.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
The Expansionist
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
So, That's What Jews Think. What Do Americans Think? I am very tired of all the Jews in the panels of pundits put together by media. There is almost never a newstalk panel that does not include Jews. Let's be clear: Jews comprise only 2% of the U.S. population. They should thus be no more numerous than 1 in 50 commentators on the air. In reality, they are at least 1 in 4, and sometimes 2 out of 3 in panels of pundits. Why is that?
Larry King, a Jew, convenes a panel of 3 to discuss Topic X. One of those 3 is also a Jew, which is already too many. Added to Larry King, the panel is 50% Jewish: in such an instance, Jews are 25 TIMES too numerous.
I tune in to a discussion of the Democratic Convention on CNN. There is a panel of 3 pundits, including Mort Zuckerman and David Gergen. If, as I believe I read some years ago, David Gergen is Jewish, 2/3 of this panel is Jewish, 33 TIMES the appropriate level for Jews in evaluating public opinion. Again and again we are lectured by the Jews. How big is the problem? Here's a list from a Liberal Jew who resents the way Jewish opinion is misrepresented in media, as in being superhawkish on all things Mideast:

Irving Kristol, William Kristol, Seth Lipsky, Martin Peretz, Norman Podhoretz, John Podhoretz, Richard Perle, Richard Cohen, Mortimer Zuckerman, Alan Dershowitz, Jeffrey Goldberg, Lawrence Kaplan, Charles Krauthammer, David Horowitz, Jonah Goldberg, David Gelernter, Ruth Wisse, David Brooks and David Frum.
The last-named, David Frum — whom NNDB.com credits as the speechwriter who coined Dumbya's term "Axis of Evil" — is also Canadian (as was Charles Krauthammer until he was naturalized), so should not be regarded as a spokesman for AMERICAN Jews. This also poses the question of why a U.S. President is hiring CANADIANS to write speeches. If even the U.S. Government is hiring foreigners, what jobs can Americans expect to get?
The compiler of that list, Eric Alterman, in The Nation December 20, 2007, expresses concern that the Jewish "usual suspects" put on-air or interviewed for print stories by media, do damage to American Jews in misrepresenting the larger Jewish community's generally much more liberal and much less hawkish views.
Given the scare tactics the neocons routinely employ — from their frequent deployment of the intellectually vacuous term "Islamofascism," to Perle and Frum's warning that the nation's only choice is "victory or holocaust"--it is a remarkable tribute to the good sense of American Jewry that it remains a bastion of liberal humanism despite such naked attempts to manipulate longstanding fears and insecurities.
But what of the damage such Jewish pundits do the Nation more generally? Add to Alterman's list of Jewish pundits endlessly on the air some other pundits/political comedians:

Jonathan Alter
Lewis Black
Howard Fineman
Thomas Friedman
Mark Green
Paul Krugman
Dick Morris
Dennis Prager
Geraldo Rivera
Steven Roberts
William Safire
Gloria Steinem
Jon Stewart
In a class by himself is Matt Drudge of the Drudge Report website.
It's not always possible to find the religion of public people (or their ancestral religion, in which not presently religious people were raised) . That information is sometimes suppressed by the persons themselves or by media that don't want to point it out. Often, tho, people whose religion is not given in places like NNDB.com are Jewish or were born Jewish but may not presently be religious, so do not call themselves Jewish, even tho their upbringing affects (dominates) their worldview.
I believe, for instance, that I saw somewhere years ago that David Gergen was Jewish, but now I see no religion assigned to his entry in NNDB. Same with Neal Gabler, an author about Jews in media whose specialized interest in that subject (e.g., his book An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood) suggests most powerfully that he was raised Jewish.
The open and secret Jews who pop up in panels on all topics, from politics to celebrities, seriously affect public opinion. A large number of prominent film critics are Jewish (e.g., Leonard Maltin, Michael Medved, the late Joel Siegel, Jeffrey Lyons), so we are supposed to take our ideas about filmmaking from Jews.
Why, exactly, so much of U.S. opinion should be affected by Jews is not openly discussed in most places. The website VDARE, however, did address it April8, 2007. [ ]

