Jewish Influence

More Reactions to the Sanchez Indiscretion: Jon Stewart and Christopher Hitchens

/64 Comments/in , , , , , /by

I have the feeling that Rick Sanchez will manage to return to a career in the national media. Jon Stewart concluded his bit on the affair by questioning whether Sanchez should have been fired for some “banal Jew baiting”; he also showed a clip where Sanchez condemned a guy with a swastika in the background who says he avoids the “Jew media.” So Sanchez’s heart is in the right place, at least when he “has time to think about it” and “isn’t worried about being fired anyway.”

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Hurty Sanchez
www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

Christopher Hitchens wrote some odd things.

In the manner in which Sanchez spoke … there was something like a buried resentment. He didn’t descend into saying that there was Jewish control of the media

But that’s exactly what he did say. Which is why he got in so much trouble. The amazing thing about all the mainstream discussion is a failure to discuss the extent which that is true. Hitchens continues:

But he did imply that liberalism was linked to a single ethnicity.

Sorry, I didn’t get that. Sanchez certainly accused Stewart of being a bigot and of having “an establishment White liberal point of view.” Hitchens comes much  closer to acknowledging Jewish power when he comments:

I ask myself if the world in which I have worked for so many decades—the intersecting and overlapping world of the news media, publishing, the academy, and the think-tank industry—is even imaginable without the presence of liberal American Jews. The answer is plainly no. Moreover, I can’t think of any other “minority” of which this is remotely true, unless it were to be the other minority from which I can claim descent: people of British or Anglophile provenance.

Hitchens’ claim that “British and Anglophile provenance” are even remotely on a par with Jewish involvement in these overlapping elites is far less than remotely true. And in any case, this high level of Jewish involvement means that Jews effectively hold veto power over things that can and cannot be said. That’s why Sanchez got fired in the first place.

Still, his statement is one of the remarkable comments on Jewish involvement in the information elites to appear from a mainstream media figure—a nice addition to Edmund Connelly’s collection.  Coupled with his statements on the power of the Israel Lobby and his defense of Karel de Gucht, Hitchens is definitely being a bit edgy.

That reminds me of Philip Weiss‘s recent comments in his series “Note on my racism” (which bear a more extended discussion):

When you look at hives of Jewish writers, say the New Yorker Magazine, or the professors at Columbia University schools, I believe there is a strong kinship network at work. I’ve mentioned Lawrence Summers and Elena Kagan and Michael Walzer and Judith Shklar, their faculty networks at Harvard, as indicative of the same tendency.

Right. Elena Kaganas the poster child of Jewish ethnic networking. Jewish ethnic networking is the key to understanding contemporary information (and other) elites.

Hitchens wants Sanchez reinstated:

The best way to demonstrate the hidden influence of the chosen people would be for Jon Stewart and others to join me in calling for Rick Sanchez’s reinstatement. If it then didn’t happen, it would help us understand who really pulls the strings around here.

The idea seems to be that if Jews in the media like Hitchens (half-Jewish on his mother’s side) and Stewart call for Sanchez’s reinstatement but fail, then it would show that Jews really do pull the strings.

But the issue of how much influence Jews have on the  media is not at all dependent on what happens in this case. There is already overwhelming evidence for Jewish power in the media and elsewhere based on a great many sources. Sanchez’s reinstatement, perhaps after a bit of groveling, certainly wouldn’t change that.

The good news is that statements of Jewish power are becoming more common all the time, both on the power of the Israel Lobby and the power of Jews the media. In the long run, frank discussion of Jewish power would also mean a frank discussion of how Jewish power compromises the interests of White Americans. That would really be the stuff of which revolutions are made.  And even without an above-ground discussion, Whites with any degree of political sophistication are starting to “get it” and that in itself is a major step in the right direction.

When Rick Sanchez and Helen Thomas get together…

/24 Comments/in , , , , /by

What do you think they talk about? I’m guessing it’s about how Jews are a poor, oppressed, powerless minority group who have absolutely no say as to what goes in the news industry. (See also Edmund Connelly’s current TOO article “Rick Sanchez on Jewish Media Power.”)

