Saturday, 30 October 2010
YouTube - MARTIN WEBSTER, 'Justice for Palestinians is a vital ... 24 Oct 2010 ... London New
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeKKzo9h-wA
Friday, 15 October 2010
CHALLENGES 'OUT OF AFRICA' THEORY
CHALLENGES 'OUT OF AFRICA' THEORY
Blacks, whites and Asians
evolved separately: scientist
Blacks, whites and Asians have different ancestors —
and did not come from Africa, claims scientist
Geographer claims the races evolved from different ancestors
Article Safari Sunday, 12 September 2010
LONDON — A public claim by a fellow of the prestigious Royal Geographic
Society that humans did not all come from Africa — and that blacks,
whites and Asians have different ancestors — has been dismissed by
world experts as “dangerous,” “wrong” and “racist.”
In a paper widely trumpeted and due for release in book form, Akhil Bakshi,
the leader of a recent major scientific expedition supported by India’s prime
minister, claims that “Negroid”, “Caucasian” and “Mongoloid” peoples are
not only separate races but separate species, having evolved on different
continents.
Responding to the claims — developed while Bakshi led the Gondwanaland
expedition from India to South Africa — Professor Lee Berger, a leading
paleoanthropologist at the University of the Witwatersrand, immediately
insisted that, there were no fundamental differences between the races
and that all humans had the same genetic and physical roots in Africa.
ARE THERE RACIAL DIFFERENCES? — Shown clockwise here from the upper left:
An Aryan (Europid); Negroid; Levantine (Eastern Mediterranean); and Mongoloid.
The prevalent scientific theory of modern humans — the “Out of Africa”
model — is that they left Africa just 55,000 years ago and replaced
the last remnants of other ancient hominids living in Europe, Asia and
elsewhere. The old biological racial distinctions of “Caucasian,” “Negroid”
and “Mongoloid” have recently been abandoned by mainstream scientists
— removed, for instance, from the US National Library of Medicine in 2003.
Bakshi has become a self-declared champion of a minority scientific view
called “multiregionalism,” which claims that modern humans evolved from
separate hominid populations. Hominids encompass all humans and the
ancient family of human-like ancestors, including large-brained ancient
ancestors and unsuccessful species such as Neanderthals.
However, Bakshi — who has no training as an anthropologist — has linked
to this model a theory that these populations evolved according to the
genetic material left behind when the prehistoric supercontinents, the
northern Laurasia and the southern Gondwanaland, broke up. An influential
figure in India, Bakshi is also a filmmaker and author who has led four major
scientific expeditions since 1994. Bakshi admitted to the Sunday Times
that “some of my points may prove to be wrong, and may be seen as
Politically Incorrect.
He claims indigenous “Negroid” populations occur in places like Australia,
India, Sri Lanka, the Philippines and the Andaman Islands not because they
moved there from Africa, but because all these land masses were once part
of Gondwanaland — and that all evolved separately. Whites, according to
Bakshi, are from Laurasia and blacks are from Gondwanaland. He argues
that, 60,000 years ago, humans could not have crossed vast oceans and
deserts to reach remote places like Australia and North America, and they
must therefore have evolved there.
http://www.articlesafari.com/2010/09/whites-asians-did-not-come-from-africa/
Blacks, whites and Asians
evolved separately: scientist
Blacks, whites and Asians have different ancestors —
and did not come from Africa, claims scientist
Geographer claims the races evolved from different ancestors
Article Safari Sunday, 12 September 2010
LONDON — A public claim by a fellow of the prestigious Royal Geographic
Society that humans did not all come from Africa — and that blacks,
whites and Asians have different ancestors — has been dismissed by
world experts as “dangerous,” “wrong” and “racist.”
In a paper widely trumpeted and due for release in book form, Akhil Bakshi,
the leader of a recent major scientific expedition supported by India’s prime
minister, claims that “Negroid”, “Caucasian” and “Mongoloid” peoples are
not only separate races but separate species, having evolved on different
continents.
Responding to the claims — developed while Bakshi led the Gondwanaland
expedition from India to South Africa — Professor Lee Berger, a leading
paleoanthropologist at the University of the Witwatersrand, immediately
insisted that, there were no fundamental differences between the races
and that all humans had the same genetic and physical roots in Africa.
ARE THERE RACIAL DIFFERENCES? — Shown clockwise here from the upper left:
An Aryan (Europid); Negroid; Levantine (Eastern Mediterranean); and Mongoloid.
The prevalent scientific theory of modern humans — the “Out of Africa”
model — is that they left Africa just 55,000 years ago and replaced
the last remnants of other ancient hominids living in Europe, Asia and
elsewhere. The old biological racial distinctions of “Caucasian,” “Negroid”
and “Mongoloid” have recently been abandoned by mainstream scientists
— removed, for instance, from the US National Library of Medicine in 2003.
Bakshi has become a self-declared champion of a minority scientific view
called “multiregionalism,” which claims that modern humans evolved from
separate hominid populations. Hominids encompass all humans and the
ancient family of human-like ancestors, including large-brained ancient
ancestors and unsuccessful species such as Neanderthals.
However, Bakshi — who has no training as an anthropologist — has linked
to this model a theory that these populations evolved according to the
genetic material left behind when the prehistoric supercontinents, the
northern Laurasia and the southern Gondwanaland, broke up. An influential
figure in India, Bakshi is also a filmmaker and author who has led four major
scientific expeditions since 1994. Bakshi admitted to the Sunday Times
that “some of my points may prove to be wrong, and may be seen as
Politically Incorrect.
He claims indigenous “Negroid” populations occur in places like Australia,
India, Sri Lanka, the Philippines and the Andaman Islands not because they
moved there from Africa, but because all these land masses were once part
of Gondwanaland — and that all evolved separately. Whites, according to
Bakshi, are from Laurasia and blacks are from Gondwanaland. He argues
that, 60,000 years ago, humans could not have crossed vast oceans and
deserts to reach remote places like Australia and North America, and they
must therefore have evolved there.
http://www.articlesafari.com/2010/09/whites-asians-did-not-come-from-africa/
Thursday, 14 October 2010
Ancient Aryan settlements found in Siberia
Ancient Aryan settlements found in Siberia
It is interesting to observe contemporary Iranians freely using the term
"Aryan." Here, in Zionist-controlled USA, it's virtually forbidden to speak
of Aryans, because we've all been taught that — essentially — there's
no such thing as an Aryan. Simply by altering the language, Jews have
rendered 19th-century common knowledge incomprehensible to 21st-
century Europeans and Americans. — S.S.
Aryan settlements found in Siberia
Press TV Tuesday, 5 Oct 2010
TEHRAN — Archaeologists have unearthed ancient settlements in southern
Siberia, which they believe were built by the original Aryan race about
4,000 years ago.
Some 20 of the spiral-shaped settlements were found in a remote area
bordering Kazakhstan and date back to the beginning of Western civilization
in Europe.
Experts say the Bronze-age structures might have been built by Aryans
shortly after the Great Pyramid was constructed some 4,000 years ago.
"Potentially, this could rival ancient Greece in the age of the heroes,"
Daily Mail quoted TV historian Bettany Hughes as saying.
"Because I have written a lot about the Bronze Age world, there always
seemed to be this huge missing piece of the jigsaw puzzle," she added.
Remains of the ancient city were first explored around 20 years ago and
studies showed that it would have housed between 1,000 and 200 people.
The language spoken by the Aryan people has been identified as the ancestor
of some modern European tongues. Some English words, for instance, such
as "brother," "oxen" and "guest" have been traced back to the Aryans.
"We are all told that there is this kind of mother tongue, proto-Indo-European,
from which all the languages we know emerge,” Hughes said.