In their 1995 book Jews and the New American Scene, the late Seymour Martin Lipset of the Wilstein Institute for Jewish Policy Studies and Earl Raab of the Perlmutter Institute for Jewish Advocacy pointed out that, while Jews had comprised only about three or four percent of American adults,
"…during the last three decades, Jews have made up 50% of the top two hundred intellectuals, … 20 percent of professors at the leading universities, … 26% of the reporters, editors, and executives of the major print and broadcast media, 59 percent of the directors, writers, and producers of the fifty top-grossing motion pictures from 1965 to 1982, and 58 percent of directors, writers, and producers in two or more primetime television series." [pp 26-27]
The reference to 3- or 4% is presumably inaccurate, since Jews overall comprise less than 2% of the U.S. population. How the CIA World Factbook defines "Jewish" for this purpose, I do not know.
The suggestion in the VDARE item that Jews are smarter than other people is dubious at best, even given the supposition that inbreeding intensified certain good qualities as well as multiplied genetic defects. IQ tests are notoriously dependent upon language, which in turn is dependent upon learning, not inborn aptitude. So a group that puts great stress upon reading-heavy education can be expected to do well on IQ tests.
A better explanation for why there are so many Jews in academia and media is also far simpler: mutual assistance, ethnoreligious "affirmative action", whereby Jews who have "arrived" bring their own kind in, in preference to people outside the group. It is still true, in almost every area of human endeavor, that WHOM you know is more important than WHAT you know, and having "a friend in the business" or a "contact" is crucial to one person's success as against another's. Thus, when it comes time to cast a film, Jewish casting directors and Jewish filmmakers choose Jews in preference to non-Jews. When it comes to deciding which books to publish and which to pass on, Jewish editors and publishing executives favor other Jews. Then the Jewish-selected authors/actors/etc. go on Jewish-controlled media to promote those books/films/what-have-you, so again Jews favor Jews.
Over time, the circle of Jews in positions of power grows, and the number of Jews favored grows, at the same time as non-Jews are passed over (you should pardon the expression) and the number of their non-Jewish contacts in this industry or that shrinks. It's a self-extending phenomenon. How else do you explain the success of minimally talented people like Adam Sandler and Jack Black? They are hired even for animated films, where their voice often isn't even recognized. Meanwhile, unknown Christian, Moslem, Hindu, etc., actors are shut out. The same few Jews are given multiple jobs; the vast unemployed horde of Gentile actors who don't know anybody in the business can't get a foot in the door.
Thus it is that the United States hears endlessly what Jews want us to hear; reads what Jews want us to read; sees on TV and in films what Jews want us to see. We derive our ideas about politics from a hugely disproportionately Jewish punditocracy, and hear reviews of films, books, and TV shows from Jewish critics. What do the rest of us, that insignificant 98% of the Nation that is not Jewish, think, feel, or want? Who cares? Not media, that's for sure.
More AIDS Bullsh(asterisk). AOL hilited today a story from Britain about poor inbred Scottish hemophiliacs supposedly dropping like flies from AIDS because they got contaminated Factor VIII. Unfortunately for this storyline, the story speaks of one such hemophiliac who was 'infected with AIDS' as early as 1980 but was perfectly healthy until nearly 2000, without even knowing he had 'AIDS' — but really only "HIV" — and didn't take any anti-HIV drugs in all that time. He is still alive now, some 28 years(!) after being given this "death sentence" (and yes, the news story does use that exact language). We are to believe that the hemophiliacs in Britain would have lived a long, healthy life if they had not been 'infected with AIDS', because hemophilia is trivia. No, hemophilia is FATAL. People with severe hemophilia have ALWAYS died young, but you are not to think about that. Nor are you to think about the fact that less than 1/3 of the 'infected' British hemophiliacs have died — in nearly three decades.
Further, all the time this man was supposedly "infected with AIDS", he continued to have normal sexual relations with his wife, and — guess what! — she did NOT become "infected with AIDS", even tho HIV is supposed to be readily transmitted thru sexual fluids. Why is that? You are not to ask. How many wives of the 'infected' hemophiliacs died from "AIDS"? before they took supposed anti-HIV/anti-AIDS drugs? after they started taking such drugs? You are not to ask, and you won't be told. The word "wives" does not appear in the news story. The only wife we are told about is this one man's wife, and she is HIV-negative. Nonetheless, the article ends with this astounding bit of idiocy:

he spoke quietly when he spoke at all, but he did raise his voice at one point to tell the committee that doctors had endangered the safety of his wife and son by holding back his HIV status.
And exactly how was his son's health to be endangered by his father's having HIV? HIV is not passed by casual contact. Hell, in this guy's case he apparently couldn't even have passed it if he'd been having SEX with his son regularly!
There is just so much bullsh(asterisk) bandied about to this day about 'HIV' (which is of course a misnomer because it has nothing to do with "Human Immunodeficiency", the first two words of the three words, with "Virus", of its mis(name).
And here's another inconspicuous (not to say "hidden") gem in that story: the man also has hepatitis C, so for all we know, all his symptoms of illness are due to hepatitis C (if that's even real), not HIV!
Bullsh(asterisk) about Hillary. One of the newstalk channels had a promo about the then-upcoming speech by Hillary Clinton, using fotos of her captioned with various BLOCK-CAP words that are supposed to describe her, like "POWERFUL" and "SAVVY". What a bunch of baloney. Hillary Clinton is not, herself, either powerful or savvy. Her only act of political "savvy" was to marry Bill Clinton. That's it. She lost the Democratic primary contest to a BLACK MAN.
Nobody but a few bulldykes actually voted for Hillary. The vaunted "18 million" votes 'she' got were actually for BILL Clinton. And everybody knows it. That 18 mil tried to put Bill into the White House for an unconstitutional third term, but were stopped. They should be ashamed of themselves. And all the nonsense about Hillary Clinton being the real candidate should end. She was NEVER what most CLINTON supporters meant when they voted for "Clinton". They voted for BILL, not Hil.
Cutting thru the Crap. By the way, if pollsters really want to know how people feel about Obama, let them ask this question: "Are you comfortable with the idea of a black President ruling over you?" Then we might find out how some reticent people really feel — except of course that the worst cowards would choose not to answer that question. It hits too close to home.
(The current U.S. military death toll in Iraq, according to the website "Iraq Coalition Casualties", is 4,147 — for Israel.)

Amazon Honor System

Click Here to Pay
Learn More

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Powered by Blogger