As you probably know, Rick Sanchez got fired from his anchorman job at CNN a day after he gave a radio interview and mocked the idea that that Jews are a poor, oppressed minority group in America, especially considering they pretty much run the news industry. He and the host got off on that subject because Sanchez called Jon Stewart a “bigot” for always making fun of him. See, Sanchez, who’s as white as you and me, was trying to claim victimhood status, apparently being too darned dumb to understand that having a Spanish name doesn’t make you a victim; having brown skin is what makes Hispanics “victims”. Sanchez is about as “Latino” as Christina Aguilera. That was his first mistake. As Steve Sailer so eloquently points out, Victimism is a high stakes, dangerous game, and you’d better know exactly what you’re doing when you sit down to play. Sanchez was clearly in way over his head. He’s like the tourist in Vegas who sees all the excitement at the World Series of Poker, so he plunks down his $10,000 entry fee, and asks “Does the dealer stand on soft 17?”

Sanchez somehow made it to his position on the basis of his perceived “ethnicity” without anyone ever sitting him down and explaining the official rules of Victimism to him. He’s white, and it doesn’t matter that he grew up speaking Spanish in Cuba, and then in Miami after fleeing Cuba, because a white man can never be a victim (unless he’s a homosexual). His second mistake was accusing Jon Stewart of being a bigot. Jon Stewart’s real name is Jon Liebowitz, and people named Liebowitz can never be a victimizer. And they generally don’t take very kindly to being accused of being bigoted or prejudiced. They’ll be the ones calling people racists and bigots, thank you very much.

And his third mistake was not taking the hint from his interviewer on the radio show. Obviously thinking that Sanchez is as dumb as a box of rocks and has no idea he’s wading into dangerous territory, he helpfully points out that Liebowitz/Stewart doesn’t fit the profile of a “bigot”, being an oppressed minority himself. In other words he was saying “Uh, Rick…you’d better cool it man. Jon Stewart can’t be a bigot; he’s not white. He may look white, but he’s actually Jewish, and you are on very dangerous ground here.” I guess he thought Sanchez didn’t realize Stewart is Jewish.

But not only did Sanchez know Stewart’s Jewish, he knew a few other things, too. He said that most of the people who run CNN and the other news networks are just like Stewart, and the idea that Jews are a poor, oppressed minority in this country is absurd.

Of course, it’s lunacy to think Jews run the news industry. Which is why Sanchez was fired almost immediately after saying Jews run the news industry.

Makes sense to me!

It’s funny if you do a Google news search about his firing. Most of the headlines say he was fired for calling Jon Stewart a bigot. Yeah, that’s a good one. And people wonder why no one trusts the news media?

And if you read the reactions from commentators, both left and right, it’s clear they’re terrified of the Jewish control of the news media. Not a one of them, liberal or “conservative”, suggests that what Sanchez said is wrong. They all talk about how “stupid” or “dumb” he is for saying it, not that he’s crazy for believing it. The mainstream “conservatives” are actually mocking him for having the guts to tell the truth. He speaks more truth in 30 seconds than Glenn Beck has in his entire career, and he’s a pariah, and he deserved to get fired because there are some things you just don’t talk about.

That’s modern “conservatism” for you, folks.

Hell, most of these “conservatives” are so terrified of Jewish power that they would freak out if you suggested that Jews run our nation’s synagogues.

Of course, what’s really telling is a story I wrote about some time ago. Joel Stein, a columnist for the Los Angeles Times, wrote a column a while back boasting that Jews control Hollywood, Wall Street, DC, and the news media. Not just boasting about it, but saying that anyone who doesn’t know this fundamental fact of life in America is pretty much an idiot.

Joel Stein can brag that Jews control the news media, Hollywood, Washington and Wall Street, and nobody bats an eye.

Rick Sanchez can simply state that Jews run the news industry, and he’s instantly fired.

That’s because Rick Sanchez is a white man, and Joel Stein is a Jew.

And “conservatives” cheer Sanchez getting fired for saying what everyone knows is true, and which Jews like Joel Stein rub in our faces.

