Media Bias
I have an article at VDARE.com on my interview with Samantha Bee of The Daily Show. Since they don’t have comments there, I thought this would be a nice forum for that. The main point is that the media is heavily policed to prevent any reasonable discussion of issues like White identity and Jewish influence.
Israel is (in)famous for its “false flag” operations, covert provocations meant to create blame for innocent parties or nations. For instance, in the 1950s Israelis propagated the Lavon Affair, in which Jewish operatives in Egypt attempted to blow up American- and British-affiliated buildings and place the blame on Egyptians. In theory, this would have compelled the Americans and British to take punitive action against Egypt. As it turned out, the agents were captured before the bombs went off.
A far more subtle technique aimed at achieving goals surreptitiously is called “laying the mental threads” for a form of unconventional warfare employing game theory to get others to fight your enemies for you. Relentlessly, people’s minds have been exposed to scenarios of Arab enemies and terrorists, a signal example being the broad attention given to Harvard historian Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” thesis. A major element of that clash is the West’s struggle against Muslims. America’s (mistaken) response to 9/11, some have claimed, illustrates this. Read more
I want to thank commentators for pointing out errors in my review of Band of Brothers. Watching the sequence again I can see that it was Webster who shouted out at the surrendering German troops. And sure enough there are the different types of uniforms on the camp inmates, as John Orloff notes. Also I did not realize that Liebgott was in fact Catholic or that Tom Hanks is partly Jewish (actually I still don’t realize that Hanks is Jewish). One part of the camp scene in which an error occurs is especially important because a prisoner explains what the camp is and who the prisoners are. The exchange is as follows:
(Liebgott interprets.)
Winters: “Will you ask him what kind of camp this is? Why are they here?”
Prisoner: “It is a work camp for Unerwuenscht.”
Liebgott cannot translate the final word.
Winters: “Criminals?”
Prisoner: “No. Doctors, clerks, musicians, taylors, farmers, intellectuals, . . . Jews, Jews, Jews . . . Poles, Gypsies.”
My review correctly quoted the prisoner as identifying the camp as a work camp. However, where the prisoner comes to describe ethnicity and nationality my review omits his mention of Poles, though I do include Gypsies in quoting him. The omission does not affect my argument because Jews are clearly emphasized, more so in the literal transcript above than in my review. Nevertheless this and other errors are embarrassing. Read more
Band of Brothers, the 2001 TV miniseries, was produced by Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks.
Episode 9 was directed by David Frankel and written by John Orloff.
Based on the 1992 book by Stephen E. Ambrose, Band of Brothers. E Company, 506th Regiment, 101st Airborne from Normandy to Hitler’s Eagle Nest, Simon and Schuster (reviewed edition by Pocket Books, 2001).
In ten episodes, Band of Brothers depicts how E (“Easy”) Company, 506th Regiment, 101st Airborne Division, trained in America and England and then fought from D-Day through to the end of the European phase of WWII. It is a technically strong and gripping production. The battle scenes are among the most realistic I have seen, though one must allow for the demands of the cinematic medium — emphasis of a few individuals and spatial compression of combat groups. I am reminded of the grim and gritty street battle sequences in Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan. This review looks at the ninth episode, which does not depict military conflict but is itself something of a black operation in the culture wars.
As our own Edmund Connelly has repeatedly demonstrated, Jewish interests have frequently been pushed by American television and Hollywood films in various ways, often as a backdrop to stories unrelated to ethnicity, like the omnipresent upper class Anglo twit and the Black genius technical expert. The 9th episode of Band of Brothers, titled “Why We Fight”, represents an unprecedented level of ambition — to claim America’s WWII sacrifices as motivated by the desire to save Jews from Nazi persecution, to make America’s sacrifice in WWII all about the Jews, not about Americans doing their duty in a tragic internecine conflict. Read more
The media is as anti-White as ever these days. I’ve dedicated hours of my life to showing how, on this blog and elsewhere.
But the comments — the Internet postings of the everday nobodies in reaction to stories and blog items — are heartening.
The trend is definitely “pro-White.”
