Tag Archives: jewish influence

Blog

Biden on Jewish Influence

7 Comments

Forty years ago President Nixon and Billy Graham discussed jewish media control in private, afraid to speak openly against it. Since then the jews have only become more powerful.

Speaking on Tuesday night at a Jewish American Heritage Month reception hosted by the Democratic National Committee, Vice President Joe Biden claimed that jews, as a group:

  • have “outsized influence”, that this “influence is immense”, but that jews “vastly underestimate the impact you’ve had on the development of this nation”
  • “make up 11 percent of the seats in the United States Congress”
  • have used media to alter public opinion
  • have promoted immigration, civil rights, feminism and gay marriage

Hyper-jew Jonathan Chait immediately expressed his concern that such open and accurate acknowledgement of jewish power is not good for the jews. Biden Praises Jews, Goes Too Far, Accidentally Thrills Anti-Semites:

Biden indeed offered fulsome, heartfelt praise in his remarks, before wandering into highly uncomfortable terrain and delivering a speech that is likely to be quoted by anti-Semites for years and decades to come. (It’s already the subject of excited discussion among the white supremacist community.)

Biden’s remarks were not anti-Semitic. They were very, very philo-Semitic.

As the jews say, a “philo-semite” is just an “anti-semite” who doesn’t know it yet.

It’s obviously true that Jews have flourished in the United States and, as Biden says, have achieved massively disproportionate representation in fields like science, culture, politics, academia, and so on.

Jews regard this fact with a mixture of pride and neurosis. The neurosis is a fear that our success will be seen as a kind of invidious control, that the broader society will at some point say, no, you have too much.

Like Biden, Chait omits finance, media and law, in effect downplaying the extent as well as the disproportion of jewish influence.

Jews don’t fear success. Jews fear being treated the way jews treat Whites.

It’s also true that, while Jewish opinions run the ideological gamut, they have clustered heavily on the left end of the political spectrum. When you combine that fact with the fact of disproportionate Jewish representation in politics and culture, you have a weirdly shared belief among philo-Semites and anti-Semites.

Chait dismisses these facts by first acknowledging they are true, then implying that believing them is weird.

Biden’s intentions here are obviously as friendly as can be, but the execution is awkward. The civil rights movement today is so widely sanctified that mentioning the disproportionate Jewish role in it is in the same category as mentioning Einstein, Jonas Salk, and so on — look at all these wonderful things the Jews have helped bring us.

Awkward for jews. The hallmark of jewish power is the pretense that it doesn’t exist. The jews rule, but without public acknowledgement, much less consent. Jews know this and fear what will happen if it becomes more broadly known.

The main problem here is that gay rights, unlike black civil rights, are politically controversial at the moment. Biden may find it “all to the good” that Jews have used their influence over popular culture to change societal attitudes toward homosexuality, but lots of people don’t find it good at all.

The main problem here depends entirely upon your point of view. What the jews find good for themselves is not necessarily good for anyone else. For Whites, for example, the main problem here is the relentless animus jews have for Whites.

Blog

Segan and O’Hehir’s Big Damning White Problems

18 Comments

Google Glass’s White Male Problem, PCMag.com, by Sascha Segan, 1 May 2013:

Does anyone who isn’t a white man have Google Glass?

This is starting to get disturbing. Since Google Glass demo units started appearing a few weeks ago, proud Google Glass users have been spewing selfies all over the Internet. And except for the hired help in Google’s demo videos, every single Google Glass owner I’ve heard a word from appears to be a middle-aged white male, usually with some receding hairline action going on there. There’s even a Tumblr devoted to the phenomenon.

This is a big problem.

I say this as a middle-aged white man with extremely little hair. Google Glass is just breaking out of the dream stage, and our society is grappling with these wearable items: what they do, how to use them, and how we shouldn’t use them. People who aren’t white, middle-aged males need to be part of that conversation, but I don’t see that happening right now with Glass.

People from non-Western-European-descended, non-male gender and ethnic groups have different perspectives on technology and society that could help shape Google Glass and how it’s used.

For Segan Whites are “disturbing”, a “big problem”. Why? Because he sees Whites as distinct and different from non-Whites – a fact which Segan and PC Magazine willingly acknowledge, at least so long as it serves an argument in favor of non-Whites.