"I was very excited to hear on the archaeological grapevine that in exactly
the period I am an expert in, this whole new Bronze Age civilization had been
discovered on the steppe of southern Siberia."
http://www.presstv.com/detail/145371.html
It is interesting to observe contemporary Iranians freely using the term
"Aryan." Here, in Zionist-controlled USA, it's virtually forbidden to speak
of Aryans, because we've all been taught that — essentially — there's
no such thing as an Aryan. Simply by altering the language, Jews have
rendered 19th-century common knowledge incomprehensible to 21st-
century Europeans and Americans. — S.S.
Aryan settlements found in Siberia
Press TV Tuesday, 5 Oct 2010
TEHRAN — Archaeologists have unearthed ancient settlements in southern
Siberia, which they believe were built by the original Aryan race about
4,000 years ago.
Some 20 of the spiral-shaped settlements were found in a remote area
bordering Kazakhstan and date back to the beginning of Western civilization
in Europe.
Experts say the Bronze-age structures might have been built by Aryans
shortly after the Great Pyramid was constructed some 4,000 years ago.
"Potentially, this could rival ancient Greece in the age of the heroes,"
Daily Mail quoted TV historian Bettany Hughes as saying.
"Because I have written a lot about the Bronze Age world, there always
seemed to be this huge missing piece of the jigsaw puzzle," she added.
Remains of the ancient city were first explored around 20 years ago and
studies showed that it would have housed between 1,000 and 200 people.
The language spoken by the Aryan people has been identified as the ancestor
of some modern European tongues. Some English words, for instance, such
as "brother," "oxen" and "guest" have been traced back to the Aryans.
"We are all told that there is this kind of mother tongue, proto-Indo-European,
from which all the languages we know emerge,” Hughes said.
"I was very excited to hear on the archaeological grapevine that in exactly
the period I am an expert in, this whole new Bronze Age civilization had been
discovered on the steppe of southern Siberia."
http://www.presstv.com/detail/145371.html
Wednesday, 13 October 2010
How WW2 started Jews attempt to censor UTUBE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad44wMVi8iU
How WW2 started Jews attempt to censor UTUBE
How WW2 started Jews attempt to censor UTUBE
Egalitarian Fallacy
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".
All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A...
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that state socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Could not be any simpler than that.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".
All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A...
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that state socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Could not be any simpler than that.
War Criminal's Memoirs The Marr Interview
Note: The thing to remember about any public institution which could conceivably privatised is that there will always be a fifth column within it waiting for the chance to expedite the process for personal profit. The BBC is no different in this matter for any other large public institution. RH
Why Murdoch And The BBC Are On The Same Side
By John Pilger
September 28, 2010 "Information Clearing House" ---- Britain is said to be approaching its Berlusconi Moment. That is to say, if Rupert Murdoch wins control of Sky he will command half the television and newspaper market and threaten what is known as public service broadcasting. Although the alarm is ringing, it is unlikely that any government will stop him while his court is packed with politicians of all parties.
The problem with this and other Murdoch scares is that, while one cannot doubt their gravity, they deflect from an unrecognised and more insidious threat to honest information. For all his power, Murdoch’s media is not respectable. Take the current colonial wars. In the United States, Murdoch’s Fox Television is almost cartoon-like in its warmongering. It is the august, tombstone New York Times, “the greatest newspaper in the world”, and others such as the once-celebrated Washington Post, that have given respectability to the lies and moral contortions of the “war on terror”, now recat as “perpetual war”.
In Britain, the liberal Observer performed this task in making respectable Tony Blair’s deceptions on Iraq. More importantly, so did the BBC, whose reputation is its power. In spite of one maverick reporter’s attempt to expose the so-called dodgy dossier, the BBC took Blair’s sophistry and lies on Iraq at face value.
This was made clear in studies by Cardiff University and the German-based Media Tenor. The BBC’s coverage, said the Cardiff study, was overwhelmingly “sympathetic to the government’s case”. According to Media Tenor, a mere two per cent of BBC news in the build-up to the invasion permitted anti-war voices to be heard. Compared with the main American networks, only CBS was more pro-war.
So when the BBC director-general Mark Thompson used the recent Edinburgh Television Festival to attack Murdoch, his hypocrisy was like a presence. Thompson is the embodiment of a taxpayer-funded managerial elite, for whom political reaction have long replaced public service. He has even laid into his own corporation, Murdoch-style, as “massively left-wing”. He was referring to the era of his 1960s predecessor Hugh Greene, who allowed artistic and journalistic freedom to flower at the BBC. Thompson is the opposite of Greene; and his aspersion on the past is in keeping with the BBC’s modern corporate role, reflected in the rewards demanded by those at the top. Thompson was paid £834,000 last year out of public funds and his 50 senior executives earn more than the prime minister, along with enriched journalists like Jeremy Paxman and Fiona Bruce.
Murdoch and the BBC share this corporatism. Blair, for example, was their quintessential politician. Prior to his election in 1997, Blair and his wife were flown first-class by Murdoch to Hayman Island in Australia where he stood at the Newscorp lectern and, in effect, pledged an obedient Labour administration. His coded message on media cross-ownership and de-regulation was that a way would be found for Murdoch to achieve the supremacy that now beckons.
Blair was embraced by the new BBC corporate class, which regards itself as meretorious and non-ideological: the natural leaders in a managerial Britain in which class is unspoken. Few did more to enunciate Blair’s “vision” than Andrew Marr, then a leading newspaper journalist and today the BBC’s ubiquitous voice of middle-class Britain. Just as Murdoch’s Sun declared in 1995 it shared the rising Blair’s “high moral values” so Marr, writing the Observer in 1999, lauded the new prime minister’s “substantial moral courage” and the “clear distinction in his mind between prudently protecting his power base and rashly using his power for high moral purpose”. What impressed Marr was Blair’s “utter lack of cynicism” along with his bombing of Yugoslavia which would “save lives”.
By March 2003, Marr was the BBC’s political editor. Standing in Downing Street on the night of the “shock and awe” assault on Iraq, he rejoiced at the vindication of Blair who, he said, had promised “to take Baghdad without a bloodbath, and that in end the Iraqis would be celebrating. And on both of those points he has been proved conclusively right” and as a result “tonight he stands as a larger man”. In fact, the criminal conquest of Iraq smashed a society, killing up to a million people, driving four million from their homes, contaminating cities like Fallujah with cancer-causing poisons and leaving a majority of young children malnourished in a country once described by Unicef as a “model”.
So it was entirely appropriate that Blair, in hawking his self-serving book, should select Marr for his “exclusive TV interview” on the BBC. The headline across the Observer’s review of the interview read, “Look who’s having the last laugh.” Beneath this was a picture of a beaming Blair sharing a laugh with Marr.
The interview produced not a single challenge that stopped Blair in his precocious, mendacious tracks. He was allowed to say that “absolutely clearly and unequivocally, the reason for toppling [Saddam Hussein] was his breach of resolutions over WMD, right?” No, wrong. A wealth of evidence, not least the infamous Downing Street Memo, makes clear that Blair secretly colluded with George W Bush to attack Iraq. This was not mentioned. At no point did Marr say to him, “You failed to persuade the UN Security Council to go along with the invasion. You and Bush went alone. Most of the world was outraged. Weren’t you aware that you were about to commit a monumental war crime?”
Instead, Blair used the convivial encounter to deceive, yet again, even to promote an attack on Iran, an outrage. Murdoch’s Fox would have differed in style only. The British public deserves better.
www.johnpilger.com
Why Murdoch And The BBC Are On The Same Side
By John Pilger
September 28, 2010 "Information Clearing House" ---- Britain is said to be approaching its Berlusconi Moment. That is to say, if Rupert Murdoch wins control of Sky he will command half the television and newspaper market and threaten what is known as public service broadcasting. Although the alarm is ringing, it is unlikely that any government will stop him while his court is packed with politicians of all parties.