Take the New York Times — whose pro-White comment-censoring I’ve blogged about before. Here’s a recent item about President Obama’s Black journalists-only off-the-record meeting.
Then check out the comments, starting with No. 1 (“Did Bush have summits reserved for white journalists and bloggers?”).
Here’s a run-of-the-mill crime story out of Pennsylvania.
One commenter says:
EXACTLY!!!! This is just down right shameful on the part of Harrisburg leaders and the Patriot news! If this is a group of white kids that beat up a black couple the feds would be involved. But hey, whitey deserves it…right.
And then people here and in the real world wonder why it’s easy for people to become racist. Gee, I couldn’t imagine why.
There are more like it. Whites are getting restless. And with the interactivity of the Internet, it’s getting harder and harder for anti-white — often Jewish — media to keep them out.
I am confident that the MSM will remain as brittle as ever in its resistance to whites. Good. Let it break.
A sure sign that Jews control the media is that someone like Alan Dershowitz can get away with trotting out totally lame arguments in the mainstream media against the idea that Jews control the media. (Do Jews Control the Media?) It’s an example of Orwell’s idea of blackwhite: “a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary.”
Dershowitz’s basic point is that yes, there are “individual Jews” with influence in the media, as well as the law, finance, and academia. His phrase “individual Jews” is meant to indicate that they are people “who happen to be Jewish.” They do not “act together in a conspiratorial manner.”
If he means that Jews in the media do a Protocols-of-the-Elders-of-Zion thing where they get their marching orders from Abe Foxman, I would have to agree with him. But the fact is that in general Jews do not act simply as individuals. There is a shared vision that influences the attitudes and behavior of individual Jews. As I note in summarizing J. J. Goldberg, “There is a great deal of consensus on broad Jewish issues, particularly in the areas of Israel and the welfare of other foreign Jewries, immigration and refugee policy, church-state separation, abortion rights, and civil liberties” (see Jewish Power, p. 5). Indeed, the consensus on these issues among Jewish activist organizations and the Jewish intellectual movements reviewed here despite a great deal of disagreement on other issues is striking.These attitudes typify the entire Jewish political spectrum, from the mainstream Jewish left to the neoconservative Jewish right, and in general, the Jewish profile on these issues is quite different from other Americans. Massive changes in public policy on these issues coincide with the period of increasing Jewish power and influence in the United States.
Philip Weiss points out that Dershowitz himself has emphasized general Jewish goals, particularly the defense of Israel. And he presents examples of Jews in the media who see themselves as promoting Israel or who actively exclude points of view critical of Israel. To which I would add the comment by Eric Alterman about Martin Peretz, publisher of The New Republic: “It is not enough to say that TNR’s owner is merely obsessed with Israel; he says so himself. But more importantly, Peretz is obsessed with Israel’s critics, Israel’s would-be critics, and people who never heard of Israel, but might one day know someone who might someday become a critic.”
Dershowitz gives the New York Times as an example of a Jewish-owned media, noting that is critical of Israel. But in general, the Times’ coverage has been highly skewed toward Israel, as documented by Alison Weir’s If Americans Knew. Weiss gives the well-known quote from former editor Max Frankel: The NYT’s former executive editor Max Frankel wrote, “I was much more deeply devoted to Israel than I dared to assert … Fortified by my knowledge of Israel and my friendships there, I myself wrote most of our Middle East commentaries. As more Arab than Jewish readers recognized, I wrote them from a pro-Israel perspective.”
A recent Forward article recounts the firings of Rick Sanchez, Octavia Nasr, and Helen Thomas for their comments on Jewish issues. It points out that “Jews have done more than other groups to make it clear that they will not suffer lightly the public slights like those made by Sanchez — let alone by those with even bigger mouths, like Mel Gibson. As Foxman put it, ‘We are a community that is sensitive, and — have no doubt — we’ll respond.’ ‘
Right. But at least we know what the game is. The truth will be suppressed with all the power that the Jewish community can bring to bear. The message is out that anyone who wishes to have a career in the media must play by these rules or look for another line of work.
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 | ||||
|
||||
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.