One of the reasons I so love reporting on mobile technology is that it’s tremendously egalitarian, and it crosses all gender, ethnic, and class lines. My peer group of mobile tech writers is whiter and maler than America as a whole, but it isn’t the complete white-out we’re seeing with Google Glass early adopters.

So Segan likes pretending everyone is equal and dislikes when reality confounds his fantasy. His “peer group”, however White, either shares his White-abnegating attitude or is unwilling to challenge it.

Google Glass, and wearables in general can change our society. That includes everyone. Being the vanguard of a major new product category, with so many possible societal ripples, makes Glass more important than a typical game or website whose usage naturally skews to one ethnic or gender group.

If the direction of this societal change is being determined entirely by a socially homogenous group of guys (no matter how hard they try), it’s going to be a less useful technology for that.

Who is “us”? Who comprises this society of “ours” that Segan thinks “we” should be so worried about? Who is this homogenous group determining the direction of societal change?

The prevailing wisdom of the current anti-White regime is that race is “entirely a social and political construct”. Yet somehow Segan is able to judge who is “white” just by looking at faces.

Based on his face – as well as his name and his anti-White attitude – I think Sascha Segan is a jew. I think a large fraction of the men in the Tumblr he links look like jews. I say this as a White man who recognizes that jews are different from Whites.

Even setting aside biological differences, Segan’s own line of argument suffices to make the point. Jews have a completely different perspective than Whites do. On the one hand, jews see jews as distinct from Whites, with jews as victims and Whites as their oppressors. On the other hand, Whites see jews as victims and also mistake them for “white”. It’s no mystery why so many Whites make this mistake. Jews constantly espouse these jewish perspectives at the same time they pathologize and demonize Whites for expressing any kind of White perspective.

In this case the difference between Whites and jews is even more glaring than usual. Segan is specifically blaming “whites” for a phenomena that is in fact even more markedly jewish. Would Segan have written an article about the disturbing big problem that too many Google Glass wearers are jews? Would PC Magazine have published it?

On Tuesday I talked about another example of this White problem meme I had recently run across. The Oscars’ old, white, male problem, Salon.com, by Andrew O’Hehir, 21 Feb 2012:

On one hand, the evidence dredged up by an extensive Los Angeles Times investigation into the membership of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is damning: The Oscars are being decided by 5,765 voting members (itself a smaller number than usually reported) who are 94 percent white.

O’Hehir is another jewish-looking, jewish-sounding anti-White critic. To him an organization being 94 percent White is not only a “problem”, it’s “damning”. Unlike Segan, O’Hehir doesn’t even try to explain why. An anti-White attitude is simply taken for granted at Salon.

Now, it’s also true that my reaction to all this diligent legwork by a team of at least seven Times reporters can be summarized with a colloquial phrase that begins with “No” and ends with “Sherlock.” No one who has paid attention to the Oscars or the Academy — or the American film industry at large — harbors any illusions about who’s running the show, or believes that Oscar voters have much in common with Americans or moviegoers at large. Indeed, the borderline-cruel caricature of a typical Oscar voter, often bandied about in private by journalists and publicists, is of a 70-something retired actor, certainly white and probably Jewish, who wears sky-blue slacks and white patent leather shoes and lives in Brentwood or Beverly Hills. That seems to be almost exactly what the Times investigation has revealed.

My emphasis.

Whereas Segan ignored jews while he was blaming Whites, O’Hehir actually calls attention to what he’s doing. He conflates Whites and jews, while in the same paragraph he acknowledges that he and anyone else who’s paying attention can see there’s a clear distinction.

For O’Hehir, like Segan, the problem is a certain concentration of “white” faces. How many have to identify positively as White to be a problem? It doesn’t matter. The problem is “white”.

It’s worth noting, by the way, that the Times pointedly did not inquire into the religious or ethnic affiliations of the Academy’s white members. I can’t deny being curious about the question of how Jewish the Academy is these days, and you might be able to construct a non-offensive argument for why that’s relevant information. But it’s information that ugly people would use for ugly reasons, and you can’t blame the reporters and editors involved for not jabbing a stick into that particular hornets’ nest.

