Manny Friedman: Jews “own a whole freaking country”; and yes, that includes the media.
Well, it turns out after all that Jews do control the media—and a whole lot besides. So says Manny Friedman, writing in the Times of Israel. Of course, we at TOO have known this for quite a while, but it’s nice to hear it from a Jew, even though it’s in a Jewish publication and intended to be part of a Jews-only dialog.
The thing is, it’s okay for someone like Friedman to say it (or Joel Stein, writing in the LATimes and linked by Friedman). But it’s definitely not okay for someone like me.
In fact, Friedman is typical of Jewish writers who inhabit a completely Jewish universe when they talk about anything relating to Jews. Friedman is well aware that non-Jews who talk about such issues should prepare for a wall-to-wall, no-holds barred, 24/7 campaign against them:
The funny part is when any anti-Semite or anti-Israel person starts to spout stuff like, “The Jews control the media!” and “The Jews control Washington!”
Suddenly we’re up in arms. We create huge campaigns to take these people down. We do what we can to put them out of work. We publish articles. We’ve created entire organizations that exist just to tell everyone that the Jews don’t control nothin’. No, we don’t control the media, we don’t have any more sway in DC than anyone else. No, no, no, we swear: We’re just like everybody else!
Does anyone else (who’s not a bigot) see the irony of this?
I don’t see any “funny parts” to this, and I’m not sure “irony’ is the right word here. How about “ethnic strategizing,” as in “Does anyone else (who’s not a bigot) see the ethnic strategizing of this?”
And what does being a “bigot” have to do with anything? The working philosophy of the ADL is that bigots are non-Jews who thinks Jews control the media or anything else. And underlying that philosophy is the idea that public awareness of Jewish control would be bad for the Jews. Bigots are people who think that Jews use their control to influence many other aspects of culture in ways that are not in the interests of non-Jews: That the Israel Lobby has virtually made the US into a client state subservient to the interests of Israel, including the Iraq war and a looming war with Iran. Or that Jews use their control of the media to undermine public Christianity and traditional Western sexual mores, and to promote things like multiculturalism that are quite opposed to the interests and attitudes of White Americans. Or that Jews are an integral part of what Pat Buchanan calls the “casino capitalists.”
Buchanan, although avoiding the ethnic angle, only mentions Robert Rubin, Alan Greenspan and Goldman Sachs when discussing post-1995 problems.
This new predatory elite has exported American jobs and repeatedly obtained lucrative bailouts when things get bad.
Fortunes are lost and made overnight. Names appear on the list of richest Americans no one has ever heard of. Cheating and corner-cutting are constantly being unearthed. Broker- and banker-gamblers in their 30s amass and flaunt nine-figure fortunes.
When WASPs were the dominant elite in America, their many Jewish critics never had any compunctions about calling them by name and probably loved using what Andrew Fraser calls the “subtly, perhaps deservedly derogatory acronym” of ‘WASP’. But our new Jewish elite cannot tell its name despite the fact that they “own a whole freaking country”—a rather large and powerful country in which the vast majority of the population are not Jews.
Friedman says the reason for Jewish angst about discussions of Jewish power is
because they’re afraid of being responsible. It means that they’re suddenly culpable when they create dirty TV shows that sully the spiritual atmosphere of the world.
Right. Jews understand that there are huge conflicts of interest over the construction of culture, whether it’s foreign policy, the sexualization of culture, immigration, multiculturalism, or the role of Christianity in the public square. Quite simply, Jews have different attitudes and perceived interests, and they have been pushing in different directions than White Americans for the entire last century. Massive amounts of money, propaganda, and organizational effort have gone into this effort. This effort has been transformative.