Which is really disgusting. The craven cowardice is simply breathtaking.

Don’t EVER believe a word a mainstream “conservative” says.

Reposted from The Political Cesspool.

Joe Sobran (1946-2010)

/19 Comments/in , , /by

Joe Sobran will be much missed. I met him only once, but I am a great admirer of his writing. The American Conservative wrote this:

The 20th century produced many great conservative writers, but none brought together wit, erudition, and humanity on a single page so well as Joseph Sobran.

At VDARE.com, Steve Fulford included this very appropriate quote from Joe:

Most prejudices aren’t created by official doctrines; they result from popular experience and the slow spreading of a group’s reputation. The first gypsy I ever met — on a street in Rome — grabbed a wad of money out of my hand. I’d been too naive to be wary of her, though my companions had warned me against her.

(Editor’s note: Readers of this post have posted many other wonderful quotes from Sobran in the comments section. Well worth reading. Joe clearly understood exactly what was going on and who our enemies are.) My own favorite quotes, culled from Chapter 2 of Separation and Its Discontents, include the following:

In comments reminiscent of those of Heinrich von Treitschke, columnist Joseph Sobran has also raised the issue of Jewish media control and how it shapes discussion of Jewish interests versus those of the Christian Right:

The full story of [Pat Buchanan’s 1996 presidential] campaign is impossible to tell as long as it’s taboo to discuss Jewish interests as freely as we discuss those of the Christian Right. Talking about American politics without mentioning the Jews is a little like talking about the NBA without mentioning the Chicago Bulls. Not that the Jews are all-powerful, let alone all bad. But they are successful, and therefore powerful enough: and their power is unique in being off-limits to normal criticism even when it’s highly visible. They themselves behave as if their success were a guilty secret, and they panic, and resort to accusations, as soon as the subject is raised. Jewish control of the major media in the media age makes the enforced silence both paradoxical and paralyzing. Survival in public life requires that you know all about it, but never refer to it. A hypocritical etiquette forces us to pretend that the Jews are powerless victims; and if you don’t respect their victimhood, they’ll destroy you. It’s a phenomenal display not of wickedness, really, but of fierce ethnocentrism, a sort of furtive racial superpatriotism. (Sobran 1996a, 3)

This quote ended with the following footnote:

In another column, Sobran (1996b) quoted an essay, reprinted in the May 27th issue of the New York Times, by Ari Shavit, an Israeli columnist describing his feelings on the killings of a hundred civilians in a military skirmish in southern Lebanon. Shavit wrote, “We killed them out of a certain naive hubris. Believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own.” Sobran comments that “in a single phrase—‘in our hands’—Shavit has lighted up the American political landscape like a flash of lightning. Notice that Shavit assumes as an obvious fact what we Americans can say publicly only at our own risk.” Sobran lost his position with National Review because of his views on the influence of American Jews on U. S. policy toward Israel.

As indicated in the last line, Sobran paid for his honesty about the Israel Lobby. His departure marked the rise of neocon domination at the Buckley’s execrable National Review and the equally execrable Republican Party. It was a huge loss for conservative thought in America.

The following may be called  Joe Sobran’s Dictionary. These are quotes attributed to Joe. I can’t vouch for the authenticity of these, except for the definition of an anti-Semite (which has become a classic). But they certainly fit his character. A particularly insightful comment, not included in the dictionary, is the  following — very appropriate in an age where the courts routinely overturn popular referenda, such as the recent Arizona immigration law: “Our constitution has never been an impediment to those who rule us.” The same thing happened to California’s Proposition 187. As Sam Dickson notes, the American legal system is a fraud.

Joe Sobran’s Dictionary

anti-Semite: a person who’s hated by Jews

association, freedom of: discrimination

bigot: one who practices sociology without a license

bribe: an irregular transaction through which the citizen may get his money’s worth of service from the government

civil rights: government power used in behalf of large groups

guilt: the deepest vested interest

isolationist: an American who thinks America should behave like other countries

opinion polls: clever devices to make the hostages think they control their captors

political correctness: the felt pressure of enlightened public opinion, under which we sense that certain thoughts, though technically legal now, are already destined to become taboo.

psychoanalysis: a form of aggression for humorless people

public opinion: what everyone thinks everyone else thinks

rich: politicians’ nickname for “other people” (as in “tax the rich”)

rights: authorizations for new areas of government control

rogue nation: a country that behaves like America

voting: trying to say something with a gag in your mouth

Rest in Peace.