It’s worth noting that O’Hehir explictly describes how different jews are from Whites. Counting and calling “whites” a problem is relevant and non-offensive. It’s something O’Hehir does and Salon enables. Counting jews, on the other hand, is offensive, irrelevant and ugly. These are two totally different kinds of problem. If they look “white”, “white” is the problem. Noticing jews makes them swarm and cause you problems.

One response is to say “so what,” as some people do in the Times piece. The Academy is a private membership organization, which is devoted to burnishing the image of the film industry and has never claimed to represent the public at large. It can give out awards however it wants, and people aren’t required to watch.

Once again, this only highlights the difference between jews and Whites. When someone in the jewsmedia calls out a so-called White problem they don’t lose their job. Instead Whites are expected to get busy increasing diversity, which means in effect to make whatever is being criticized less White. Even a passive “so what” is regarded as confirmation of the supposed problem. It’s a moot point because there isn’t a White left in the jewsmedia who would even dare say “so what”, never mind point out that jews aren’t White.

In contrast, “so what” is a typically jewish response to a criticism like this, and it is deployed in a decidedly aggressive manner. Regarding Hollywood, for example, Ben Stein and Michael Medved expressed this attitude. Both made the same basic argument: Yes, jews run Hollywood, and if you think that’s a problem then you’re the problem.

Jews take this hostile attitude toward criticism specifically because they are acutely aware of and attached to their jewishness. They voice their hostility toward Whites specifically because they don’t identify as White. This is a problem for Whites.

Blog

Pressure Cooker Sympathies

9 Comments

Why do the Sirotas sympathize with the Tsarnaevs but fear and loath the McVeighs?

From Hollywoodism (one facet of jewsmediaism):

The Hollywood movie moguls and their parents came from a place which was like a colossal pressure cooker. The Pale of Settlement in the Russian empire was the only place where jews could live legally under the czar. They had a very marginal existence, lived in poor villages. There was a tremendousry? of over-population. People were constantly migrating around. This area really was the equivalent of a sort of huge indian reservation. Not only were people poor but there were very few things they could do to earn a livelyhood. Their neighbors were often violent. There were tremendous constraints on jewish life and also a real sense of vulnerability.

The oppression narrative in Western political discourse (based on the glorification of the dark-skinned alien and vilification of Whites) is an outgrowth and generalization of the jewish narrative, at the heart of which is antipathy and contempt for Europeans.

P.S. Sirota:

is a Slavic last name. In Russian, “сирота” means “orphan”.

Blog

Avoiding The Real Question

17 Comments

David Sirota’s latest attempt to spin the Boston bombing, The huge, unanswered questions post-Boston:

1. Why did so many conservatives seem to want the suspects to be a foreign-born Muslim?

2. Will the Boston response finally change America’s posture toward public employees?

3. Does 24-7 news and technology make us more safe or less safe?

The inveterate dishonesty of the jewsmedia is a reflection of jewish nature and the illegitimacy of jewish rule.

1. Why does the jewsmedia pretend it doesn’t understand the jewsmedia?

2. Why does the jewsmedia pretend it cares about “America” or “public employees”?

3. Why is the jewsmedia afraid of questions, discussion, debate and opinion forming outside the jewsmedia?

These are rhetorical questions – facets of the larger Jewish Question.

Blog

Of Popes and Jews

48 Comments

Dennis Mangan asks, Is the Pope Catholic?, and notes:

Some conservatives and Catholics seem to believe that non-Catholics shouldn’t criticize the Pope and his opinions.

I made several comments there before realizing it was more appropriate to recast them, and some further comments, into a post here.

The trick is to frame your critique in moral terms, taking for granted that the sensibilities and interests of your group trump all others. It also helps if the media is in your pocket and takes your side.

Revised Catholic prayer troubles some rabbis, Sun Journal, Feb 2008.

Pope under fire for Yad Vashem speech, Jerusalem Post, May 2009.

US Jewish leaders denounce Catholic sermon, The Guardian, Apr 2010.

Jews Worried By Vatican Gesture To Traditionalists, Huffington Post, Sep 2011.