The problem with this and other Murdoch scares is that, while one cannot doubt their gravity, they deflect from an unrecognised and more insidious threat to honest information. For all his power, Murdoch’s media is not respectable. Take the current colonial wars. In the United States, Murdoch’s Fox Television is almost cartoon-like in its warmongering. It is the august, tombstone New York Times, “the greatest newspaper in the world”, and others such as the once-celebrated Washington Post, that have given respectability to the lies and moral contortions of the “war on terror”, now recat as “perpetual war”.
In Britain, the liberal Observer performed this task in making respectable Tony Blair’s deceptions on Iraq. More importantly, so did the BBC, whose reputation is its power. In spite of one maverick reporter’s attempt to expose the so-called dodgy dossier, the BBC took Blair’s sophistry and lies on Iraq at face value.
This was made clear in studies by Cardiff University and the German-based Media Tenor. The BBC’s coverage, said the Cardiff study, was overwhelmingly “sympathetic to the government’s case”. According to Media Tenor, a mere two per cent of BBC news in the build-up to the invasion permitted anti-war voices to be heard. Compared with the main American networks, only CBS was more pro-war.
So when the BBC director-general Mark Thompson used the recent Edinburgh Television Festival to attack Murdoch, his hypocrisy was like a presence. Thompson is the embodiment of a taxpayer-funded managerial elite, for whom political reaction have long replaced public service. He has even laid into his own corporation, Murdoch-style, as “massively left-wing”. He was referring to the era of his 1960s predecessor Hugh Greene, who allowed artistic and journalistic freedom to flower at the BBC. Thompson is the opposite of Greene; and his aspersion on the past is in keeping with the BBC’s modern corporate role, reflected in the rewards demanded by those at the top. Thompson was paid £834,000 last year out of public funds and his 50 senior executives earn more than the prime minister, along with enriched journalists like Jeremy Paxman and Fiona Bruce.
Murdoch and the BBC share this corporatism. Blair, for example, was their quintessential politician. Prior to his election in 1997, Blair and his wife were flown first-class by Murdoch to Hayman Island in Australia where he stood at the Newscorp lectern and, in effect, pledged an obedient Labour administration. His coded message on media cross-ownership and de-regulation was that a way would be found for Murdoch to achieve the supremacy that now beckons.
Blair was embraced by the new BBC corporate class, which regards itself as meretorious and non-ideological: the natural leaders in a managerial Britain in which class is unspoken. Few did more to enunciate Blair’s “vision” than Andrew Marr, then a leading newspaper journalist and today the BBC’s ubiquitous voice of middle-class Britain. Just as Murdoch’s Sun declared in 1995 it shared the rising Blair’s “high moral values” so Marr, writing the Observer in 1999, lauded the new prime minister’s “substantial moral courage” and the “clear distinction in his mind between prudently protecting his power base and rashly using his power for high moral purpose”. What impressed Marr was Blair’s “utter lack of cynicism” along with his bombing of Yugoslavia which would “save lives”.
By March 2003, Marr was the BBC’s political editor. Standing in Downing Street on the night of the “shock and awe” assault on Iraq, he rejoiced at the vindication of Blair who, he said, had promised “to take Baghdad without a bloodbath, and that in end the Iraqis would be celebrating. And on both of those points he has been proved conclusively right” and as a result “tonight he stands as a larger man”. In fact, the criminal conquest of Iraq smashed a society, killing up to a million people, driving four million from their homes, contaminating cities like Fallujah with cancer-causing poisons and leaving a majority of young children malnourished in a country once described by Unicef as a “model”.
So it was entirely appropriate that Blair, in hawking his self-serving book, should select Marr for his “exclusive TV interview” on the BBC. The headline across the Observer’s review of the interview read, “Look who’s having the last laugh.” Beneath this was a picture of a beaming Blair sharing a laugh with Marr.
The interview produced not a single challenge that stopped Blair in his precocious, mendacious tracks. He was allowed to say that “absolutely clearly and unequivocally, the reason for toppling [Saddam Hussein] was his breach of resolutions over WMD, right?” No, wrong. A wealth of evidence, not least the infamous Downing Street Memo, makes clear that Blair secretly colluded with George W Bush to attack Iraq. This was not mentioned. At no point did Marr say to him, “You failed to persuade the UN Security Council to go along with the invasion. You and Bush went alone. Most of the world was outraged. Weren’t you aware that you were about to commit a monumental war crime?”
Instead, Blair used the convivial encounter to deceive, yet again, even to promote an attack on Iran, an outrage. Murdoch’s Fox would have differed in style only. The British public deserves better.
www.johnpilger.com
Monday, 4 October 2010
Joe Sobran remembered.
Joseph Sobran will go down as one of the better American journalists, if and when America gets a free press once again. He died just a few days ago, and his pointed and unbiased examinations of Israeli and Jewish lobby shenanigans, tied to the Judeo-Christian lobby, will be long cherished. Bill Buckley fired him from National Review rather than admit he spoke the truth, likely for fear of the Jews. I wonder today what he would have had to say about the firing of Cuban-American Rick Sanchez by CNN, for daring to expose John Stewart and the Jewish lords of the North-East liberal establishment that control the news, as hardly being victims, or poor. Vaya Con Dios, Andy
Subject: National Policy Institute
National Policy Institute
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jared Taylor Remembers Joe Sobran
Joe Sobran
By Jared Taylor
Joe Sobran, who left this world on Sept. 30, was perhaps the most brilliant man I have ever known. Not brilliant in all ways, of course, and even obtuse in some, but in his power to see the essential, to lay bare hypocrisy, to capture an idea with a turn of phrase, to mock with gentle humor, and to treat the heaviest subjects with the lightest touch, I have never met his equal and never expect to.
Like so many others, I first met Joe through his writing, specifically, his “Pensées: Notes for the Reactionary of Tomorrow,” which appeared in the December 31, 1985 issue of National Review. A friend had sent them to me, but I set them aside. The article ran for 35 magazine pages, for heaven’s sake, and I was put off by the murky title. My friend insisted, however, and so I first encountered the mind of Joe Sobran. Today the essay is only slighted dated by its Cold-War-era tone; its central wisdom and insights will never go stale. Joe cared about permanent things, and asked questions that demand answers. Here is just one: “What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?”
Joe was a very approachable man, however, and it was not long before we met at his house in a woodsy part of Arlington, Virginia. I will never forget two things about that first visit: the tip in which he lived, and the sparkle of his conversation. Practically every square inch of that house was knee deep in newspapers, books, letters, clothes—all in complete disorder. One got from room to room through narrow channels where bits of floor were still visible, but otherwise Joe lived in a landfill.
Like so many conversations I had with him since, I wish I had jotted down the dazzling observations he seemed to throw off so effortlessly. I remember two: “The purpose of a college education is to give you the correct view of minorities, and the means to live as far away from them as possible.” The other was a little story, which hinted at where his interests were heading, and that I will paraphrase as best I can remember it:
“There are lots of squirrels out here where I live. They are interesting little creatures, and I’d like to get to know them better. I suppose it’s natural for them to be suspicious of any animal that is so much bigger than they are, but you just can’t get close to them. They see anti-squirrilism everywhere.”
Later I also moved to Virginia, and Joe and I got better acquainted. We saw each other at conferences and meetings, and he must have been to my house for dinner a score of times. My wife grumbled that he came empty handed and never reciprocated. I tried to explain to her that there are limits to the entertaining powers of most middle-aged men, and that she would be risking her health to set foot in his house, anyway. I was always the debtor no matter how often he came to dinner. It was at one of those evenings that I heard another Sobranism I have often trotted out as if it were my own: “In their mating and migratory habits, liberals are indistinguishable from members of the Ku Klux Klan.”