Abe Foxman (quoted in the Stein article) would love to have Americans believe that there are a lot of executives in Hollywood who just happen to be Jewish and that’s the end of it. But it’s far more than that. Jews have fundamentally different attitudes and perceived interests when it comes to the construction of culture, from religion to foreign policy. It wouldn’t matter that Jews are an elite if they had the same attitudes and perceived interests as the traditional people and culture of America. But they don’t, and they haven’t ever since they arrived en masse a century ago. Indeed, in general Jews have an atavistic hostility toward the traditional culture of the Christian West.
Jewish organizations do everything in their power to prevent an honest discussion of Jewish power. And that is completely understandable. Do they really want to advertise to White America that Jews have had a preponderant role in making Whites a minority, in promoting the ideal of multiculturalism, in making America a client state of Israel, in the sexualization of culture and in legalizing and promoting pornography, in banning Christianity from the public square, in obliterating traditional American conservatism in the Republican Party, and in predatory financial practices that are destroying the American economy…?
Likely not. But one can bet that to the extent that there will be any discussion of Jewish power, it will be more or less exclusively within the confines of the Jewish community. (Here’s a recent WND article titled “Who Stole Our Culture?” that fails to come to grips with the powerful ethnic component of the correct answer, despite their emphasis on the central role of the notoriously Jewish Frankfurt School.) Friedman publishes his article in an Israeli newspaper (which is completely ignored by the MSM in the US) and links to Joel Stein (whose article sank like a rock and certainly did not ignite a national discussion on the consequences of Jewish media domination). Neither Friedman nor Stein would dream of linking to The Occidental Observer or anything remotely similar to back up their claims. Yet our discussions are far more extensive, nuanced and well-sourced than anything put out by Friedman or Stein.
Non-Jews should have a robust role in the discussion of all these issues. Here’s Steven Walt criticizing Peter Beinart’s The Crisis of Zionism (in an otherwise favorable review) for addressing only Jews in the discussion of American attitudes toward Israel:
I think it is unfortunate that Beinart chose to direct his book almost entirely toward the American Jewish community. That is his privilege, and it’s possible that the best way to get a smarter U.S. policy would be to convince American Jewry to embrace a different approach. Yet Beinart’s focus also reinforces the idea that U.S. Middle East policy—and especially its policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — is a subject that is only of legitimate concern to Jewish-Americans (and Arab-Americans) and can only be legitimately discussed by these groups. In fact, U.S. Middle East policy affects all of us in countless ways and it ought to be a subject that anyone can discuss openly and calmly without inviting the usual accusations of bigotry or bias. I’m sure Beinart would agree, yet his book as written sends a subtly different message.
Right. We all have a right and even a duty to discuss these subjects because they affect our vital interests. But, like Walt and John Mearsheimer when their book on the Israel Lobby came out, doing so invites the worst sort of hostility from Jewish critics—accusations that it was shoddy scholarship and a throwback to the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.
It is a compelling measure of Jewish power that Jews are able to so effectively suppress discussion of Jewish power. The power of no other group is off limits for public discussion. I can’t resist quoting Joe Sobran’s 1996 classic:
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 [then the dominant team]. 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. (Joe Sobran [1995]. “The Jewish establishment.” Sobran’s [September]:4–5).
The reality is that Jews cannot afford to have these issues discussed openly and honestly because doing so would not only threaten their power. It would create a huge backlash, since Jewish power has been so deeply antithetical to the interests of Whites in America and elsewhere. So they sit on an ever more explosive powder keg. Shoring up their defenses, but unable to go back even if they wanted to (which they don’t). Pouncing mercilessly on anyone who gets off the reservation. With 100,000,000 non-Whites in America who are rapidly increasing as a percentage of the population, there are simply too many facts on the ground at this point to go into a low-key retreat.
[See e.g., this video presently featured at The Occidental Observer]
The external controls keeping the non-Jews in line are certainly very powerful. As Cooper Sterling’s recent article shows (and as Friendman acknowledges), individuals who cross the lines imposed by the SPLC (a Jewish organization in all but name) or the ADL face dire economic and social consequences.
