Jewish Influence

How to Win Power and Riches by Betraying Your Own

/33 Comments/in , /by

After a crowded jet-liner was deliberately crashed in the Alps earlier this year, many journalists talked about the need for psychological screening of pilots. It’s a good suggestion. But if we screen the pilots of planes, why don’t we screen the pilots of nations? Why aren’t aspiring politicians tested for dangerous traits like narcissism and psychopathy?

If we had tests like that, Tony Blair, Bill Clinton , and Barack Obama would never have achieved high office. They are true children of the television age: all surface, no substance. At this time, there is literally no country in the West where a politician can achieve power without the support of Jewish interests. This article necessarily just scratches the surface (so I’m not even going to mention Sheldon Adelson, Haim Saban, the Republican Jewish Coalition, etc., or Hillary Clinton‘s long association with powerful Jews). Supporting Jewish interests is a great career move, whether it’s as a politician, making Hollywood movies, or writing for a neocon think tank. The war against Whites is massively incentivized. Read more

Interview with Jack Sen, Part 2 of 4

/19 Comments/in , /by
Jack Sen (left) with UKIP Deputy Leader MEP Paul Nuttall

Jack Sen (left) with UKIP Deputy Leader MEP Paul Nuttall

Part 1.

In the EKP interview, you mention a “shadowy elite bent on our destruction.” In reading it, I definitely had the impression that you were referring a predominantly Jewish elite, or at least an elite that is substantially Jewish to the point that elite attitudes and policies would have to comport to the interests and attitudes of its Jewish component.

For example, you stated that “The west is controlled by Leftists that can trace their roots back to former Soviet eastern bloc nations-men like Yossel Slovo [longtime leader of the South African Communist Party], Ed Miliband etc.”  Ed Miliband’s father is Marxist sociologist Ralph Miliband; you stated that “Ralph Miliband emigrated to Britain and did his utmost to destroy his host nation.” You also mention Dan Glass, Eleanor Margolis, Nadine Gordimer (an anti-apartheid activist who received the Nobel Prize for Literature), Barbara Lerner Spectre, and Emily Thornberry. Of these 8 names, only one — Emily Thornberry — is or was not Jewish, and it is well-known that the great majority of UK Jews descend from those who, like Ralph Miliband, immigrated from Eastern Europe.

This would seem to be suggest that you think that Jews have a major role to play in this shadowy elite. We at TOO have claimed that Jews are a necessary (but not a sufficient) condition for the current onslaught of immigration and multiculturalism in the US. Am I correct in my impression that you think Jews are a necessary condition for the current program of destruction against the traditional people and culture of the UK?

Certainly. There’s no denying that Jewish radicals are the progenitors of the vast majority of the intellectual and social movements undermining Western culture — from Marxism, the feminism ruining our families, homosexual advancement, and often counterproductive civil rights causes. Most honest people with a proper understanding of history recognize that Jews were and are at the forefront of these movements. Didn’t Barbara Spectre herself admit as much? [Ed.: Yes]

I was certainly quite clear that I thought as much in the interview. Read more

Influencing How Jews Are Seen in China: It’s All about Nobel Prizes and Tolerance of Dissent

/72 Comments/in , /by
Tablet has an article reflecting Jewish angst over the possibility that the Chinese might think that Jews run America (“The Chinese Believe That the Jews Control America. Is That a Good Thing?“). Unlike in the U.S. where the ADL will threaten the livelihood of anyone who says that Jews have any power or influence, one might think that the Chinese are free to make up their own minds about the subject based on rigorous academic research. Think again.

“Do the Jews Really Control America?” asked one Chinese newsweekly headline in 2009. The factoids doled out in such articles and in books about Jews in China—for example: “The world’s wealth is in Americans’ pockets; Americans are in Jews’ pockets”—would rightly be seen to be alarming in other contexts. But in China, where Jews are widely perceived as clever and accomplished, they are meant as compliments. Scan the shelves in any bookstore in China and you are likely to find best-selling self-help books based on Jewish knowledge. Most focus on how to make cash. Titles range from 101 Money Earning Secrets From Jews’ Notebooksto Learn To Make Money With the Jews.

