Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts


Go Back   Vanguard News Network Forum > Executive Summary > The Problem
Donate Register Multimedia Blogs Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Login

 
Thread Display Modes Share
Old December 15th, 2013 #21
littlefieldjohn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,757
littlefieldjohn
Default 399-0

Quote:


How many bills pass the house with zero opposition from those who voted? The solution to what pressing issue is so univerally embraced that there is zero opposition?

The U.S. is hopelessly broke, riddled with debt, a beset with a generally stagnant economy and a political class that refuses to address any of it in any meaningful way.
So what is this critical issue that demands the creation of even more debt? The answer should be pretty obvious to anyone who isn’t either corrupt, ignorant or simply refuses to acknowledge the truth.
Quote:
It is a bill that would enhance the US commitment to Israel’s “qualitative military edge” in the region.

This is why I harp on Israel. Among the many threats that will result in the destruction of America (not a bad idea in itself), our economy, the future for us and our children…among the many threats, not a single damn one of them is more pressing than the destructive, parasitic relationship the US has with Israel.
http://www.theburningplatform.com/2013/12/14/399-0/
 
Old December 15th, 2013 #22
littlefieldjohn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,757
littlefieldjohn
Default Who is the Boss and Who is the Servant in this Photo?

Who is the Boss and Who is the Servant in this Photo?

Quote:
It’s kind of one of those pictures that are “worth a thousand words,” don’t you think? What you’re looking at is Obama onstage with media mogul and Israeli dual national Haim Saban, who has stated previously, “I’m a one issue guy, and my issue is Israel.” The photo was taken last weekend at the Saban Forum, held in Washington. During the event Saban and Obama appeared together for what was billed as a “conversation” on the Middle East, but basically it was a one-on-one press conference—with Saban doing the grilling and Obama doing the answering. Do the facial expressions in the photo, the body language, suggest anything to you—like for instance which of the two figures is dominant and which is submissive?

Saban, of course, has lots of money. In 2002 he provided a $13 million grant which established the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, and which is part of the larger Brookings Institution think tank. Today he is a major funder of political candidates, particularly of the Democratic Party. You can go here and watch a 48-minute video of his “conversation” with Obama, which includes a few questions from the audience towards the end (all of the people selected to ask questions in that closing segment, coincidentally, happen to be Israelis). At one point, Saban jokingly remarks upon how “obedient” Obama is. A little later in the video, Obama states the following:

“The one thing I will say to the people of Israel is that you can be assured, whoever is in the office I currently occupy, Democrat or Republican, that your security will be uppermost on our minds. That will not change.”

Does it not strike you as a curious comment? Why would the security of a foreign nation be “uppermost” in the minds of the leaders of a supposedly sovereign country? But then maybe America is no longer a sovereign nation.

Obama indeed proves his “obedience” by never once bringing up Israel’s nuclear weapons. Much of the conversation is dominated by talk about Iran’s domestic nuclear energy program. The president at one point repeats the standard, stock-in-trade “options-on-the-table” remark—which in essence is nothing more than a threat to attack Iran—yet nowhere, in the entire 48-minute video, does the subject of Israel’s nuclear weapons come up.

A report on the Saban Forum was posted recently at the Mondoweiss blog. While the article mentions the “conversation” between Obama and Saban, as well as a speech by Benjamin Netanyahu, who also addressed the audience, much of the piece is devoted to the remarks of John Kerry, who delivered the keynote address for the event. Allison Deger, the author of the report, notes that Kerry expressed the view that Palestinians in the West Bank are deserving of “state institutions” (as opposed to an actual state) of their own, a comment which seems to have prompted Deger to draw the conclusion that “Palestinian statehood is not on the table in the current round of peace talks.” It is a not unreasonable conclusion to draw.

Kerry also referred to Palestinians as a “demographic time bomb” threatening to jeopardize Israel’s “future as a democratic, Jewish state”—apparently the secretary of state’s first public expression of concern over the so-called “demographic threat.” But perhaps most interesting is what Deger reports on comments by Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who also attended the event:

Even though Lieberman was amongst a crowd of Washington and Israeli officials familiar with his anti-Arab diatribes, audible gasps could be heard throughout the room when he called to expel Palestinian citizens of Israel. A diplomat from the Russian embassy seated next to me even choked. Another moment of discontent between the plated-dinner audience and Lieberman passed when the foreign minister made a forlorn pun at Sen. Joe Lieberman. Otherwise the foreign minister was amongst allies.

