQ denial springs from group difference denial, i.e. race denial, which springs from jew denial. The political discourse is profoundly shaped by the anti-White/pro-jew nature of the current regime, an expression of jewish power.

Anyone who wants to do so can talk about IQ, or race, or even the jews. It depends on who they praise or attack. For decades the regime has promulgated a narrative in which race and the jews matter more than anything else. It’s a narrative in which jews are good and Whites are evil. The regime’s orwellian term for this narrative is “white privilege”.

Only those who oppose or in some way threaten the regime or it’s narrative are subject to sanction. The regime, more than anything else, is a mindset – a mindset created and driven by jews, for the benefit of jews.

Richwine must know all this. His mentor Charles Murray knows. As other former participants have put it, in order to participate you must know, even while you pretend you don’t.

While Whites have for the most part abandoned the debate on race, some are still intent on debating immigration. Trying to avoid race they focus on money or IQ instead. It’s not working. Now the debate is focused on whether Richwine is a “nazi”. When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When jews have power, every dissident looks like a “nazi”.

Jewish power is rooted in denial. Denial that jews have power. Denial that jews are anti-White. Can Whites stop this denial? Yes we can.

Blog

White Privilege and Jewish Power

33 Comments

For more than a year the jewsmedia has been trying to turn the shooting of a black nobody by a mestizo nobody into an indictment of White “racism” and “privilege”. Meanwhile the top two candidates to replace Ben Shalom Bernanke as head of the Federal Reserve are Larry Summers and Janet Yellen. All three are jews, but you won’t hear anything critical of that in the jewsmedia.

The jewish paper of record provides a typical example of how the jewsmedia goes about ignoring the jewish elephant in the room. The Battle for the Fed and In Tug of War Over New Fed Leader, Some Gender Undertones spin the struggle for power between two jew-dominated factions into a story about men versus women. Though “diversity” usually means less White, in this case it means less male.

Knowing how often jews are conflated and confused with Whites, I searched out commentary on Janet Yellen white privilege. Remarkably, I found only one article that put these four words together on the same page. Progressive Reading List at Winning Progressive calls Yellen “the best candidate to chair the Federal Reserve”, and in a separate item links The Privilege of Whiteness, describing it as:

an essay on the privilege that we place on whiteness in our society by treating white people as individuals while people of other races are racially profiled far too often.

The anti-White essay is by Paul Waldman. Another jew. These days just about anything serves as a pretext for anyone in the jewsmedia to decry White “racism” and “privilege” – it has become the new normal. The same critics don’t have anything to say about White “privilege”, much less jewish dominance, at a prominent and preeminent seat of financial and political power.

Empirically, jews are regarded as distinct from Whites. Jews like David Sirota, Tim Wise and Paul Waldman may pretend they are “white” because it helps enable their White bashing, and too many Whites are willing to go along with the charade. But the fact is that in the jew-dominated mainstream media and academia it is Whites who are most consistently criticized as a group. To the extent Whiteness is a “default setting”, as jews like Waldman argue, it is as the target for blame. Beside Sirota, Wise and Waldman, the most vile and blatant examples of anti-White invective come from jews like Susan Sontag (“the White race is the cancer of history”) and Noel Ignatiev (“the key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the White race”). Why? Because jews as a group regard themselves not only as distinct from the White race, but at odds with it. Those who speak most stridently against Whites are not “self-hating” Whites, or even White-hating Whites – they are jews doing what they think is best for jews.

Constant complaints about White “racism” and “privilege” serve to distract attention away from jewish power. There are no complaints about White “privilege” at the Fed because it would call attention to jewish power. Those who hold power in the anti-White regime are either jews, in bed (literally or figuratively) with the jews, and/or are afraid of what will happen to them if they oppose the jews. They may complain about Whites. They may even pretend jews are “white”. But they will not abide complaints about jews. This is an indication not only of the power jews have, but the duplicitous and toxic nature of that power.