The Chinese recognize, and embrace, common characteristics between their culture and Jewish culture. Both races have a large diaspora spread across the globe. Both place emphasis on family, tradition, and education. Both boast civilizations that date back thousands of years. In Shanghai, I am often told with nods of approval that I must be intelligent, savvy, and quick-witted, simply because of my ethnicity. While it is true that the Chinese I’ve met are fascinated by—rather than fear—the Jews, these assertions make me deeply uncomfortable.

“Deeply uncomfortable.” The author, Clarissa Sebag-Montefiore, is proud that the Chinese understand that Jews are powerful and influential in the U.S. But she sees the situation from the standpoint of an American Jew for whom ideas that Jews have power or control are anathema because such ideas touch on major themes of historical anti-Semitism, such as media control.

Read more

Benjamin Ginsberg on Jewish hypocrisy and double standards

/23 Comments/in /by

Tablet interview: “Q&A: Benjamin Ginsberg, the Author of ‘How the Jews Defeated Hitler’”

[Tablet] One of the things that’s fascinating about my WASPy friends and compatriots is that so many dislike the State of Israel, to varying degrees. It bugs them. What interests me is trying to suss out the underlying or psychological impetus or sense of injury beneath these feelings, which are frankly less common in general among American gentiles than they are among American Jews. When I’ve asked them, “Why does this particular injustice bother you so much – why not Tibet?” the answers are very interesting. They come down to something like, “Why on one hand do you Jewish people come to us and say we have to be democratic and inclusive because otherwise we’re anti-Semites, and then back in the old country, where you go on your family vacations or Birthright trips, you get to strut around with automatic weapons and oppress everybody else, which isn’t fair, and is probably what we would want to do here, in some secret corner of our WASPy brains.”

[Ginsberg] That is a very good line, and I think it’s totally true. The animus is some form of displaced anti-Semitism.

Say what? Displaced anti-Semitism would be if these Whites used Jewish hypocrisy as an excuse from some deep irrational hatred of Jews. But isn’t hypocrisy always seen as a negative? The White Protestants who are on trial here assume a principled morality. They assume that if inclusiveness is a moral imperative in the U.S. as our intellectual elites constantly tell us, it must be a moral imperative everywhere. But many of the same people who advocate inclusiveness in the U.S. advocate oppression in Israel. And there’s resentment by many Whites because as a result of the moral imperative of inclusiveness in the U.S., they are losing the country. So, yes, there is probably a “secret corner” of their brains where they would like to reassert themselves and boot out or oppress the interlopers. But that has to remain secret on pain of job loss and social opprobrium.  Because they no longer command the moral and political high ground, they don’t dare  say that. Read more

How to talk about Jewish money influencing politics without getting into trouble

/18 Comments/in , /by

Here is Matt Yglesias talking about how Jewish money is what is making Congress so pro-Israel, my brackets and bolding:

What drives the overwhelming congressional support for Israel that’s such a striking element of American politics? For some members, it’s genuine passion. For others, it has to do with public opinion [shaped by whom?]. But another real consideration that’s rarely discussed in daylight is fundraising. Memos written by consultants working for Michelle Nunn, the Democrats’ candidate in Georgia, and leaked to National Review in an effort to make Nunn look bad lay it out. This excerpt, in particular, is a great window into how it works [note the casual-yet-patronizing SWPL-speak]: Screen_Shot_2014-07-28_at_1.42.54_PM This is getting spun in certain circles as a damning indictment of Nunn or her staff, as if she is planning to tailor her entire foreign policy around fundraising concerns. But really it’s just people doing their jobs. Sheri and Steve Labovitz are wealthy individuals who are active in the Atlanta Jewish community, as is Elaine Alexander. The author of the memo is informing the campaign that these individuals are likely sympathetic to Nunn’s broad policy outlook, and are promising candidates to help Nunn raise money. But they are also cautioning that taking the appropriate line on Israel is likely to be a litmus test for these donors. It’s not the place of a finance memo writer to come up with Nunn’s Israel policy, but the memo cautions that there are fundraising implications to what Nunn chooses to say about this. To anyone who’s familiar with Democratic Party fundraising — particularly for non-incumbent underdogs, who typically have trouble raising money — this won’t be too surprising.