That Lieberman would call for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine at an event like this, at which high-ranking US officials, including the president, are present, is quite significant. If anyone publicly criticized him for making such a statement, it is not reported by Mondoweiss. This too is perhaps significant. Much has been made of the recent bone of contention between Obama and Netanyahu over the negotiations with Iran, with some suggesting that the US president is beginning to assert himself and to defy the Israeli lobby on some key, important issues. Is this simply wishful thinking on the part of some commentators? I don’t pretend to know the answer to that, but if there was any note of defiance struck at last weekend’s Saban Forum, all I can say is it is extremely difficult to detect.

Also worth considering is that Lieberman could be on track to succeed Netanyahu as the next prime minister of Israel.
http://govtslaves.info/boss-servant-....1ssuyMYi.dpuf
 
Old December 16th, 2013 #23
M. Gerard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,093
M. Gerard
Default



Marcus Faella, leader of American Front, looks like a younger version of Haim Saban.
 
Old November 9th, 2014 #24
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 43,446
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[jews get tens of millions from white taxpayers DAILY yet feel free to attack american ships, murder dozens and wound hundreds and then lie about it.]

[this has been known since it happened, but jews have kept up their lie, for the most part]

http://linkis.com/digitaljournal.com/Rjc5Y

Jerusalem Post confirms Israel knew USS Liberty was American
BY RALPH LOPEZ NOV 6, 2014 IN WORLD

A 2004 transcript of an Israeli military tape published in the Jerusalem Post supports the unanimous position of the survivors and many high-ranking US officers that Israeli forces knew the USS Liberty was an American ship, as they attempted to sink it.
 
Old November 10th, 2014 #25
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 43,446
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/11/03...ical-response/

Kremlin Attack on Russian Website for ‘Nazi’ List of Wealthy Jews Meets Skeptical Response

NOVEMBER 3, 2014

A Kremlin-backed human rights body has assailed a Russian website as “Nazi” and “racist” for claiming that nearly one quarter of Russia’s billionaires are Jewish – but the response from one Jewish leader was more composed.

Nikolai Svanidze of the Russian Human Rights Council – a Kremlin-affiliated body with no executive powers – condemned Lenta.ru, which covers the banking sector, for publishing a report that broke down by faith and ethnicity those Russian citizens appearing in Forbes Magazine’s 2014 list of the world’s wealthiest individuals. According to lenta.ru, 48 of the top 200 wealthy Russians are Jews, with a combined net worth of $132.9 billion. Mikhail Fridman, with a net worth of $17.6 billion, tops the list and is Russia’s second richest man

“It’s a Nazi and racist approach,” Svandiza was quoted as saying by the Slon.ru news site.

But , as JTA reported, Yuri Kanner, president of the Russian Jewish Congress, defended the decision to publish the study.

“If you cannot compare the proportion of representatives of various nationalities in the general ethnic composition of the country, it is impossible to understand who is really successful and who is not,” he told the currsorinfo.co.il news website on Oct. 29.

He said, however, that he doubted the authenticity of the research.

“The proportion of Jews in the population of the Russian Federation is calculated incorrectly. Besides, to compare the Jewish population, which is mainly concentrated in the major cities and has a university degree, with a total mass of Russian citizens, it is not accurate,” Kanner said.

Of the Jews who made the list, 42 are of Ashkenazi origin, and together have a net worth of $122.3 billion.

Six Kavkazi Jews (a group also known as “Mountain Jews”) appear on the list, with a combined net worth of $10.6 billion. There are only 762 Russian citizens classified as Kavkazi Jews, according to the Russian Bureau of Statistics and they represent just 0.00035% percent of the population.

A leading Russian affairs analyst was skeptical of the Kremlin’s motivations in condemning the website, arguing that false claims of Ukrainian anti-Semitism had been advanced in partial justification of the Russian invasion of Crimea – claims that were both condemned and ridiculed by Jewish leaders in Ukraine.