Anti-Semite is among papal candidates, MiamiHerald.com, Feb 2013.

Why the new pope matters to Jews, Fox News, March 2013.

Jews will be even less of a priority for the next Pope, Haaretz Daily Newspaper, March 2013.

You should never be put off from criticizing another group just because you don’t belong. But remember you can always join a more universalist group to pursue your more particularist agenda from within.

The role of Jewish converts to Catholicism in changing traditional Catholic teachings on Jews, The Occidental Observer.

I have spoken before about the important distinction between universalism versus particularism (Morals, Morality and Moralizing and Universalism and Particularism).

One particularly popular jewish trope is that the jews have no pope. Like most jewish tropes about jews, this is a distortion of reality. The relationship between jews and popes is fascinating, and telling, specifically because the pope supposedly isn’t a jew, because of the pretense that jewishness is entirely about religion (ideology) not peoplehood (biology), and because the usual jewish rhetoric about mutual respect and tolerance is, in practice, entirely one-sided.

First of all, the fact that the Catholic pope isn’t a jew does not keep jews, big or small, from criticizing him, or other religious leaders for that matter. The underlying presumption is that even non-jews can and should be doing more to serve the best interests of jews. Second, there is organized jewry, a vast collective network that is in many ways more powerful, and more likely to use that power to promote particularist ends, than organized Christianity is. More broadly, there are thousands of jews who act, with and without the consent of organized jewry, as if they were superpopes, in the sense that they advocate more tirelessly and vociferously for the best interests of their group than any recent pope does for his.

Consider, for example, Alan Dershowitz, the author of the letter to the editor in the Miami Herald linked above. Dershowitz is usually described as a lawyer or professor and claims he isn’t particularly religious. Yet his passion and efforts in favor of his own people (as a people, not as a religion) is so strong that, like thousands of other jews, he feels morally capable, entitled even, to publicly pass judgment on Christians and their leaders. In the minds of jews like Dershowitz, no Christian or pope comes before, or even equates, to them or their group.

New pope, Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina, has Jewish connections, JTA Jewish & Israel News.

A good pope, from the shamelessly particularist point of view of jews, should have “a personal connection to the Jewish people”.

Note that JTA, aiming at a jewish audience, didn’t pretend it was about a spiritual connection to the jewish faith.

This is just one jewish answer to the question, implicit in this case, “Will this new pope be good for the jews?” Right now many other jews are undoubtedly asking and answering this same question more or less explicitly. Two jews, three opinions about what the pope could do to better “connect with the jewish people”.

Society of Jesus, Wikipedia:

Although in the first 30 years of the existence of the Society of Jesus there were many Jesuit conversos (Catholic-convert Jews),[50] an anti-converso faction led to the Decree de genere (1593) which proclaimed that either Jewish or Muslim ancestry, no matter how distant, was an insurmountable impediment for admission to the Society of Jesus.[51] The 16th-century Decree de genere remained in exclusive force until the 20th century, when it was repealed in 1946.[52]

The Jesuits, Jew or Not Jew:

The Jesuits, a Catholic order that was established in 1534, emphasized education, and tried to draw the brightest academics. (You know what that means: Jews!) They welcomed conversos with open arms, and, as a result, many prominent early Jesuits had Jewish heritage. The list includes Juan Alfonso de Polanco, the secretary and ghostwriter of the order’s founder, as well as the second Superior General, Diego Lainez.

“Conversion” didn’t used to fool Christians into thinking that jews stopped being jews. It still doesn’t fool the editors at Jew or Not Jew.

I think it’s safe to say that the influence of crypto-jews/conversos/marranos, whether on Jesuits or Christianity as a whole, has been greater than most contemporary Christians are aware of. The Occidental Observer article linked above makes a good case that the relatively recent shift in popular perception of morality, specifically in favor of jews, is both evidence of and a product of jewish influence.

The image source is GreenKeit hits the Vatican?, Jewlicious THE Jewish Blog. Paranoia disguised as mockery, or vice versa, this is yet another perfectly typical example of jewish attitudes regarding popes and Christians. HaShem is a reminder how distinct the jewish and Catholic conceptions of god are.