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”.
“I believe in the esthetics, and I believe in the morality, and I believe in the functionality of military power and of a militarized State. And of course: our ancestors did it historically. Even the modest tribes had basically a war chief, the monopoly of force. The culture of the tribe would be militarized [emphasis in Niflson’s voice]. Everything was focused on making spears, making knives, making swords.”