Michael Weiss, editor-in-chief of The Interpreter, a magazine covering Russian affairs, told The Algemeiner: “Russian ultra-nationalists and the far right seize on the theme of wealthy, bloodsucking Jewish oligarchs a great deal, but what nobody bothers to say is that the chief enabler of Russian nationalism is Vladimir Putin.”

Weiss pointed out that in spite of stringent laws against extremism, neo-Nazis marched openly in St. Petersburg earlier this year, while later this week, a full array of extremists is expected at the annual Russian March.

“Putin is aligned with fascist parties in Europe like Jobbik in Hungary and Front National in France,” Weiss added. “He’s looking to create fifth columnists in Europe, drawn from racist and xenophobic parties with the occasional communist thrown in. So it’s a bit rich for the regime to be calling out antisemitism.”
 
Old November 14th, 2014 #26
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 43,446
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

How kosher is Jewish money?

Israelis have the most to lose from the destructive potential of donations from the likes of Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson. We should thank them for bringing this debate out into the open.

By Anshel Pfeffer | Nov. 14, 2014

It was like a scene out of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” Two immensely wealthy Jews, key financiers of the main political parties of the world’s superpower, discussing how to wage war on the enemies of the Jews, and control the media and presidents. Only, instead of taking place at the dead of night in a Jewish cemetery in Prague, they were sitting on stage in a Washington, D.C. hotel conference room, in full view and making no attempt to hide their intentions.

If the Czarist secret police officers who published the original edition of “Protocols” at the start of the 20th century had been at the Hilton, or just reading the reported dialogue between Power Rangers impresario Haim Saban and casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, they would have had little need for the embellishment, plagiarism and forgery they used to concoct their best seller.

If you haven’t yet read the musings of these two gentlemen on the best way to confront Iran (bombing “the daylight out of these sons of bitches” is an option), the shortcomings of Barack Obama’s presidency, the need (or lack of) for Israel to be a democracy, the best way to take over The New York Times, and how to ensure a sufficient supply of latkes at the White House Hanukkah party, then you really should. It would be no exaggeration to call it a historic event.

The joint appearance of the two billionaires at the Israeli American Council’s inaugural conference last weekend was the moment that Jewish benefactors, who have always preferred to use financial influence on behalf of their brethren as far behind-the-scenes as possible, chose to do so out in the open.

Not that they had anything to be ashamed of. Jewish financiers using their fortunes to protect and promote a small scattered nation, persecuted for much of its history by vastly superior forces, is an honorable tradition. Only, it was always a tradition considered to be much more effective when carried out discreetly. Why give the haters more ammunition to incite with?

In most countries where Jews live, discretion is still the norm. On the same day Adelson and Saban took to the stage in Washington, across the pond a British daily blazed the headline “Labour funding crisis: Jewish donors drop ‘toxic’ Ed Miliband” across its front page. The Independent on Sunday was referring to a shortfall in fund-raising for Britain’s main opposition party, due to concerns of Jewish donors that its embattled leader, Miliband (himself Jewish, of course), will, if elected prime minister next year, toughen his government’s policy toward Israel.

There are a number of troubling flaws to this story. Labour’s campaign machine relies, to a large degree, on funding from trade unions and is hardly beholden to private Jewish donors. Miliband is indeed in deep crisis, but that is due to his inability to project a credible image of being prime-minister-in-waiting and the constant sniping by his own senior party members, who fear he is leading them to five more years in the political wilderness.

The misgivings of the party’s Jewish donors over his foreign policy is really the least of his worries, and it is odd (or perhaps not) that The Independent on Sunday chose to make this relatively minor concern the main headline of its Remembrance Sunday issue. Especially as even the reporter admitted that it is not yet a problem – merely one that could emerge in the months leading to the election – and is dwarfed by the general reluctance of donors, not just Jewish ones, to contribute to Miliband’s campaign.

But by far the biggest flaw in the report, especially one that had been given such prominence, was that it did not include even one named source. None of Labour’s Jewish donors or fund-raisers had agreed to identify themselves by name, though some seem to have agreed to be quoted anonymously.

Difference between U.S. and British Jews

The interviewees’ reticence is not surprising. Whether or not they are satisfied with their party’s candidate, Jewish philanthropists do not voluntarily discuss in public their political donations.