Rachel Maddow on Jim Russell

/78 Comments/in , , , /by

Jim Russell, who is the Republican candidate for New York’s 18th Congressional District, is busy combating accusations about his association with The Occidental Quarterly. MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow’s take is a classic example of the power of the media to create an alternate reality where facts don’t matter and where simply stating Russell’s opinions is enough to create mild amusement in her audience benumbed by decades of leftist propaganda. No need to note that Russell is a scholar who has a Ph. D. and has written a book published by Oxford University Press on how Christianity was influenced by German culture during the early Middle Ages. No need for any informed scholarly opinions on his statements in the article in question. If that well-informed anthropologist and psychologist Rachel Maddow thinks something is outlandish, then it must be outlandish. End of story.

Maddow starts by labeling TOQ a “White supremicist journal” —shorthand for not having to deal with the ideas presented there and not being sensitive to the obvious difference between White supremacy and White advocacy. Does she think that it is always illegitimate for any ethnic group to seek to advance its interests? If so, then she should come out publicly against the ADL, the NAACP, and La Raza.

She then puts up on the screen this quote from the article:

While liberals and universalists constantly yammer about “bringing us together” and “diversity is our strength,” it may be suggested that the biological function of human language and culture is just the opposite, that is, to keep discrete groups apart.

What an absolutely outrageous idea! Maddow, being Jewish by descent,* could not possibly be expected to grasp the concept of a culture that erects barriers between itself and the surrounding society—as Diaspora Judaism has done for its entire history and as Israel has now taken to the point of building walls between themselves and the Palestinians, providing separate roads and neighborhoods—in short, apartheid.

Contemporary mainstream evolutionary theories of culture highlight the  importance of badges of group membership, such as language and modes of dress that function to define ingroups and outgroups, and psychologists are well aware that there is a powerful evolutionary psychology of social identity that responds to these cues by making people in ingroups have exaggerated negative attitudes toward outgroups and exaggerated positive attitudes toward their ingroup.

She then highlights Russell’s quoting “old racist arguments” from T. S. Eliot:

The population should be homogeneous…. What is even more important is unity of religious background; and reasons of race and culture combine to make a large number of free-thinking Jews undesirable.

As noted here repeatedly, multiculturalism has huge costs, especially for the majority ethnic group in terms of social cohesion, social isolation, and lack of willingness to contribute to public goods like government-sponsored health care— with no discernible benefits apart from ethnic restaurants. Yet if there has been one overriding goal of Jewish intellectual and political activism in the US and other Western societies over the last century, it has been to legitimize multiculturalism and pathologize any sense that the  traditional people of these societies have any interests in maintaining their demographic predominance and their culture.

Maddow then goes after Russell’s expressed concern about the effects of the media on imprinting children with images of other races because they may affect later mating preferences. Notice that Russell expresses himself quite tentatively: “One wonders how a child’s sexual imprinting is affected by forcible racial integration and near continual exposure to media stimuli promoting interracial contact.” But in fact, there is quite a bit of research that has come out since Russell wrote his article indicating just that. For example, this is a quote from an academic article of mine:

Research on human
infants indicates that preference for own race occurs by 3 months
of age but is not present at 1 month (Kelly et al., 2005). However,
racial ingroup preferences are weakened by exposure to outgroup
faces during infancy (Bar-Haim, Ziv, Lamy, & Hodes, 2006;
Sangrigoli, Pallier, Argenti, Ventureyra, & de Schonen, 2005).

