Media Bias

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 was Right on Jewish Media Power

/53 Comments/in , , /by

In my post on Joe Sobran’s passing, I included this quote from Joe:

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)

A current example that illustrates exactly this is the firing of Rick Sanchez from CNN for saying the following about Jews as victims:

Very powerless people… [snickers] He’s such a minority, I mean, you know [sarcastically]… Please, what are you kidding? … I’m telling you that everybody who runs CNN is a lot like Stewart, and a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot like Stewart, and to imply that somehow they — the people in this country who are Jewish — are an oppressed minority? Yeah. [sarcastically]

This is the offending section of the  interview:

So the scenario is exactly as Joe Sobran described it. Deep down you must be fully aware of Jewish power, but public utterances must pledge allegiance to the idea that Jews are powerless victims. Don’t mention the fact that “a lot of people who run [CNN and] all the other networks are a lot like [Jon] Stewart” — that they are Jews with immense power, able to shape public discourse on everything of importance. Never mention the obvious fact that Jews are a very large component of the elite in the US and throughout the West. And if you don’t go along with the “Jews as powerless victims” idea, then Jews will destroy you.

Powerless victims with the power to destroy their enemies.  And that’s exactly what happened.

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.

Christopher Donovan: Overwhelmingly White

/15 Comments/in , /by

At least one media critic has noted the media groupthink in denouncing the Tea Party/Glen Beck rallies as “overwhelmingly white.”

This particular critic’s angle is that the media is being hyopcritical, because it, too, is “overwhelmingly white.” (Nathan Birchfiel, “Overwhelmingly White Media Criticizes Conservative Rallies as ‘Overwhelmingly White.”)

My angle is that it shows the current sorry state of white advocacy.  The mere fact that the whiteness of a crowd shows how bad it is, is, well, very bad.  A group of whites — whites who, mind you, aren’t even gathering explicitly as whites — is illegitimate in the eyes of the media and the power centers they serve.  That such a state of affairs even exists is a crime against the human rights of white people.

Sadly, I am sure that many Tea Party activists would agree that they need to be more “diverse.”  My hope is that some synapse in their heads snaps, and they suddenly demand to know what’s wrong with being white.  Or even “overwhelmingly white.”

Christoper Donovan: Hate-Fueled Black Mass Murderer in Connecticut Spun as 'Disgruntled Man' by Media

/98 Comments/in /by
In Connecticut the other day, a black employee of a beer distributorship shot and killed 8 presumably white employees.  I say “presumably”, because his quip was “I killed the five racists that was there bothering me.”
 
Yet the majority of the MSM totally underplayed the racial angle, for reasons everyone by now understands:  the killer was black, and the victims were white.  My own local newspaper made absolutely no mention of the racial element in the small brief it ran.  But given that race was what (rightly or wrongly) drove the entire incident, the media’s censorship of this is a gross dereliction of duty. 
 
Here’s the AP’s take.
 
(As usual, the commenters inject the common sense that the media won’t give on its own.  Just look at the first five comments alone:  all of them note the double standard against whites and the underplaying of the story.  They don’t differ much from the comments on American Renaissance or this website.)
 
Readers are deprived of any understanding of what happened.  Importantly for whites, what would have been a story that balanced the “whites are bad, blacks are good” media line is kept away from them, thus rendering them poorly equipped in the policy debates and ultimately, less physically safe.  In other words, the media, through its unfair treatment of whites, is actually contributing to whites’ exposure to physical danger. 
 
Worse than underplaying it, some media outlets even attempted to spin the black murderer as a hero for having cut down “racists” in the workplace.  From CBS news,  Manchester, Conn. (CBS/WFSB/AP) (Omar Thornton: “I Killed the Five Racists“):
Family members say Omar Thornton, the man suspected in the Tuesday morning massacre at Hartford Distributors, was a quiet, hard-working man who wasn’t a violent person, but was pushed to the breaking point by harassment at work. 
Nobody, of course, is questioning the “racism” of these Connecticut workers (yes, Connecticut, home of so many bloodthirsty white racists).  Yet we do get the trickle of information that the killer was videotaped stealing beer, and had been confronted over it.  I can tell you that plenty of blacks are so steeped in racial entitlement that they would consider someone who merely confronted them over a crime they actually committed to be a “racist”, i.e., anyone who dares challenge their right to steal.  It’s a safe bet the killer fit this category.  Given how difficult it is to fire a black worker (lawsuits come quick), he must have been an inveterate troublemaker.
 
I also doubt that he would have found a hanging noose, given that this type of incident is frequently faked or claimed in order to engender sympathy.  There also doesn’t seem to be an prior reporting of this incident.
 
By now it should go without saying that a white employee who targeted 8 blacks for killing would be automatically termed a “white supremacist.”
 
Whites need to understand that media can spin any set of facts to fit its anti-white agenda — even the horrific killing of 8 whites by a black supremacist.  The bigger picture, of course, is a society in which most of the elite institutions — the media, government, academia — is populated by Jews, non-whites and liberal whites who seek the total submission of whites.  As the Connecticut shooting shows, whites face more than political or cultural dispossession and displacement — they face literal death.

Bookmark and Share

Christopher Donovan: What Can't The Media Spin Into a Story on 'Hate Groups'?

/10 Comments/in , /by
In Central Pennsylvania recently, a white attorney was shot and killed at a public rifle range, and his customized weapon taken.  Two white men were arrested and charged, and one said he was helping an “unnamed group” that sought to overthrow the government. (See here.)
 
I was personally amazed that the local newspaper took a whole 24 hours before reaching out the Southern Poverty Law Center — and then didn’t even get a call back.  With all their millions, you’d think they’d have a 24-hour media hotline set up for a quick quote.
 
The story is depressingly rote, with the reporters following the tight script of American journalism:  any incident involving white men and guns is tied to the KKK, the neo-Nazis and Timothy McVeigh. 
 
What if the media took a similar tack with blacks, Hispanics or Jews?
 
A black man is charged with robbing a white couple.  This comes just days after the NAACP called for America to treat blacks with more fairness.  Experts are convinced the two are related.  ‘When you create an atmosphere of that much hate, that much intolerance, and that much grievance, things like this are bound to happen’, said the expert.  “We even have a black president who said that the civil rights movement didn’t go far enough.  With those kinds of messages coming from the top, whites are just sitting ducks for black violence.” …
 
Three Hispanics entered the country illegally the other day.  Meanwhile, a supremacist group called ‘La Raza‘ has been loudly agitating for amnesty for illegal aliens.  Experts think there’s a connection, and the potential for violence grows every day. …
 
Nationally, hate experts have traced the rise of Israel, a supremacist state in the Middle East, to an active network of lobbyists and fundraisers — almost all of them Jewish, and many in the United States. 
Sigh.  I’m not holding my breath.

Bookmark and Share