This is probably all you need to know about the difference between American and British Jews. Both communities are phenomenally successful, and for the past few decades have enjoyed a disproportionate prominence in just about every walk of life – unparalleled since the Golden Age of the Jews in Middle-Ages Spain, perhaps even surpassing that. But while Jews in the United States routinely celebrate their extraordinary position of near-dominance in finance, the creative arts, media, and now also political influence, among British Jews there is still a prevailing anxiety, and even sense of shame, whenever the words “Jewish” and “money” are used in the same sentence. Whenever a politician or media commentator combines the two, there is an outcry of “anti-Semitism.”

There is ample historic justification for this defensiveness. “The Protocols” were not the first or last time the insidiousness of Jewish moneymen was a central plank of Judeophobia. And it’s still around. Even today, when you start typing “Jewish bankers” into the world’s most powerful search engine (founded by two Jews, of course), it automatically suggests “control the world.” But then, the Web is full of the most vile conspiracy theorists, and we can’t let them dominate our lives.

The influence and power of big money in capitalist democracies are a fact of life. You can try and legislate to close loopholes and create a more level playing field, but you can’t eliminate it. Unless, that is, you want to live in a country like Vladimir Putin’s Russia, where troublesome oligarchs are packed off to a penal colony in Siberia or forced to flee and live in permanent exile.

The best we can do is try and take the Internet – that wonderful tool our capitalist economies have created – away from the conspiracy theorists and use it to truthfully increase transparency, so we at least know who is using money to acquire influence.

And that is already happening. Every community, business sector, and lobby is using its financial clout to try and change policy, and safeguard its interests. Jews have no reason to be ashamed of having learned – out of bitter necessity – to play the game well, and they certainly have every right to lobby on behalf of the country where half of their people live. Accusing them of dual loyalties (and we all have multiple loyalties) is not only anti-Semitic, it is also a denial of their democratic rights to decide who and what they choose to support.

For all the vulgarity of the Saban-Adelson dialogue, we should commend them for holding it in the open. Especially since now we have heard Adelson publicly state that as far as he is concerned, “so what” if Israel is no longer a democracy, we know the ugly truth about the man who is our prime minister’s number one patron.

It doesn’t matter whether or not we supply the Israel-haters and Judeophobes with fodder. They will warp facts and invent lies, anyway. We will have to continue facing their poisonous propaganda, and we have never been in a better position to do so.

But we need to know whatever we can about how “pro-Israel” tycoons use their money and what they believe in, because they are now in a far more powerful position than any hostile newspaper or biased blogger to cause Israel untold harm.

http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/jerus...emium-1.626359
 
Old November 17th, 2014 #27
littlefieldjohn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,757
littlefieldjohn
Default The Jewish Establishment

The Jewish Establishment
(Reprinted from SOBRAN’S, September 1995, pages 4–5)

Quote:
In the early 1930s, Walter Duranty of the New York Times was in Moscow, covering Joe Stalin the way Joe Stalin wanted to be covered. To maintain favor and access, he expressly denied that there was famine in Ukraine even while millions of Ukrainian Christians were being starved into submission. For his work Duranty won the Pulitzer Prize for journalism.

To this day, the Times remains the most magisterial and respectable of American newspapers.

Now imagine that a major newspaper had had a correspondent in Berlin during roughly the same period who hobnobbed with Hitler, portrayed him in a flattering light, and denied that Jews were being mistreated — thereby not only concealing, but materially assisting the regime’s persecution. Would that paper’s respectability have been unimpaired several decades later?

There you have an epitome of what is lamely called “media bias.” The Western supporters of Stalin haven’t just been excused; they have received the halo of victimhood for the campaign, in what liberals call the “McCarthy era,” to get them out of the government, the education system, and respectable society itself.

Not only persecution of Jews but any critical mention of Jewish power in the media and politics is roundly condemned as “anti-Semitism.” But there isn’t even a term of opprobrium for participation in the mass murders of Christians. Liberals still don’t censure the Communist attempt to extirpate Christianity from Soviet Russia and its empire, and for good reason — liberals themselves, particularly Jewish liberals, are still trying to uproot Christianity from America.