Research on human infants indicates that preference for own race occurs by 3 months of age but is not present at 1 month (Kelly et al., 2005). However, racial ingroup preferences are weakened by exposure to outgroup faces during infancy (Bar-Haim, Ziv, Lamy, & Hodes, 2006; Sangrigoli, Pallier, Argenti, Ventureyra, & de Schonen, 2005). (p. 1022)

The reality is that social psychology provides strong support for the idea that exposure of babies to other races would make them favor their own race less. And Russell is certainly correct that the media is doing its best to aid this process. However, the good news is that the media does not really have access to infants, or at least much less access than it does to older children and adults. The research seems to indicate that babies learn who their people are by seeing family members–resulting in hysteria over “racist babies.” One can anticipate government programs that force White babies to be exposed to non-Whites (but exempt non-Whites from this process).

Maddow then goes off on Russell’s accusation that the media promotes miscegenation in films directed at adolescents and pre-adolescents and his claim that parents have “a natural obligation as essential as providing food and shelter to instill in their  children an acceptance of appropriate ethnic boundaries for socialization and for marriage.” Again, research supports the idea that media images could indeed overcome our natural liking for people like ourselves (programmed in infancy; see above) and lead people to be more open to miscegenation—especially in impressionable and conformist-minded children who are led to think that such behavior is “cool” and the sort of thing popular, attractive teenagers do. Several prominent social psychologists have argued that constant repetition by media images–especially if they are seen as coming from elite, mainstream sources–can overcome predispositions to be attracted to our own people.

One would think that Maddow would be well aware that her people have had very strong socialization pressures for marrying within the group which has led to very strong genetic commonality among long-separated Jewish groups. Urgings by Jewish religious and secular authorities (e.g., Alan Dershowitz, Elliott Abrams) to marry other Jews are commonplace. But when Russell makes similar suggestions, he is labeled a racist and a kook.

Her piece is a good example of how the media is focused on changing the behavior  of one group and one group only: White Christians.

*According to WikiAnswers, Maddow was raised Catholic, with an Irish mother and Russian father. She asserted she is “distantly Jewish.” See also here.

Barbara Lerner Spectre: Jews play a "leading role" in promoting multiculturalism in Europe

/167 Comments/in /by

In the video below, Barbara Lerner Spectre, who runs a government-funded Jewish study group in Sweden, makes the following remarkable statement—remarkable because she does not attribute anti-Jewish attitudes to irrational prejudices or even Muslims who hate Israel. Instead she says that it’s because of the “leading role” played by Jews in the  movement  toward multiculturalism:

I think there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think we are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the centre of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role and without that transformation, Europe will not survive.


Her comment is an example of the  age-old Jewish self-concept of a “Light Unto the Nations”: Jews saving Europe by leading it to multiculturalism. One wonders why she thinks Europe could not survive as a set of monocultural societies. Israel and many other societies function quite well with a recognized dominant culture and people and, as repeatedly emphasized here, multicultural societies have a hosts of costs and no visible benefits. The better question, of course,  is how Europe can survive multiculturalism. By definition, it can’t.

The interview is part of a longer set of interviews available here.

Christopher Donovan: Penis Mutilation, aka Male Circumcision: Did Jews Persuade The Rest of Us To Get Circumcised?

/92 Comments/in /by

Like millions of non-Jewish white men in America, I am circumcised.  Until my wife became pregnant with a boy, it was never anything I reflected upon too much.  It’s all I’ve ever known, and mostly all I’ve ever seen in the American locker room.  When I inquired of my parents about my own circumcision, I was told that it was just “what everyone did” at the hospital.  I was whisked away for the procedure with nary a discussion.  They also didn’t give it much thought, apparently.

But reflect on that for a second:  a bizarre ritual in which sharp instruments slice up the most intensely personal part of the male body, right after birth, and for which is there is almost no legitimate medical explanation.  That’s just what “everyone does”?  How does that insanity come to be?

When female circumcision (or “mutilation” — note the difference in terminology) is discussed, it’s treated as a brutally sexist and barbaric practice — an incomprehensible horror designed to oppress women.  But male genital mutilation — which is really what it is — is barely mentioned.

For our son, the decision was easy:  no circumcision.  Informing my decision was 1) the increasing medical evidence that circumcision’s supposed benefits are outweighed by its drawbacks, and 2) my suspicion that “universal circumcision” is a Jewish attempt to normalize their practice and render them indistinguishable from the rest of us.