So plutocrats’ using their financial clout to exploit U.S. foreign policy to further ethnic interests and politicians’ pandering to said interests are normal, basically. Yglesias also mentions the (self-)censorship:

Jewish donors are very important to Democratic Party finances, some of these donors have strongly held hawkish views on Israel, and the financial clout of AIPAC is the stuff of legend. At the same time, talk of rich Jews throwing their financial muscle around to influence policy in favor of Israel touches far too many anti-semitic tropes to be regularly mentioned in political discourse. But the concrete world of political fundraising doesn’t leave a ton of time for beating around the bush, so we get a little window here into how it looks to the finance people: if Nunn wants to maximize her donations, she needs to take the right stance.

Of course none of this is news to anyone who has been paying attention for the past 30 (40, 50, 100, 200, 500…?) years. But it is interesting to see this discussed in the mainstream. Vox is run by Ezra Klein. The article was tweeted by Glenn Greenwald. Read more

Jews as a Necessary Condition

/2 Comments/in , /by

This video of John Mearsheimer (available also in our video archive) is a good discussion of how to conceptualize not only Jewish involvement in the Iraq war but Jewish influence generally.

The argument is that :

1. The neoconservatives were the main force behind the war.

2. The neoconservatives are a key component of the Israel Lobby, are “deeply committed to Israel,” and are involved in a variety of pro-Israel organizations such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

3. Other components of the Israel Lobby, notably AIPAC, were also deeply involved. Read more

Bill Clinton: Pioneer in Courting Jewish Money

/3 Comments/in /by

The  Republican grovelfest continues to reverberate.  Philip Weiss compiles a few additions, including an editorial writer from the New York Times (“It’s hard to imagine a political spectacle more loathsome…”. ) The interesting thing is that Weiss includes a quote from David Frum’s book on GW Bush (The Right Man) noting the prominent role of Jews in making Bill Clinton’s wonderful career. This  includes Clinton “getting very rich rapidly” right after he left the presidency. (I recall that pretty much the first thing that Clinton did after leaving office was to give a speech to a Jewish audience in LA for $100,000—just a little thank you note, with the promise of much more to come.)

Sociopathy can be very lucrative, and the recent grovelfest shows that there is no shortage of White politicians willing to do anything for the fame and fortune of the presidency. All they have to do to climb onto the gravy train is to make it very clear that they care nothing about the future of their own people. Clinton’s statement to an audience at Portland State University in 1998 is classic:

Today, largely because of immigration, there is no majority race in Hawaii or Houston or New York City. Within five years, there will be no majority race in our largest state, California. In a little more than 50 years, there will be no majority race in the United States. No other nation in history has gone through demographic change of this magnitude in so short a time … [These immigrants] are energizing our culture and broadening our vision of the world. They are renewing our most basic values and reminding us all of what it truly means to be American.

And then there’s this quote from his 1997 State of the Union speech: “My fellow Americans, we must never, ever believe that our diversity is a weakness — it is our greatest strength.” If we believe strongly enough, it will come true, never mind the reality of ethnic conflict throughout human history.

Here’s David Frum:

Clinton can fairly be called the most philo-Semitic president in U.S. history. His closest friends and most trusted aides were Jews, his administration was crammed with Jewish appointees, both his nominees to the Supreme Court were Jewish—even his most famous girlfriend was Jewish. And Jews liked Clinton as much as he liked them. They appreciated his intellectuality and his social tolerance, his liberated wife, and his moderate liberalism. Jewish donors contributed generously to Clinton’s election campaigns; after he left office, some of those former donors helped him to grow very rich very rapidly.