Source: https://www.renegadetribune.com/so-what-if-jews-are-powerful/
by Karl Radl
One of the most common counter-points I read to the information regarding jewish power in the media, arts, finance, politics (foreign and domestic) and so on is the simple counter-question: so what?
The unstated assumption behind this is that jewish predominance – or significant and consistent over-representation relative to their demographic percentage of a given population – is mere accident and/or neutral in terms of impact.
The fallacy in this reasoning is really rather obvious, because those who use it treat jewishness as a de facto neutral characteristic of an individual.
Comparatively in their view if you pointed that – as F. Scott Fitzgerald did in his novel ‘The Great Gatsby’ – people with blonde hair were predominant or consistently over-represented in certain industries/professions relative to their percentage composition of a given population. Then it means you would have to assert the belief in blonde power or a blonde conspiracy – or you should (as they do) – view it as accidental and/or neutral in terms of impact.
What proponents of this argument have not considered is whether jewishness is – or is not – actually a neutral characteristic.
Blondeness conversely is a demonstrably neutral characteristic as there is no direct relationship – although it could be argued there is an indirect one – between being blonde and significant and consistent over-representation in certain industries/professions. Thus it is reasonable to suppose that such is accidental and also – since there is no evidence of blondeness or a blonde agenda being promoted – then blondeness is a characteristic that is neutral in terms of impact.
Conversely however jewishness is a demonstrably partisan characteristic as there is a direct relationship between being jewish and significant and consistent over-representation in certain industries/professions and jewishness as well as a jewish agenda is being actively promoted by these jew-laden industries/professions.
A historic example of this is the significant and sustained over-representation of jews in the realm of finance and banking. This is traditionally excused by claiming that they were ‘forced’ into this industry, but the falseness of this assertion can be ascertained by pointing out that jews at the same participated in numerous other industries as well as finance and banking.
A good example of which is the predatory business of tax farming in which jews have been closely involved with in both the Christian and Islamic worlds and was sustained over centuries.
No one forced jews to be involved in tax farming or threatened them into behaving in various ways towards those they were extracting money out, but behave that way they did. Indeed, it was the behaviour of jewish tax farmers and bankers which provoked some of the worst anti-jewish pogroms that the world has ever seen in the peasant uprising lead by Bohdan Khmelnytsky in the Ukraine from 1648 to 1657 that killed thousands and thousands of jews.
Another is the centrality of jews to the Hungarian Communist Party and the earlier Bolshevik regime of Bela Kun. This provoked the – as the latter committed numerous war crimes and atrocities – Hungarian people and is the necessary but often neglected context for the harsh anti-jewish and anti-communist laws introduced by Admiral Horthy’s government from 1919 to 1944.
A more recent example is the sustained and continuing proliferation of jews and jewish themes – usually related to their historical ‘suffering’ – in the media in general and Hollywood in particular. This has been true from the founding of Hollywood in the 1920s till the present day, which is just shy of a century or so.
Jewishness is central to this proliferation, because in the case of finance and moneylending; they were arguably encouraged to engage in that profession (and thus were significantly over-represented relative to their percentage of the population) as a result of their jewish identity.
In the case of tax farming – because it required viewing the taxpayers as the ‘Other’ (i.e., the enemy/lower beings) – which suited jews rather than more than it did Christians or Muslims because Judaism taught – and still teaches – that jews (i.e., Israel in Judaism) are spiritually and physically superior beings created and chosen by God to rule as a priestly nation over non-jews (non-Israel/gentiles/goyim) and to teach them the error of their idolatrous ways (i.e., Tikkun Olam).
When we turn to sustained jewish centrality in the leadership and membership of the Hungarian Communist Party – from before the First World War to 1952 – it is again jewishness as a partisan characteristic that stands out, because – as is well-known among historians – socialism and communism were perceived to be solutions to the peculiar position that jews felt themselves in. They adopted assimilation and focused their ire – via the prism of their new ideology – on the very laws, cultural-economic elements, individuals and organizations, which they felt prevented their assimilation and advancement.
Similarly Hollywood and the mass media was a new and booming industry in the 1920s and in addition it had low barriers to entry as well as incredibly high potential profit margins. As such it was open to jews who had come to the United States from Eastern Europe and wanted to assimilate (superficially or otherwise). This allowed – much as with their communist compatriots – them to once again make war on the laws, cultural-economic elements, individuals and organizations, which they felt prevented their assimilation and advancement.
The sustained element to the partisan nature of jewishness can detected in the fact that jewishness creates a peculiar – and dare I say unique – frame of reference, which places the imagined and real ‘suffering’ of the jews and jewish people first and foremost as well as beyond the comprehension of non-jews. It also perceptively shifts the required skill base required to succeed in a given profession/industry to fit common jewish traits such as high verbal IQ, situationalist ethics and a preference for legalistic and numerical wrangling.
This naturally forms a positive selection bias in an originally significantly jewish industry/profession, which contributes substantially to maintaining that over-representation in specific industries/professions relative to their percentage composition of a given population.
The focus on the imagined and real ‘suffering’ of the jews and jewish people is the second layer of the positive selection criteria as it requires that if one isn’t jewish and fulfils/overcomes the selection bias in favour of jewish candidates. Then one is going to be infused with the same intellectual bias and cultural artefacts that jews themselves use, which reinforces – and prevents disruption to – the unique jewish frame of reference created within an organization; the image it projects of itself as well as its products.
In summary: jewishness unlike blondeness is a partisan, not a neutral, characteristic and as such when someone asks why jewishness is important. One need but respond by pointing to Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard and asking why a jew would betray the United States to an explicitly jewish state if Jewishness was, and is, a neutral characteristic.
No comments:
Post a Comment