A major theme at TOO has been Jewish influence on the media and that the media reflects the attitudes of the wider Jewish community hostile to the traditional people and culture of the West (e.g., Media images of Whites; Media bias). (Relatedly, Frank Salter exhaustively shows that the media in Australia is hostile to the traditional people and culture of Australia.)
It’s a pervasive phenomenon. The first paragraphs of Andrew Joyce’s recent TOO article emphasize the many reviews in the elite media of Anthony Julius’s Trials of the Diaspora. While there are some make minor criticisms, the book is taken seriously, and the general conclusion — that the English have had a pathological hatred toward Jews for nearly a millennium — is not challenged. The reviews typically lavish praise on an execrable book—execrable at least partly because it ignores data that fail to confirm its thesis. The main function of the book and the reviews is to add to the constant condemnatory chorus from the media: the traditional people and culture of the West are evil.
Jewish readers are confirmed in their sense of innocent victimhood; they are once again assured that hostility toward to the people and culture of traditional English society and the West generally is entirely justified.
Non-Jews are reinforced in the attitude that the entire history of England from 1066 (when William I imported Jews along with his conquering armies) to the present day is simply a story of irrational hatred toward Jews, culminating in attitudes that Israel is anything less than a moral paragon and light unto the nations. People with such attitudes are helpless or complicit in the current onslaught against the people and culture of the West.
One of the reviews highlighted by Joyce is “The living lie,” by Jonathan Freedland in The New Republic. Joyce notes that Freedland “also writes for The Guardian and The Jewish Chronicle. Freedland also publishes fiction under the name Sam Bourne, in which his plots invariably revolve around Nazi sympathizers and eugenicists.”
So we are immediately alerted to the fact that, like Julius as discussed in Joyce’s review, Freedland is a Jewish activist with access to the mainstream media.
Freedland labels Trials “magisterial and definitive,” “a meticulous taxonomy of prejudice.”
Constantly evolving, adapting to the times, anti-Semitism appears to be one of England’s most resilient cultural and social constants. Stick an arbitrary pin at any point in a timeline of English history and hatred of the Jews will be there. … Almost no one is exempt in this account. Julius has evidence to damn nearly every public figure or faction from every epoch. … Julius wades through all this muck doggedly. He says that writing the book was “like swimming long-distance through a sewer.”
It goes without saying that this propaganda never attempts to seek rational explanations for anti-Jewish attitudes, such as conflicts of interest between competing groups (see Joyce’s review). Or that negative attitudes toward outgroups are a normal part of human psychology, and much more likely to occur among minorities than among majorities, especially under conditions of competition and threat. Presenting the history of anti-Semitism in this manner does absolutely nothing to encourage sober self-relection by Jews, but strongly reinforces aggressive hostility toward the people and culture of the West.
Examples like this are legion. Here I mention two very recent examples that I came across simply by perusing the LA Times during the last week:
- Philip Glass has written an opera about Walt Disney, The Perfect American. As with Anthony Julius, the history of America, at least in the 20th century until the rise of the Jewish elite in the 1960s, is nothing more than a history of racism and anti-Semitism.
Disney goes to Anaheim late at night to help repair the animatronic Disneyland Lincoln, which has been malfunctioning and attacking members of the audience. Disney gets in an argument with the robot about blacks, and Lincoln goes crazy again and whacks Walt. … He makes racist or anti-Semitic remarks sound not like tirades but like attitudes that were all too common at the time, especially around Los Angeles. One of the points of “The Perfect American” is to show us how much times have changed.
- A play titled Ganesh versus the Third Reich is
a captivating tale of the Indian deity with the elephant head who, to prevent his father from destroying the earth, descends from the heavens to reclaim “the ancient Sanskrit symbol” of the swastika from the corrupting clutches of the Nazis. But enfolded in this epic adventure is the story of a company of actors with disabilities rehearsing a play that’s set in a period when those marked as different or defective were being exterminated in concentration camps. [Two characters] are initially cast as Jews on the run from the Nazis. [One of them later becomes Dr. Josef Mengele.] … [I]t nonetheless achieves moments of great profundity …. What does it mean to oppress? By what authority does one group get to impose its will on another? What responsibility do people have to one another? Is there any wisdom surpassing compassion? Ganesh versus the Third Reich is wowing“
I also just became aware of a series of articles in The Jerusalem Post by another Jewish activist, David Turner, described as “the first director of the organization Justice for the Pollards; he created Jews United to Defend the Auschwitz Cemetery (JUDAC) in 1988; and served in the past as the [Jewish National Fund] Regional Director.” The series has includes titles like the following, showing that Turner is quite on page with Anthony Julius:
The instinct for national and race preservation is not one to be condemned, as has been intimated here. No one should be better able to understand the desire of Americans to keep America American than the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Sabath], who is leading the attack on this measure, or the gentlemen from New York, Mr. Dickstein, Mr. Jacobstein, Mr. Celler, and Mr. Perlman. They are of the one great historic people who have maintained the identity of their race throughout the centuries because they believe sincerely that they are a chosen people, with certain ideals to maintain, and knowing that the loss of racial identity means a change of ideals. That fact should make it easy for them and the majority of the most active opponents of this measure in the spoken debate to recognize and sympathize with our viewpoint, which is not so extreme as that of their own race, but only demands that the admixture of other peoples shall be only of such kind and proportions and in such quantities as will not alter racial characteristics more rapidly than there can be assimilation as to ideas of government as well as of blood. (Representative Leavitt)
Let me emphasize here that the restrictionists of Congress do not claim that the “Nordic” race, or even the Anglo-Saxon race, is the best race in the world. … What we do claim is that the northern European, and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But that is the full statement of the case. They came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it. We are determined that they shall not. It is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves. (Representative Vaile)