It was this light touch, this sparkle that, I believe, lifted Joe’s writing from the merely admirable to the genuinely great. I write too, but if I really care about something, I get grimly serious, and the sentences scowl. Not Joe. He cared deeply about things—Lord, how he cared—but he could write about the most awful stuff with sentences that smiled. This was a gift Joe shared with only a very few: men like H. L. Mencken and Mark Twain. I
Subject: National Policy Institute
National Policy Institute
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jared Taylor Remembers Joe Sobran
Joe Sobran
By Jared Taylor
Joe Sobran, who left this world on Sept. 30, was perhaps the most brilliant man I have ever known. Not brilliant in all ways, of course, and even obtuse in some, but in his power to see the essential, to lay bare hypocrisy, to capture an idea with a turn of phrase, to mock with gentle humor, and to treat the heaviest subjects with the lightest touch, I have never met his equal and never expect to.
Like so many others, I first met Joe through his writing, specifically, his “Pensées: Notes for the Reactionary of Tomorrow,” which appeared in the December 31, 1985 issue of National Review. A friend had sent them to me, but I set them aside. The article ran for 35 magazine pages, for heaven’s sake, and I was put off by the murky title. My friend insisted, however, and so I first encountered the mind of Joe Sobran. Today the essay is only slighted dated by its Cold-War-era tone; its central wisdom and insights will never go stale. Joe cared about permanent things, and asked questions that demand answers. Here is just one: “What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?”
Joe was a very approachable man, however, and it was not long before we met at his house in a woodsy part of Arlington, Virginia. I will never forget two things about that first visit: the tip in which he lived, and the sparkle of his conversation. Practically every square inch of that house was knee deep in newspapers, books, letters, clothes—all in complete disorder. One got from room to room through narrow channels where bits of floor were still visible, but otherwise Joe lived in a landfill.
Like so many conversations I had with him since, I wish I had jotted down the dazzling observations he seemed to throw off so effortlessly. I remember two: “The purpose of a college education is to give you the correct view of minorities, and the means to live as far away from them as possible.” The other was a little story, which hinted at where his interests were heading, and that I will paraphrase as best I can remember it:
“There are lots of squirrels out here where I live. They are interesting little creatures, and I’d like to get to know them better. I suppose it’s natural for them to be suspicious of any animal that is so much bigger than they are, but you just can’t get close to them. They see anti-squirrilism everywhere.”
Later I also moved to Virginia, and Joe and I got better acquainted. We saw each other at conferences and meetings, and he must have been to my house for dinner a score of times. My wife grumbled that he came empty handed and never reciprocated. I tried to explain to her that there are limits to the entertaining powers of most middle-aged men, and that she would be risking her health to set foot in his house, anyway. I was always the debtor no matter how often he came to dinner. It was at one of those evenings that I heard another Sobranism I have often trotted out as if it were my own: “In their mating and migratory habits, liberals are indistinguishable from members of the Ku Klux Klan.”
It was this light touch, this sparkle that, I believe, lifted Joe’s writing from the merely admirable to the genuinely great. I write too, but if I really care about something, I get grimly serious, and the sentences scowl. Not Joe. He cared deeply about things—Lord, how he cared—but he could write about the most awful stuff with sentences that smiled. This was a gift Joe shared with only a very few: men like H. L. Mencken and Mark Twain. I
Rick Sanchez on Jewish Media Power
Rick Sanchez on Jewish Media Power
Edmund Connelly
October 3, 2010
How Jewish is Hollywood? That’s the question Los Angeles Times columnist Joel Stein asked two years ago just before Christmas. In answer, he wrote:
When the studio chiefs took out a full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times a few weeks ago to demand that the Screen Actors Guild settle its contract, the open letter was signed by: News Corp. President Peter Chernin (Jewish), Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey (Jewish), Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Robert Iger (Jewish), Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton (surprise, Dutch Jew), Warner Bros. Chairman Barry Meyer (Jewish), CBS Corp. Chief Executive Leslie Moonves (so Jewish his great uncle was the first prime minister of Israel), MGM Chairman Harry Sloan (Jewish) and NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker (mega-Jewish). If either of the Weinstein brothers had signed, this group would have not only the power to shut down all film production but to form a minyan with enough Fiji water on hand to fill a mikvah.
Funny guy, Joel Stein. But his point is important. To sum up, he wrote sarcastically, “The Jews are so dominant, I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. When I called them to talk about their incredible advancement, five of them refused to talk to me, apparently out of fear of insulting Jews. The sixth, AMC President Charlie Collier, turned out to be Jewish.”
Stein ended his column by saying, “As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood. Without us, you'd be flipping between ‘The 700 Club’ and ‘Davey and Goliath’ on TV all day.”
Needless to say, Stein was not fired for writing this, nor was he rebuked in the least. As we have seen time and again, there is a glaring double standard about alluding to Jewish power in the media. Jews are free to reference it, but woe unto the non-Jew who wades into those shark-infested waters.
We now have a very high visibility example of this double standard in action. As reported recently, “CNN anchor Rick Sanchez abruptly left the network Friday afternoon, just one day after making controversial comments on a satellite radio program. ‘Rick Sanchez is no longer with the company,’ according to a statement from CNN. ‘We thank Rick for his years of service and we wish him well.’”
Our editor Kevin MacDonald immediately picked up on this and commented in a blog called Joe Sobran was Right on Jewish Media Power:
In my post on Joe Sobran, 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.”
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 kind of media development is right up my alley, for my academic specialty is the impact Jews have on American media, especially film. While the firing of Mr. Sanchez is perhaps more high profile than previous instances, it is still part of an all-too-typical pattern.
While I’ve long explored how Jews have translated their own concerns into Hollywood and television fare, I’ve had to devote a fair amount of time to proving first that Jews in fact have immense power in American media. Among other things I’ve written toward this goal are essays in the print journal The Occidental Quarterly. One such essay was "The Jews of Prime Time"where I collected these examples of testimony of Jewish power:
Michael Medved, Orthodox Jew and author of Hollywood vs. America: “It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish power and prominence in popular culture . . . Any Martian monitoring American television . . . would view Seinfeld, Friends, The Nanny, Northern Exposure, Mad about You, and other shows and be surprised to learn that fewer than 1 in 40 Americans is Jewish.”
Brandies Professor Stephen J. Whitfield: “From its origins, Hollywood has been stamped with a Jewish identity, but nobody else was supposed to know about it. But somehow, no matter how thorough the attempt to suppress or disguise it, Jewishness is going to bob to the surface anyway.”
Author Stephen Schiff: “The way Steven Spielberg sees the world has become the way the world is communicated back to us every day.”
Neal Gabler, author of An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood, wrote that “The American Dream—is a Jewish invention.” As he documented: “The storefront theaters of the late teens were transformed into the movie palaces of the twenties by Jewish exhibitors. And when sound movies commandeered the industry, Hollywood was invaded by a battalion of Jewish writers, mostly from the East. The most powerful talent agencies were run by Jews. Jewish lawyers transacted most of the industry’s business and Jewish doctors ministered to the industry’s sick. Above all, Jews produced the movies.”
Because the double standard about revealing Jewish media power was so critical, I devoted a section to it called “Denial and Deception Regarding Jewish Power.”
Any number of Jewish observers are willing to acknowledge the immense power of Jews in American media, particularly in Hollywood film and television, although this view cannot yet be described as conventional wisdom as far as the general public is concerned. But for informed observers, identity always matters. InJews and the Left, Arthur Liebman observes that "one of the most important pieces of information a researcher can gather on a social movement is the socioeconomic composition of its membership.” The same can be said about the ethnic composition of those openly commenting on Jewish power in the media: they are overwhelmingly Jews themselves.