My boy was born whole, and he’ll stay whole.  Other fathers’ justifications of “he should look like me” struck me as absurd.  Our people have to start clawing their way back to some identity, and we might as well start now.  Should any question arise, I’m happy to explain that his penis was not clipped because that’s a ritual primarily of the Jews, and he’s not Jewish.  That might be a nice starting point for any number of discussions and thinking on his part.

There are other reasons to keep our boys whole, I come to find out.  One correspondent tells me than in researching this topic, he discovered that an erect circumcised penis is necessarily somewhat shorter — unlike the “full capacity” uncircumcised penis, it’s got less skin to expand and fill with blood.  Many sources report that there are crucial nerve endings in the cut-off portion of the penis, so that sexual pleasure is reduced.

That squares with the minimal research I’ve done — mostly confined to the Internet — which has rabbis acknowledging that pouring a little cold water on the male libido is indeed one good result of circumcision.  Maimonides is said to have mentioned this.

Historically, according to Jews, circumcision was strictly a rite — and a very important one, at that — that did not rest on any medical justification.

Interestingly, it appears that circumcision may have originated as some sort of substitute for actual human sacrifice.  The ancient Egyptians may have started it, and other non-Jewish peoples appear to have practiced it, but in the ancient world, it became a distinguishing rite of the Jews.

In Europe and Britain of recent history, it appears that circumcision was practiced almost exclusively by Jews.  I recall that in the Holocaust movie “Europa Europa“, the Jewish protagonist, a young boy, escapes into the fold of the Nazis because of his “Aryan” good looks, and tries to complete the picture by stretching his own foreskin stub down enough to make him look uncircumcised.

So it’s obvious that in Europe in World War II, a Jew was indelibly and unmistakably distinguished from non-Jews by the practice of circumcision.

A question that burns for me is:  were Jews responsible for persuading so many American gentiles to peform this bizarre ritual, primarily as a way to “normalize” the practice and remove the stigma?  Perhaps they thought that if everyone were circumcised, the young protagonist of “Europa Europa” would never have faced the difficulties he did.

The topic cries out for research.  I would love to know how circumcision spread from an ethnically particular practice — one that, in the words of Sir Richard Burton, was “held in horror” by Christendom — to something that “everyone does”.

There is plenty to Google up about circumcision, with several sites taking a strong anti-circumcision stand, and a few Jewish sites defending it.  But none of these sites address the issue of whether Jews sought to persuade white American non-Jews to be circumcised.

There does seem to be some evidence that fascination with germs and cleanliness motivated gentiles, independently of Jewish influence, to practice circumcision.  But if it’s even partly true that Jews encouraged “universal circumcision” so as to disguise their practice as ethnically unique, white non-Jews should be embarrassed.  It would mean that they allowed a stereotypically tricky group of Jews to convince them to perform this ritual on their boys without ever questioning or thinking about it.  So flaccid (if you will) was the white sense of racial strength and solidarity — and their sense of skepticism at Jewish claims — that they quite literally got their dicks nicked.

You might almost call it a “mass ethnic rape” of white non-Jewish males by Jews.  That many millions of white males subjected to that physical trauma at birth — and denied that extra measure of sexual satisfaction — just so that Jewish males could “hide out in the open”?  Staggering to consider.

If Jews can talk “the goyim” into doing that, what can’t they talk them into?  Persuading them to fight their wars in the Middle East seems like child’s play by comparison.  Persuading them to stop reproducing, to divorce at the drop of a hat, to give up their power slots, their property, their very lives?  No problem.

I don’t know for sure that Jews persuaded whites to become circumcised in order to disguise themselves in the open.  But the bare evidence available does seem to fit the theory, and as with so many thing Jewish, the incredible dearth of research and information on the topic makes me yet more suspicious — especially given that it seems to be the very sort of thing that curious academics tuck into.

Are we afraid to tackle the issue because of offending Jewish sensibilities?  Do men avoid the topic because they don’t like to admit that they’ve had a part of their penises cut off, and never had any say in the matter?  I think all of this may be going on, but the larger lesson could be that whites, in their ethnic competition with Jews, find themselves badly outmatched when it comes to the power of persuasion.

