Tag Archives: jewish influence

Blog

Foxman and Sacks Explain “Anti-Semitism”

15 Comments

Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, on Why Anti-Semitism Endures.

What is “anti-semitism”? Foxman says it’s jealousy, scapegoating, a “disease of the Christian world”. Take your pick. As a shyster performing the same schtick for decades, his explanation is remarkably incoherent. He doesn’t address why “anti-semitism” endures, nor why it follows the jews wherever they go.

Here’s Foxman again, on The Changing Face of Anti-Semitism.

Foxman estimates just how many Americans are “seriously infected with anti-semitism”; notes various aggressive measures jews use to promote their interests (litigatation, legislation, education); argues that “the greatest challenge is the internet”, “the dark underbelly”, “superhighway for bigotry”; claims the ADL “broke the back” of the KKK by promoting anti-mask laws in Georgia in the 1950s.

A transcript of the interview is at Big Think Interview With Abraham Foxman.

Though Foxman is the highest-profile spokesman for organized jewry in the US, and perhaps the world, he doesn’t come across as exceptionally intelligent or well-spoken. This is especially evident when he is contrasted with the highest-profile spokesman for organized jewry in Britain, Lord Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth.

In The “Fourth Mutation of Anti-Semitism” Sacks, like Foxman, paints “anti-semitism” in pathological/psychological/biological terms. Sacks provides a typical example of the jewish narrative – a one-sided version of European history, entirely sympathetic to jews and antipathetic to Europeans.

Sacks doesn’t just invert the jewish problem, he abridges it. He begins with the Greeks by excusing them, along with the Romans. He says “anti-semitism” stage one “got personal with the birth of Christianity” and characterizes it as “a hatred of jews, not of people in general”.

Stage two starts around 1096, having to do “with the massacre of jewish communities in Northern Europe during the First Crusade”. This is “when jews became a demonic force”, “the infidels, the anti-Christ”. He cites “the blood libel” as “demonic anti-judaism”.

As an aside, Sacks use of the term demonic is similar to Foxman’s use of the term bigot. In both cases it is blatantly hypocritical – professional bigot Foxman accusing jewry’s enemies of bigotry against jewry, and professional rabbi Sacks demonizing jewry’s enemies for supposedly demonizing jewry. “The blood libel”, to which both of these two professional jews refer, is in fact a defamation of Europeans.

Sacks dates “mutation three” to the coining of the term “anti-semitism” in 1879, which was “not religious hostility to judaism, but racial hostility to jews”. He claims with this understanding of jews, “all you could do was work for the extermination of the jews” and that “the holocaust was already implicit in that word itself”.

Jews regard anyone who recognizes jews as a potential threat, and ultimately as exterminationist. It is projection – a window into their own parasitic minds. Jews see themselves as separate even while they sniff out and pathologize any sign of awareness in their host. Such aggressive inversion confuses fair-minded people who, in the end, find it easier to swallow the mealy-mouthed platitudes jews offer than comprehend the relentlessly dishonest jew-centricity of jewish minds.

Sacks describes the “fourth mutation” as “demonic anti-zionism”, “focused not on jews as individuals but jews as a nation in their own sovereign state”, “poisoning the world peace”, “responsible for every kind of distress in the universe”.

A stereotypical jewish strawman argument. Jews are responsible for having their own sovereign state, of by and for themselves. They are also responsible for self-righteously organizing and lobbying to have every other sovereign state serve jewish interests as well. Jews, including Foxman and Sacks, do this and brag about it, as if it’s good and right. Objecting to it is what they characterize as “anti-semitism”.

Sacks asserts that “jews must never fight ‘anti-semitism’ alone”, that “the fight against ‘anti-semitism’ is led by non-jews” and is in fact “a government-led activity”. He cites “international conferences of parlimentarians” actively discussing ways to promote the best interests of jews.

The sad fact is that jews are effective in getting others to serve them, even to fight and die for them. The concern of jews like Sacks, however, is Why the Jewish Voice Isn’t More Self-Confident.

Sacks says it’s because jews are paranoid and define themselves as “the people who dwell alone”, “nature’s victims”, who everyone hates. Sacks says he disagrees with this self-image, though as mentioned above it is the same image reflected in the jewish narrative he recites.

“Why has being a jew become a burden?” Sacks explains, “that is the residue of “anti-semitism”. He defines judaism as “the voice of hope in the conversation of humankind”. His final assertion:

There’s nothing threatening about judaism because we don’t try to convert anyone. We say look, guys, this is how we see things. If it makes sense to you please have it, and if it doesn’t, that’s okay.

The reality is that jews argue and organize in order to tell others how to see things – what is right and wrong, what can or can’t be said or done. If this doesn’t make sense to you, and you argue or organize for your own benefit, then you will find that the jews have governments on their side.

Here is the Big Think page for the Sacks interview. The whole interview, including the two bits linked above, runs 14:35.

Some highlights: Sacks expresses his pride in building day schools for jews in Britain, says jews “have an influence out of all proportion to our numbers”, and sees “no model” for a Chief Rabbi in the US overlooking the pontiff-like, moralizing role played by Foxman.

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.