In contrast, Gentiles are routinely discouraged from noticing, yet alone analyzing, this phenomenon which is crucial in a democracy. As MacDonald notes, “Jewish groups have made any critical discussion of Jewish issues off limits, and that's vitally important because, yes, Jews are a very powerful group.”
It appears that a regime of silence has been imposed, with ample rewards going to those Gentiles willing to toe the party line and a graduated range of punishments being administered to those unwilling to abide by the established rules of discourse. Prominent examples have been cited by MacDonald et al., including the case of young British journalist William Cash. He is the one who, with innocent candor, noted the Hollywood presence of Michael Ovitz, Steven Spielberg, David Geffen, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Lew Wasserman, Sidney Sheinberg, Barry Diller, Gerald Levin, Herbert Allen and others and wrote of the Spielberg-Geffen-Katzenberg “Dream Team”: "But in one respect at least this particular combination of talents, or 'talent combo' in the local argot, will start out on the right foot. Like the old mogul founders of the early studios — and unlike most other failed build-your-own studio merchants — they are Jewish."
I recall how one defender of this secret, Vincent Brook, author of Something Ain’t Kosher Here, attempted to enforce this silence among non-Jews, applauding the fact that a group critical of some TV portrayals “refrained from reviving the old canard of Jewish media control.” Never mind that Brook’s book is all about Jewish prominence in Hollywood.
Brook followed this censure of Cash with a condemnation of Marlon Brando for his unsettling statements on Larry King Live, claiming that Jews run Hollywood and exploit stereotypes of minorities. "Hollywood is run by Jews, it is owned by Jews, but we never saw the kike because they know perfectly well that's where you draw the wagons around."
Two comments about Brando’s observation are in order. First, Brando could easily have added White Christians to the list of exploited Hollywood stereotypes, but perhaps his greatest insight was about the “kike.” Though an unfortunate choice of words, it did point to the fact that we do not begin to see in Hollywood fare even a fraction of the real behavior of real Jews.
The absence of any narrative of Jewish power—political, financial, academic—forces us to reconsider David Zurawik's concept of “surplus visibility” and its application to American media. Zurawik defined the sociological concept of “surplus visibility” as “the feeling among minority members and others that whatever members of that group say or do, it is too much and, moreover, they are being too conspicuous about it.” Zurawik accepts the conventional wisdom that membership in a “particular community of production” will result in less stereotypical images of that community and images “more representative of social reality.” The paradox he finds is that this “is not what happened with Jews and television.”
In my view, the Jewish “self-censorship” exhibited by important gatekeepers of TV programming such as William Paley, David Sarnoff, and Brandon Tartikoff can best be described as a form of deception in which Jewish producers of culture are highly conscious of the perceived interests of the Jewish community. The question “Is it good for the Jews?” is often uppermost in their thoughts. But almost without exception, these producers of culture refuse to depict Jews as they really are. Instead, the images are created in order to bolster the image of Jews among the goyim.
And yet Jews themselves often fail to see that the implications of the fact that images of Jews presented in the media are sanitized for public consumption. Jewish film critic Lester Friedman makes this error even though he acknowledges that Jews intensely police images of themselves: “Unlike films about other American minorities, movies with Jews were often scrutinized by one segment of that minority group with the power to decide how the entire group would be presented to society as a whole. The resulting images of Jews in films constitute a rich and varied tapestry woven by several generations of moviemakers responding to the world around them.”
Of course, this rich and varied tapestry is nothing more than a creative public relations campaign. In the old days, there were formal agreements between the Hollywood studios to subject their films to scrutiny by Jewish organizations.
In An Empire of Their Own, Neal Gabler describes how major Jewish organizations, such as the American Jewish Committee, the ADL, and the American Jewish Congress, developed a formal liaison with the studios by which depictions of Jews would be subjected to censorship. One such group stated in 1947 that “Jewish organizations have a clear and rightful interest in making sure that Hollywood films do not present Jews in such a way as to arouse prejudice. . . . In some cases, such pictures should be taken out of production entirely. In other cases, scripts should be edited carefully to eliminate questionable passages. Everything should be done to eliminate unfortunate stereotypes of the Jews.” Gabler describes several instances where scripts were altered to provide more positive portrayals of Jews. The activities of this group were not publicized, out of fear that it could result in “the charge that [a] Jewish group is trying to censor the industry,” which, as Gabler notes, “was exactly what it was trying to do” (p. 304).
We haven’t seen realistic visual portrayals of Jewish power and behavior because Jews in control know that far too many non-Jews imbibe their sense of reality from the visual media. It would most certainly be bad for the Jews to show what is actually going on. That is the whole reason for the taboo against Gentiles noting Jewish media power. I suppose the reason some Jews get away with it in print is that the audience for most print media is relatively small, so the risks are smaller, too. Film and TV, on the other hand, broadcast information to millions, if not tens of millions, at a time.
Here are some more examples of Jews who have discussed Jewish power in the media, from my “Understanding Hollywood” series.
Film critic Lester D. Friedman: “Indeed, from the very beginnings of the industry until the present, it is impossible to ignore the influence of Jews on the movie business or to overlook the importance of a Jewish consciousness in American films.”
Steven Silbiger, author of The Jewish Phenomenon: “The Jewish involvement in motion pictures is more than a success story; it is the basis of the disproportionate influence that Jews have had in shaping American popular culture.”
Silbiger again: “In addition to the corporate chieftains, a huge number of Jewish people participate in the entertainment industry. It has not been part of a grand scheme, but when an ethnic group becomes as heavily involved, and as successful, in a particular industry as Jewish people have been in movies, the group’s influence, connections and power produce a vast ripple effect, and other Jewish actors, writers, editors, technicians, directors, and producers follow in their footsteps.”
David Desser and Lester D. Friedman: “Regardless of a Jewish author’s past or present involvement with organized religion, current religious or cultural practices, and personal sense of group attachment or isolation, the underlying critical assumption is that the work of a Jewish writer must either overtly or covertly reflect a Jewish sensibility.”
In their book Jewtopia: The Chosen Book for the Chosen People, Bryan Fogel and Sam Wolfson confirm Jewish dominance in Hollywood, noting that of the ten major studios under discussion, nine were created by Jews (Walt Disney was a Gentile), and as of 2006 all ten studios were run by Jews. As they concluded: “Yes, we do control the movie studios. All Jews please report to the World Conspiracy Headquarters immediately (don’t forget to bring your pass code).” Playwright David Mamet confirmed this by adding, “For those who have not been paying attention, this group [Ashkenazi Jews] constitutes, and has constituted since its earliest days, the bulk of America’s movie directors and studio heads.”
(Incidentally, Fogel and Wolfson also did the same for American TV networks, finding a leadership figure of seventy-five percent. Discussing print media, they found that seven of ten major publications are run by Jews. “Conclusion: Jews have lots of opinions that they love to write about and charge you money to read! Cool.”)
Clearly, Jews are given the freedom to write about Jewish power if they like. But what would happen if someone who was only half-Jewish were to do so?
Olivers Stone is a case in point. The Wall Street Journal reported this past summer that Stone said that “public opinion was focused on the Holocaust because of ‘Jewish domination of the media.’” Stone also said that the Jews “stay on top of every comment, the most powerful lobby in Washington. Israel has f—– up United States foreign policy for years.”
Like so many others before him, Stone groveled: “In trying to make a broader historical point about the range of atrocities the Germans committed against many people, I made a clumsy association about the Holocaust, for which I am sorry and I regret. Jews obviously do not control media or any other industry.”
I think that qualifies perfectly as an example of Sobran’s paradox on Jewish power and how (not) to refer to it. Perhaps because he’s got one foot in the Tribe’s tent, however, Stone’s apology was quickly accepted. Said ADL National Director Abraham Foxman. “I believe he now understands the issues and where he was wrong, and this puts an end to the matter."