Bookmark and Share

Oliver Stone

/40 Comments/in , , , /by

The only movie by Oliver Stone  I remember is Natural Born Killers which I thought was horrifyingly ugly–a crude attempt to shock people, much like his recent comments. Stone always struck me as mainly a controversialist, and his comments on Hitler and Jewish media domination are no exception. I suppose he thought it would be a great way to promote his soon-to-be-released documentary. “Any publicity is good publicity.” But it’s hard to believe he doesn’t now think that this was an unwise move. Even if you are half Jewish, you just can’t say such things. And of course now he has apologized–under a great deal of pressure.

But the apology isn’t enough. Jewish superpatriot Haim Saban called it “soooo transparently fake” and is trying to get Showtime to cancel an upcoming TV series of Stone’s by talking to Leslie Moonves, the President and CEO of CBS which is scheduled to air the series on its cable channel Showtime. Moonves is Jewish, as is Sumner Redstone who is the largest shareholder of CBS and Chairman of the Board. Ari Emanual, the Jewish superpatriot and premier Hollywood agent who has taken the lead in going after Mel Gibson, also made a call trying to get the series cancelled.

What Jewish media power? Obviously, Stone is way out of line. Even Jewish publications acknowledge the  Jews run Hollywood.

The ADL’s statement is pure Orwell:

Oliver Stone’s apology stops short and is therefore insufficient. While he now admits that Jews do not control Hollywood, the media and other industries, he ignores his assertion that Jews are ‘…the most powerful lobby in Washington’ and that ‘Israel has (expletive) up United States foreign policy.’ This is another conspiratorial anti-Semitic canard that Mr. Stone needs to repudiate.

And while he’s at it, he should declare that Benjamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman should get the Nobel Peace Prize. Maybe that would be enough to get Stone back in the graces of Hollywood media elite.

Nah.

As if it couldn’t get any more Orwellian, Andy Nowicki’s curent TOO article describes an encounter between the ADL’s Abe Foxman and a delegation from the Ukraine eager to suck up to the ADL on Holocaust-related issues. (Foxman insists that the genocide of 7 to 10 million Ukrainians supervised and advocated by Lazar Kaganovich does not rise to the level of a Holocaust, a term that should be exclusively reserved for what the Germans did to the Jews.) The Ukranians act as if Foxman has some power which means, of course, that they are anti-Semites:

Following the meeting, Shamir asks Foxman why, if anti-Semitism is so potent a force in the world today, people care so much about pleasing the ADL and its sister organizations. Dishonest Abe then shows his flair at sophistry: it’s anti-Semitic in itself, he maintains, to even think that the Jews are so powerful as to be feared, so the fact that people like this pitiful delegation of yes-men are so eager to do his bidding just shows how anti-Semitic the world has become! Once more, Shamir dryly acknowledges this “logic,” letting its absurdity speak for itself.

The whole thing reminds me of Joe Sobran’s comment on Jewish media power:

Not that the Jews are all-powerful, let alone all bad. But they are successful, and therefore powerful enough: and their power is unique in being off-limits to normal criticism even when it’s highly visible. They themselves behave as if their success were a guilty secret, and they panic, and resort to accusations, as soon as the subject is raised. Jewish control of the major media in the media age makes the enforced silence both paradoxical and paralyzing. Survival in public life requires that you know all about it, but never refer to it. A hypocritical etiquette forces us to pretend that the Jews are powerless victims; and if you don’t respect their victimhood, they’ll destroy you. It’s a phenomenal display not of wickedness, really, but of fierce ethnocentrism, a sort of furtive racial superpatriotism. (The Buchanan frenzy. Sobran’s (March):3–4.)

Sobran’s punch line is applicable here: “A hypocritical etiquette forces us to pretend that the Jews are powerless victims; and if you don’t respect their victimhood, they’ll destroy you.” Powerless people can’t destroy anyone. But Oliver Stone will soon enough find out that Jews are very powerful indeed.

Bookmark and Share