However, Jewish control goes far beyond the ability to punish behavior and attitudes they don’t like. Ultimately the whole edifice depends on massive self-censorship by non-Jews. Jews also need to use their position in the media to continue the incessant propaganda that reinforces the current dispensation— that diversity is a strength and is good for everyone, that all humans are essentially the same so that importing millions of Africans, Asians, and non-Whites from Latin America would have no effects on the fundamental character and institutions of the West, that Jews are powerless and that they are morally and intellectually superior victims of irrational hatreds, that Israel is an embattled democracy with a strong allegiance to the same values Americans hold dear, etc.
Implicitly at least, Jews realize that they need to use their media power to make these messages into psychological reflexes so that all White people, including especially respectable, well-educated White people, will feel shame and guilt for even thinking politically incorrect thoughts. In this, of course, they have been incredibly successful. We never see the end of guilt-ridden, self-flaggelating, ethnomasochistic Whites who look up to the New York Times for moral enlightenment. (Here’s a NYTimes “news article” from yesterday intended to induce guilt for opposing oppose massive non-White immigration to Greece: “Greek Far Right Hangs a Target on Immigrants.” Wall-to-wall. 24/7.)
It’s a long story why Whites are so susceptible to such manipulations. But yes, it matters who runs the media.
This is a short list of things that could possibly challenge the dominance of the current system:
• Victory by a European Nationalist Party, such as Greece’s Golden Dawn (the focus of the NYTimes article), Hungary’s Jobbik, or France’s National Front. If one European country manages to have a nationalist revolution and manages to withstand the severe pressures that would be immediately arrayed against it, there would be a transformative effect on the rest of the White world.
• The effect on the rest of the White world would be especially powerful as the costs of multiculturalism inexorably rise throughout the West and Western economies suffer from the effects of our predatory financial elite. There is a palpable anger in White America and throughout the White diaspora. It is unfocused or maladaptively focused (e.g., Christian Zionism). And it is without effective leadership. But it is a powerful force waiting to be harnessed.
• The rise of new media, able to avoid the stifling conformity to the culture of Western suicide being preached by the mainstream media throughout the West. Our word is getting out, even though it is to relatively a tiny audience, many of whom are already converted. If our media becomes obviously influential and a threat to the current regime, there will be powerful attempts to destroy it.
• But those on our side are increasingly intellectually confident and possessed of an intense moral fervor about the legitimacy of our cause. In the long run, such people are the worst enemies of the current zeitgeist. As recent research on opinion change shows, a small, confident, morally self-assured minority can dramatically alter the opinions of the majority. This has been the secret of Jewish success in influencing the culture of the West. But the ugliness of Israel and the egregious hypocrisy of American Jews on everything related to Israel are pretty much impossible to hide at this point. The emperor clearly has no clothes.
It’s not over until it’s over.
♣
The original article and comments can be read at
The Occidental Observer, here.
See also MacDonald’s “White pathology”.
16 replies on “MacDonald’s latest article”
There are only five possible solutions to the Jewish Problem:
1) Ask the Jews to relinquish control of everything they have their hands in and turn that control over to whites.
2) Force the Jews to relinquish control of everything they have their hands in and turn that control over to whites.
3) Failing the above, ask the Jews to leave the USA en masse, and never return.
4) Failing #3, forcibly round up the Jews at gunpoint and deport them from the country.
5) And failing #3 and #4, kill them all.
This is the fundamental problem with the WN movement, and its so-called leaders. The solutions to the Jewish Problem have been known for decades, and the Five Possible Solutions are clear to anyone with half a brain cell. Yet, round and round the discussions go, with few courageous enough to select one of the five choices above. Some, such as Alex Linder, have long chosen option 5. So have a few others. Most, however, are too timid to actually state what should be done. Somehow, they keep thinking that “more discussion is necessary”, even when it isn’t. It’s tiresome, the whole affair.