Goyim who violate this rule, though, fair worse. Writing about the recent Rick Sanchez affair, Steve Sailer reminds us how Gregg Easterbrook was punished for his informational transgression. Recall back in 2003 how Easterbrook had written:
Set aside what it says about Hollywood that today even Disney thinks what the public needs is ever-more-graphic depictions of killing the innocent as cool amusement. Disney's CEO, Michael Eisner, is Jewish; the chief of Miramax, Harvey Weinstein, is Jewish. Yes, there are plenty of Christian and other Hollywood executives who worship money above all else, promoting for profit the adulation of violence. Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence? Recent European history alone ought to cause Jewish executives to experience second thoughts about glorifying the killing of the helpless as a fun lifestyle choice.
Apologies or not, Disney, the parent of ESPN, fired Easterbrook.
In his blog, MacDonald summed up current unspoken rules nicely:
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.
As emphasized here, however, not everyone who calls attention to Jewish media power is fired or forced to grovel. Jews who proudly call attention to Jewish media power get a free pass. And that fact is yet another indication of the enormity of Jewish power in America.
Edmund Connelly (email him) is a freelance writer, academic, and expert on the cinema arts. He has previously written for The Occidental Quarterly.
Permanent Link: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Connelly-Rick-Sanchez-Jews-Media-Power.html
Edmund Connelly
October 3, 2010
How Jewish is Hollywood? That’s the question Los Angeles Times columnist Joel Stein asked two years ago just before Christmas. In answer, he wrote:
When the studio chiefs took out a full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times a few weeks ago to demand that the Screen Actors Guild settle its contract, the open letter was signed by: News Corp. President Peter Chernin (Jewish), Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey (Jewish), Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Robert Iger (Jewish), Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton (surprise, Dutch Jew), Warner Bros. Chairman Barry Meyer (Jewish), CBS Corp. Chief Executive Leslie Moonves (so Jewish his great uncle was the first prime minister of Israel), MGM Chairman Harry Sloan (Jewish) and NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker (mega-Jewish). If either of the Weinstein brothers had signed, this group would have not only the power to shut down all film production but to form a minyan with enough Fiji water on hand to fill a mikvah.
Funny guy, Joel Stein. But his point is important. To sum up, he wrote sarcastically, “The Jews are so dominant, I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. When I called them to talk about their incredible advancement, five of them refused to talk to me, apparently out of fear of insulting Jews. The sixth, AMC President Charlie Collier, turned out to be Jewish.”
Stein ended his column by saying, “As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood. Without us, you'd be flipping between ‘The 700 Club’ and ‘Davey and Goliath’ on TV all day.”
Needless to say, Stein was not fired for writing this, nor was he rebuked in the least. As we have seen time and again, there is a glaring double standard about alluding to Jewish power in the media. Jews are free to reference it, but woe unto the non-Jew who wades into those shark-infested waters.
We now have a very high visibility example of this double standard in action. As reported recently, “CNN anchor Rick Sanchez abruptly left the network Friday afternoon, just one day after making controversial comments on a satellite radio program. ‘Rick Sanchez is no longer with the company,’ according to a statement from CNN. ‘We thank Rick for his years of service and we wish him well.’”
Our editor Kevin MacDonald immediately picked up on this and commented in a blog called Joe Sobran was Right on Jewish Media Power:
In my post on Joe Sobran, 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.”
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 kind of media development is right up my alley, for my academic specialty is the impact Jews have on American media, especially film. While the firing of Mr. Sanchez is perhaps more high profile than previous instances, it is still part of an all-too-typical pattern.
While I’ve long explored how Jews have translated their own concerns into Hollywood and television fare, I’ve had to devote a fair amount of time to proving first that Jews in fact have immense power in American media. Among other things I’ve written toward this goal are essays in the print journal The Occidental Quarterly. One such essay was "The Jews of Prime Time"where I collected these examples of testimony of Jewish power:
Michael Medved, Orthodox Jew and author of Hollywood vs. America: “It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish power and prominence in popular culture . . . Any Martian monitoring American television . . . would view Seinfeld, Friends, The Nanny, Northern Exposure, Mad about You, and other shows and be surprised to learn that fewer than 1 in 40 Americans is Jewish.”
Brandies Professor Stephen J. Whitfield: “From its origins, Hollywood has been stamped with a Jewish identity, but nobody else was supposed to know about it. But somehow, no matter how thorough the attempt to suppress or disguise it, Jewishness is going to bob to the surface anyway.”
Author Stephen Schiff: “The way Steven Spielberg sees the world has become the way the world is communicated back to us every day.”
Neal Gabler, author of An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood, wrote that “The American Dream—is a Jewish invention.” As he documented: “The storefront theaters of the late teens were transformed into the movie palaces of the twenties by Jewish exhibitors. And when sound movies commandeered the industry, Hollywood was invaded by a battalion of Jewish writers, mostly from the East. The most powerful talent agencies were run by Jews. Jewish lawyers transacted most of the industry’s business and Jewish doctors ministered to the industry’s sick. Above all, Jews produced the movies.”
Because the double standard about revealing Jewish media power was so critical, I devoted a section to it called “Denial and Deception Regarding Jewish Power.”
Any number of Jewish observers are willing to acknowledge the immense power of Jews in American media, particularly in Hollywood film and television, although this view cannot yet be described as conventional wisdom as far as the general public is concerned. But for informed observers, identity always matters. InJews and the Left, Arthur Liebman observes that "one of the most important pieces of information a researcher can gather on a social movement is the socioeconomic composition of its membership.” The same can be said about the ethnic composition of those openly commenting on Jewish power in the media: they are overwhelmingly Jews themselves.
In contrast, Gentiles are routinely discouraged from noticing, yet alone analyzing, this phenomenon which is crucial in a democracy. As MacDonald notes, “Jewish groups have made any critical discussion of Jewish issues off limits, and that's vitally important because, yes, Jews are a very powerful group.”
It appears that a regime of silence has been imposed, with ample rewards going to those Gentiles willing to toe the party line and a graduated range of punishments being administered to those unwilling to abide by the established rules of discourse. Prominent examples have been cited by MacDonald et al., including the case of young British journalist William Cash. He is the one who, with innocent candor, noted the Hollywood presence of Michael Ovitz, Steven Spielberg, David Geffen, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Lew Wasserman, Sidney Sheinberg, Barry Diller, Gerald Levin, Herbert Allen and others and wrote of the Spielberg-Geffen-Katzenberg “Dream Team”: "But in one respect at least this particular combination of talents, or 'talent combo' in the local argot, will start out on the right foot. Like the old mogul founders of the early studios — and unlike most other failed build-your-own studio merchants — they are Jewish."
I recall how one defender of this secret, Vincent Brook, author of Something Ain’t Kosher Here, attempted to enforce this silence among non-Jews, applauding the fact that a group critical of some TV portrayals “refrained from reviving the old canard of Jewish media control.” Never mind that Brook’s book is all about Jewish prominence in Hollywood.
Brook followed this censure of Cash with a condemnation of Marlon Brando for his unsettling statements on Larry King Live, claiming that Jews run Hollywood and exploit stereotypes of minorities. "Hollywood is run by Jews, it is owned by Jews, but we never saw the kike because they know perfectly well that's where you draw the wagons around."
Two comments about Brando’s observation are in order. First, Brando could easily have added White Christians to the list of exploited Hollywood stereotypes, but perhaps his greatest insight was about the “kike.” Though an unfortunate choice of words, it did point to the fact that we do not begin to see in Hollywood fare even a fraction of the real behavior of real Jews.
