The media drumbeat: The West is evil

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 Road to Holocaust: Emancipation and Reaction: Hating the Jew was too much an integral part of western culture and tradition and was not to be exorcised.”

Reminiscent of the situation in Australia described by Frank Salter in its lack of concern for the rights of the majority, Turner’s most recent article, “Foundations of Holocaust: 1924, Congress decides No More Jews” considers the legitimate attitudes and rights of the majority as evil because they conflict with Jewish interests. The article begins with quotations from American leaders of the 1920s asserting their right to secure their ethnic interests by retaining the ethnic status quo:
“I think we now have sufficient population in our country for us to shut the door and to breed up a pure, unadulterated American citizenship,” Senator Ellison DuRant Smith in support of the Quota Act of 1921.
“Upon signing the [1924 Immigration Restriction] Act, President Calvin Coolidge commented, ‘America must remain American.’ 
Or consider the following, from two Congressmen whose statements during the debate over the 1924 law are quoted in Chapter 7 of The Culture of Critique:

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)

But such declarations of legitimate interests are seen as nothing more than pure evil. They also show that the idea that America is a proposition nation is an invention (of Jewish intellectuals; see the previous link) that replaced a conception of America as having an identity rooted in ethnicity and race. Turner begins:
 If Germany’s 1932 election of National Socialism threatened a “final solution” to the West’s pathological preoccupation with its Jewish Problem, America’s Congress ensured its near-success.  The 1924 Immigration Restriction Act was the last in a decade’s long series of racist Congressional efforts to limit immigration of “undesirables” to the United States, to encourage immigration of “desired” North European Aryan “racial stock.”
Suffice it to say here that this “analysis” fails to mention legitimate ethnic interests in limiting immigration from outsiders–an interest that Israel is quite adept at enforcing. Nor is there any mention of the radicalism of so many of the Jewish immigrants during a period when radical political attitudes and behavior were entirely mainstream in Jewish communities in Europe and America (see here and here). Indeed, the long-term effects of Jewish radicalism of the 1920s and ’30s are still being  felt today with the rise of  the hostile elite dedicated to leftist internationalism and multiculturalism, completely divorced from the interests of the traditional peoples of the West—the conclusion of The Culture of Critique
But in the eyes of these activists, Jewish behavior is always irrelevant to anti-Jewish attitudes, and Western culture is simply a tale of one egregious evil after another. The constant drumbeat of these attitudes in the elite media and in elite intellectual circles pathologizes the West. Historically this constant drumbeat of hostility resulted in a loss of confidence among Western intellectuals inclined to defend their people and culture. At the same time, the drumbeat of hostility reinforces Jewish antipathy toward the people and culture of the West.
All this wouldn’t matter, except that Jews are a critical, even dominant component of the new elites in the West intent on transforming Western cultures via immigration and multiculturalism  in opposition to the legitimate interests of the traditional peoples and cultures of the West.
2 replies

Comments are closed.