No one needs another article by MacDonald, or Duke, or Sunic, or Johnson. Their efforts are repetitious and boring. We need to move on.
Hold Back This Day: new edition @ $12.95
The Towers of Eden: new edition @ $14.88
When I leaned toward monocausalism I thought #5 was the only way. Now I’m considering #2, #3 and #4 (Re: #1, no one willfully surrenders power, let alone the Jews).
As to your other point (“their efforts are repetitious and boring”), in a few minutes I’ll add a whole new entry responding it.
You surprise me, wardkendall. A few months ago, gauging from your comments on TOO, you seemed far more moderate regarding the JQ.
Our problem has stayed the same since 1945:
A) Only smart people are curious enough to get an interest in the sociobiological or jewish problem.
B) There are more dumb people than smart people in this world.
C) Therefore we can’t win in a democratic election.
End of the line.
What happens when you can’t possibly win in a democratic election? You make a coup, which is a bad idea since you can’t rule for very long a population that hates you, you attempt to convert the elites to your ideas, which is a bad idea since these elites are hostile, you infiltrate the system (“long march through the institutions”), which is a bad idea since we will never be able to displace the Jewish central power, or you leave and create a new country.
I have a different series of options, with their objections, to wit :
1) Restrict Jewish influence proportionally. Thus in the US only 2,5 % of key positions in Jewish hands.
Objection : Jews are masters in manipulation. Even with few key positions in their hands, they will control vast parts of society. The rest they will control via “puppets”.
2) Deny any key position to Jews.
Objection : Jews will use for 100 % puppets to control society.
3) Expell the Jews from the country.
Objection : They will use their power acquired in their new country to control the US via international contacts and organizations.
4) Settle all Jews in a country of their own.
Objection : That country will quickly become a Jewish Mafia state and then try to control the US via international contacts and organizations. ( is already happening now with Israel).
5) Confine all Jews to an ETHNIC GHETTO, a kind of Jewish Gaza from where they are forbidden to travel to or communicate with the outer world.
Objection : This solution presupposes an international organization that understands the nature of the Jews. There is a danger that later generations will forget their lessons about the Jews and will set them free. ( this actually happened at the beginning of the 19th century when the Europeans “forgot” their lessons about the Jews and set them free from the ghettos. The result is our present mess).
6) The unthinkable.
Objection : obvious moral reasons.
Alex Linder has proposed a “softer” version of this solution : separate all Jewish men from all Jewish women and in one generation the problem will be solved. This solution should at least be considered.
An even softer of the “soft” solution is possible : sterilize all Jewish women ( and to be sure all Jewish men too ) and let them live normally together ( in a camp of course) untill they die out.
Franklin:
Very insightful. Thanks.
I have also struggled tremendously with the subject of what I call “Neanderthal extermination”, which was my favorite even before I became racially conscious.
I am afraid too of whites. Really afraid: Afraid of their nutty Compassion, of their deranged sense of decency, of their innate moral grammar, of their passion for cultural suicide (I am still shocked about what happened 1,600 years ago in Rome)…
If a drastic solution is finally undertaken by the end of the century, the obvious cause will be the fear of suicidal whites. Real fear. Fear as you say that after a few centuries they will forget / forgive everything and permit that another stage of ultra-liberalism takes hold of the white psyche.
Franklin Ryckaert said:
Whose moral reasons? Not mine. The only immoral thing here is failure.
Stop trying to inject poisonous ideas into Whites’ heads. They already have too much of that there now.
It is our jobs now to make sure that even if Whites in the future forget the lessons of today, forget the horrors of today, it will be biologically impossible for the Jews to reconstitute themselves and come back to harm our descendents.
I propose a pro-White international law enforcement agency, having global legal/military jurisdiction. This agencies personnel will be trained in genetics, forensics, investigative techniques, DNA analysis and possibly other fields. It will be their jobs to hunt down and deal with any remaining Jewish elements after the guerrilla wars have simmered down.