The absence of any narrative of Jewish power—political, financial, academic—forces us to reconsider David Zurawik's concept of “surplus visibility” and its application to American media. Zurawik defined the sociological concept of “surplus visibility” as “the feeling among minority members and others that whatever members of that group say or do, it is too much and, moreover, they are being too conspicuous about it.” Zurawik accepts the conventional wisdom that membership in a “particular community of production” will result in less stereotypical images of that community and images “more representative of social reality.” The paradox he finds is that this “is not what happened with Jews and television.”
In my view, the Jewish “self-censorship” exhibited by important gatekeepers of TV programming such as William Paley, David Sarnoff, and Brandon Tartikoff can best be described as a form of deception in which Jewish producers of culture are highly conscious of the perceived interests of the Jewish community. The question “Is it good for the Jews?” is often uppermost in their thoughts. But almost without exception, these producers of culture refuse to depict Jews as they really are. Instead, the images are created in order to bolster the image of Jews among the goyim.
And yet Jews themselves often fail to see that the implications of the fact that images of Jews presented in the media are sanitized for public consumption. Jewish film critic Lester Friedman makes this error even though he acknowledges that Jews intensely police images of themselves: “Unlike films about other American minorities, movies with Jews were often scrutinized by one segment of that minority group with the power to decide how the entire group would be presented to society as a whole. The resulting images of Jews in films constitute a rich and varied tapestry woven by several generations of moviemakers responding to the world around them.”
Of course, this rich and varied tapestry is nothing more than a creative public relations campaign. In the old days, there were formal agreements between the Hollywood studios to subject their films to scrutiny by Jewish organizations.
In An Empire of Their Own, Neal Gabler describes how major Jewish organizations, such as the American Jewish Committee, the ADL, and the American Jewish Congress, developed a formal liaison with the studios by which depictions of Jews would be subjected to censorship. One such group stated in 1947 that “Jewish organizations have a clear and rightful interest in making sure that Hollywood films do not present Jews in such a way as to arouse prejudice. . . . In some cases, such pictures should be taken out of production entirely. In other cases, scripts should be edited carefully to eliminate questionable passages. Everything should be done to eliminate unfortunate stereotypes of the Jews.” Gabler describes several instances where scripts were altered to provide more positive portrayals of Jews. The activities of this group were not publicized, out of fear that it could result in “the charge that [a] Jewish group is trying to censor the industry,” which, as Gabler notes, “was exactly what it was trying to do” (p. 304).
We haven’t seen realistic visual portrayals of Jewish power and behavior because Jews in control know that far too many non-Jews imbibe their sense of reality from the visual media. It would most certainly be bad for the Jews to show what is actually going on. That is the whole reason for the taboo against Gentiles noting Jewish media power. I suppose the reason some Jews get away with it in print is that the audience for most print media is relatively small, so the risks are smaller, too. Film and TV, on the other hand, broadcast information to millions, if not tens of millions, at a time.
Here are some more examples of Jews who have discussed Jewish power in the media, from my “Understanding Hollywood” series.
Film critic Lester D. Friedman: “Indeed, from the very beginnings of the industry until the present, it is impossible to ignore the influence of Jews on the movie business or to overlook the importance of a Jewish consciousness in American films.”
Steven Silbiger, author of The Jewish Phenomenon: “The Jewish involvement in motion pictures is more than a success story; it is the basis of the disproportionate influence that Jews have had in shaping American popular culture.”
Silbiger again: “In addition to the corporate chieftains, a huge number of Jewish people participate in the entertainment industry. It has not been part of a grand scheme, but when an ethnic group becomes as heavily involved, and as successful, in a particular industry as Jewish people have been in movies, the group’s influence, connections and power produce a vast ripple effect, and other Jewish actors, writers, editors, technicians, directors, and producers follow in their footsteps.”
David Desser and Lester D. Friedman: “Regardless of a Jewish author’s past or present involvement with organized religion, current religious or cultural practices, and personal sense of group attachment or isolation, the underlying critical assumption is that the work of a Jewish writer must either overtly or covertly reflect a Jewish sensibility.”
In their book Jewtopia: The Chosen Book for the Chosen People, Bryan Fogel and Sam Wolfson confirm Jewish dominance in Hollywood, noting that of the ten major studios under discussion, nine were created by Jews (Walt Disney was a Gentile), and as of 2006 all ten studios were run by Jews. As they concluded: “Yes, we do control the movie studios. All Jews please report to the World Conspiracy Headquarters immediately (don’t forget to bring your pass code).” Playwright David Mamet confirmed this by adding, “For those who have not been paying attention, this group [Ashkenazi Jews] constitutes, and has constituted since its earliest days, the bulk of America’s movie directors and studio heads.”
(Incidentally, Fogel and Wolfson also did the same for American TV networks, finding a leadership figure of seventy-five percent. Discussing print media, they found that seven of ten major publications are run by Jews. “Conclusion: Jews have lots of opinions that they love to write about and charge you money to read! Cool.”)
Clearly, Jews are given the freedom to write about Jewish power if they like. But what would happen if someone who was only half-Jewish were to do so?
Olivers Stone is a case in point. The Wall Street Journal reported this past summer that Stone said that “public opinion was focused on the Holocaust because of ‘Jewish domination of the media.’” Stone also said that the Jews “stay on top of every comment, the most powerful lobby in Washington. Israel has f—– up United States foreign policy for years.”
Like so many others before him, Stone groveled: “In trying to make a broader historical point about the range of atrocities the Germans committed against many people, I made a clumsy association about the Holocaust, for which I am sorry and I regret. Jews obviously do not control media or any other industry.”
I think that qualifies perfectly as an example of Sobran’s paradox on Jewish power and how (not) to refer to it. Perhaps because he’s got one foot in the Tribe’s tent, however, Stone’s apology was quickly accepted. Said ADL National Director Abraham Foxman. “I believe he now understands the issues and where he was wrong, and this puts an end to the matter."
Goyim who violate this rule, though, fair worse. Writing about the recent Rick Sanchez affair, Steve Sailer reminds us how Gregg Easterbrook was punished for his informational transgression. Recall back in 2003 how Easterbrook had written:
Set aside what it says about Hollywood that today even Disney thinks what the public needs is ever-more-graphic depictions of killing the innocent as cool amusement. Disney's CEO, Michael Eisner, is Jewish; the chief of Miramax, Harvey Weinstein, is Jewish. Yes, there are plenty of Christian and other Hollywood executives who worship money above all else, promoting for profit the adulation of violence. Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence? Recent European history alone ought to cause Jewish executives to experience second thoughts about glorifying the killing of the helpless as a fun lifestyle choice.
Apologies or not, Disney, the parent of ESPN, fired Easterbrook.
In his blog, MacDonald summed up current unspoken rules nicely:
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.
As emphasized here, however, not everyone who calls attention to Jewish media power is fired or forced to grovel. Jews who proudly call attention to Jewish media power get a free pass. And that fact is yet another indication of the enormity of Jewish power in America.
Edmund Connelly (email him) is a freelance writer, academic, and expert on the cinema arts. He has previously written for The Occidental Quarterly.
Permanent Link: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Connelly-Rick-Sanchez-Jews-Media-Power.html
Sunday, 3 October 2010
JEWS AND FREE SPEECH INCOMPATIBLE
ISRAEL'S "CYBER-WARRIORS" KNOCK DUKE OFF YOUTUBE
By Rev. Ted Pike
3 Oct 10
The Internet was probably the least foreseen of events challenging ADL/Israel’s agenda for world control. Leaping across previously Jewish-dominated media boundaries, the worldwide web has given people of conscience unfettered privileges to criticize Jewish supremacism and misbehavior of the state of Israel.
However, in my April 27 article, “Israeli Cyber-Warriors Crash Internet,” I detail how Israel, unable to legitimately dispel overwhelming world criticism, has been marshalling hundreds of thousands of Jews worldwide into an army of internet “cyber-warriors.” These act in unison to skew polls about Israel and disproportionately flood the internet with opinion favorable to the Jewish state – and against its critics. Israel is also known to engage in active cyber-terrorism against its opponents, such as its sabotage of Syrian cyber-space preceding its September 6, 2007 aerial attack on Syria’s insipient nuclear program. The PBS news hour last week said that the particularly perverse Stuxnet worm virus, spread worldwide but heavily concentrated in Iran, probably originated in Israel.
Last week, after flooding YouTube with thousands of emails critical of David Duke, the Jewish Internet Task Force persuaded it to remove his videos. JITF claims to “promote Jewish pride,” and “Israel advocacy” and to “support Israel and fight Jew hatred and terrorism online.” Its victory announcement claims to possess “A massive, active, pro-Israel-Jewish audience…of over 270,000.” JITF boasts that Duke is only one of “THOUSANDS of channels we have been directly responsible for removing.” Any start-up Jewish organization with that level of participation is, by definition, orchestrated from Israel and supported by a myriad of Zionist groups worldwide.
Duke: First Domino to Fall?
After Canada passed ADL/B’nai B’rith’s hate law in 1971, the Jewish Gestapo’s strategy was to first indict those least in favor with Canadians: holocaust questioners and racists. While Duke is increasingly listened to on the far right, he will receive little sympathy in this controversy from mainstream Christian/conservatives who have been deeply imprinted with the negative stereotype of his KKK past and animus against blacks. Yet, in viewing several of his recent YouTube videos, I found everything he said to be factual and logical, without anything that could legitimately be described as racist or anti-semitic.
Knocking Duke off YouTube represents a significant starting point for the Israel-directed JITF and other Jewish groups in their attempts to force off many other internet videos including those of Brother Nathanial Kapner and myself. More mainline Christian/conservatives, however, should be aware that just as B’nai B’rith Canada graduated to persecution of Christians after the turn of the century—indicting their real quarry: pastors, churches, church schools, pro-lifers, etc, the same will happen if Jewish cyber-censors are allowed to effectively control the internet. JITF says it also is bombarding Google, who may soon make the same decision, accepting Israel’s definition of “hate,” “anti-semitism,” and even “terrorist sympathizers,” as all who criticize Israel.
It is vital NOW that these internet media giants realize they are being pressured by an Israeli-inspired propaganda campaign—not by honest objections from most internet users. We must convince YouTube, Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc., that the world, in fact, deeply appreciates honest criticism of Jewish supremacism and human rights abuses by Israel. Such expression is not hateful or anti-semitic. If we do not speak out, eventually it will be anyone who represents an evangelical, populist, America-first agenda who will become the enemy of Israeli cyber-warriors.
There is no time to lose. Send this email (or your own thoughts) to YouTube (press@youtube.com) telling them:
“I deplore YouTube’s censorship of David Duke and others like him, in response to Israeli-directed pressure groups. Freedom of speech should extend to those we disagree with, as long as their opinions are not libelous or advocate violence. I demand that YouTube reverse its censorship and reinstate Duke. I also demand that Google resist pressure to demonize as “anti-semitic” videos and content critical of Israeli injustices.”
Speak out boldly in criticism of YouTube on every internet and talk radio forum you can.
If good people allow freedom of speech to be taken from one, they empower evil to take it from all.
Protest now!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rev. Ted Pike is director of the National Prayer Network, a Christian/conservative watchdog organization.
TALK SHOW HOSTS: Interview Rev. Ted Pike on this subject. Call (503) 631-3808.
The freedom-saving outreach of Rev. Ted Pike and the National Prayer Network is solely supported by sale of books, videos and your financial support. All gifts are tax-deductible.
By Rev. Ted Pike
3 Oct 10
The Internet was probably the least foreseen of events challenging ADL/Israel’s agenda for world control. Leaping across previously Jewish-dominated media boundaries, the worldwide web has given people of conscience unfettered privileges to criticize Jewish supremacism and misbehavior of the state of Israel.
However, in my April 27 article, “Israeli Cyber-Warriors Crash Internet,” I detail how Israel, unable to legitimately dispel overwhelming world criticism, has been marshalling hundreds of thousands of Jews worldwide into an army of internet “cyber-warriors.” These act in unison to skew polls about Israel and disproportionately flood the internet with opinion favorable to the Jewish state – and against its critics. Israel is also known to engage in active cyber-terrorism against its opponents, such as its sabotage of Syrian cyber-space preceding its September 6, 2007 aerial attack on Syria’s insipient nuclear program. The PBS news hour last week said that the particularly perverse Stuxnet worm virus, spread worldwide but heavily concentrated in Iran, probably originated in Israel.
Last week, after flooding YouTube with thousands of emails critical of David Duke, the Jewish Internet Task Force persuaded it to remove his videos. JITF claims to “promote Jewish pride,” and “Israel advocacy” and to “support Israel and fight Jew hatred and terrorism online.” Its victory announcement claims to possess “A massive, active, pro-Israel-Jewish audience…of over 270,000.” JITF boasts that Duke is only one of “THOUSANDS of channels we have been directly responsible for removing.” Any start-up Jewish organization with that level of participation is, by definition, orchestrated from Israel and supported by a myriad of Zionist groups worldwide.
Duke: First Domino to Fall?
After Canada passed ADL/B’nai B’rith’s hate law in 1971, the Jewish Gestapo’s strategy was to first indict those least in favor with Canadians: holocaust questioners and racists. While Duke is increasingly listened to on the far right, he will receive little sympathy in this controversy from mainstream Christian/conservatives who have been deeply imprinted with the negative stereotype of his KKK past and animus against blacks. Yet, in viewing several of his recent YouTube videos, I found everything he said to be factual and logical, without anything that could legitimately be described as racist or anti-semitic.
Knocking Duke off YouTube represents a significant starting point for the Israel-directed JITF and other Jewish groups in their attempts to force off many other internet videos including those of Brother Nathanial Kapner and myself. More mainline Christian/conservatives, however, should be aware that just as B’nai B’rith Canada graduated to persecution of Christians after the turn of the century—indicting their real quarry: pastors, churches, church schools, pro-lifers, etc, the same will happen if Jewish cyber-censors are allowed to effectively control the internet. JITF says it also is bombarding Google, who may soon make the same decision, accepting Israel’s definition of “hate,” “anti-semitism,” and even “terrorist sympathizers,” as all who criticize Israel.
It is vital NOW that these internet media giants realize they are being pressured by an Israeli-inspired propaganda campaign—not by honest objections from most internet users. We must convince YouTube, Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc., that the world, in fact, deeply appreciates honest criticism of Jewish supremacism and human rights abuses by Israel. Such expression is not hateful or anti-semitic. If we do not speak out, eventually it will be anyone who represents an evangelical, populist, America-first agenda who will become the enemy of Israeli cyber-warriors.
There is no time to lose. Send this email (or your own thoughts) to YouTube (press@youtube.com) telling them:
“I deplore YouTube’s censorship of David Duke and others like him, in response to Israeli-directed pressure groups. Freedom of speech should extend to those we disagree with, as long as their opinions are not libelous or advocate violence. I demand that YouTube reverse its censorship and reinstate Duke. I also demand that Google resist pressure to demonize as “anti-semitic” videos and content critical of Israeli injustices.”
Speak out boldly in criticism of YouTube on every internet and talk radio forum you can.
If good people allow freedom of speech to be taken from one, they empower evil to take it from all.
Protest now!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rev. Ted Pike is director of the National Prayer Network, a Christian/conservative watchdog organization.
TALK SHOW HOSTS: Interview Rev. Ted Pike on this subject. Call (503) 631-3808.
The freedom-saving outreach of Rev. Ted Pike and the National Prayer Network is solely supported by sale of books, videos and your financial support. All gifts are tax-deductible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)