They will be on duty operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week until the end of time.
For those for whom moral reasons are “poisonous ideas” solutions that combine success with morality seem indeed unthinkable.
I guess you are the same Mark who wrote on the Breivik thread :
And now you write :
This in order to hunt down and slaughter every Jew.
For these bloodthirsty fantasies to become ever a reality not only do you need to control all white lands ( in itself already extremely difficult to achieve ), but THE WHOLE WORLD. Not even in 1900 did Whites have that much power, let alone in our modern, since long decolonized, world with India and China as rising super powers. What if China gave asylum to the Jews? What will your “global agency” do then?
I am afraid the first WN dogcatcher still has to be appointed. There is a very long way to global power. In the mean time you will have to make do with bloodthirsty fantasies. But I will not join them. And yes, that is for MORAL REASONS.
@ Ryckaert
Those are your morals only, not the morals of others. The reason we are in the situation we are is because too many Whites have the same morals as you.
The morals White’s had 150 years ago were quite different and were much more compatible with White racial survival.
Your role in the battle for White racial survival will be a passive one. No White warrior would stand with you for a second.
Franklin, do you have what it takes to kill one, single non-white in defense of your race? Answer that question!
I have an elegant way of seeing this.
If I have to kill 5 people to save the white race, I kill five. If I have to kill 5 billion to save the race, I kill five billion with exactly the same remorse (near zero) of having killed just five.
(Btw, Mark: I removed your extensive use of bold-type way above for easier reading: it pained my eyes on the peculiar screen I use.)
Ok, Cesar,
I was wondering why you changed the type.
Simply destroy Jewish identity by asking them to define “Jew”; Schlomo Sand, “The invention of the Jewish People”. They will say a Jewish mother, but this postpones the question. When is you mother Jewish? When her mother is Jewish. This is infinite regression, and not a workable definition.
And you wonder why the rest of the world, and not just Jews, hate your fucking guts?
That is why WNs should agitate for strong welfare.
Since I cannot agree neither with Mark’s nor with Chechar’s “elegant” views, which I understand are fixed, I will quit this website for good and leave you alone with your multi-billion bloodthirsty fantasies.
Adieu.
It should have been obvious that saving the race from extinction has a price, an internal price or “inner Jihad” to fight against oneself. If whites are being exterminated it’s precisely because they posit the interests of non-whites above their own. I have already said it and I will say it once more: The price to save whites from extinction is apostasy. I mean apostasy not only from Christian doctrine, but from Christian moral grammar. We must become barbarians again if we are to succeed. With an active Christian and secular Christian axiology (liberalism) we are doomed…
Further to my previous comment.
Franklin:
Have you heard of peak oil predictions? See for example Chris Martenson’s 45-minute Crash Course:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msTW7D_rSm4&list=PLAFF8951B6CB05AC2&feature=plpp_play_all
Some peak oil forecasters say that, by the end of the century, precisely 5 billion humans will die. These surplus of humans are the direct product of a deranged use of oil reservoirs (watch course above).
If you believe in social entropy you know that when a System disintegrates another system starts to integrate at the same time. The best example that occurs to me is the city of Constantinople, which flourished exactly when all of Europe went into utter chaos, with native Europeans becoming very few in the sixth century.
Something similar will happen in our century. Only those who hostilely take over the increasingly scarcer oil supplies will survive. The rest—again, precisely about 5 billion—will necessarily die.
Pray that whites are among these survivors (you cannot have it both ways)!
Due to Christian meta-ethics, the coming decades will presence a scorched-Earth punishment of truly biblical proportions, and we must be axiologically prepared to survive this unheard of challenge.
You don’t have to kill ’em all, Franklin. But at the very least, just like the first American Puritans you can celebrate their death of natural causes. That’s the way great cultures are being born (see my little article here).