It’s permissible to discuss the power of every other group, from the Black Muslims to the Christian Right, but the much greater power of the Jewish Establishment is off-limits.

That, in fact, is the chief measure of its power: its ability to impose its own taboos while tearing down the taboos of others — you might almost say its prerogative of offending.

You can read articles in Jewish-controlled publications from the Times to Commentary blaming Christianity for the Holocaust or accusing Pope Pius XII of indifference to it, but don’t look for articles in any major publication that wants to stay in business examining the Jewish role in Communism and liberalism, however temperately.

Power openly acquired, openly exercised, and openly discussed is one thing. You may think organized labor or the Social Security lobby abuses its power, but you don’t jeopardize your career by saying so. But a kind of power that forbids its own public mention, like the Holy Name in the Old Testament, is another matter entirely.

There is an important anomaly here. The word “Jewish,” in this context, doesn’t include Orthodox or otherwise religious Jews. The Jews who still maintain the Hebraic tradition of millennia are marginal, if they are included at all, in the Jewish establishment that wields journalistic, political, and cultural power. Morally and culturally, the Orthodox might be classed as virtual Christians, much like the descendants of Christians who still uphold the basic morality, if not the faith, of their ancestors. Many of these Jews are friendly to Christians and eager to make common cause against the moral decadence they see promoted by their apostate cousins. Above all, the Orthodox understand, better than almost anyone else in America today, the virtues — the necessity — of tribalism, patriarchal authority, the moral bonds of kinship.

The Jewish establishment, it hardly needs saying, is predominantly secularist and systematically anti-Christian. In fact, it is unified far more by its hostility to Christianity than by its support of Israel, on which it is somewhat divided. The more left-wing Jews are faintly critical of Israel, though never questioning its “right to exist” — that is, its right to exist on terms forbidden to any Christian country; that is, its right to deny rights to non-Jews.

A state that treated Jews as Israel treats gentiles would be condemned outright as Nazi-like. But Israel is called “democratic,” even “pluralistic.”

Explicitly “Jewish” organizations like the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League enforce a dual standard. What is permitted to Israel is forbidden to America. This is not just thoughtless inconsistency. These organizations consciously support one set of principles here — equal rights for all, ethnic neutrality, separation of church and state — and their precise opposites in Israel, where Jewish ancestry and religion enjoy privilege. They “pass” as Jeffersonians when it serves their purpose, espousing rules that win the assent of most Americans. At the same time, they are bent on sacrificing the national interest of the United States to the interests of Israel, under the pretense that both countries’ interests are identical. (There is, of course, no countervailing American lobby in Israel.)

The single most powerful Jewish lobbying group is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which, as its former director Thomas Dine openly boasted, controls Congress. At a time when even Medicare may face budget cuts, aid to Israel remains untouchable. If the Israelis were to begin “ethnic cleansing” against Arabs in Israel and the occupied lands, it is inconceivable that any American political figure would demand the kind of military strike now being urged against the Serbs in ex-Yugoslavia.




Jewish-owned publications like the Wall Street Journal, The New Republic, The Atlantic Monthly, U.S. News & World Report, the New York Post, and New York’s Daily News emit relentless pro-Israel propaganda; so do such pundits as William Safire, A.M. Rosenthal, Charles Krauthammer, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and George Will, to name a few.

That Israel’s journalistic partisans include so many gentiles — lapsed goyim, you might say — is one more sign of the Jewish establishment’s power. So is the fact that this fact isn’t mentioned in public (though it is hardly unnoticed in private.)

So is the fear of being called “anti-Semitic.” Nobody worries about being called “anti-Italian” or “anti-French” or “anti-Christian”; these aren’t words that launch avalanches of vituperation and make people afraid to do business with you.

It’s pointless to ask what “anti-Semitic” means. It means trouble. It’s an attack signal. The practical function of the word is not to define or distinguish things, but to conflate them indiscriminately — to equate the soberest criticism of Israel or Jewish power with the murderous hatred of Jews. And it works. Oh, how it works.

When Joe McCarthy accused people of being Communists, the charge was relatively precise. You knew what he meant. The accusation could be falsified. In fact the burden of proof was on the accuser: when McCarthy couldn’t make his loose charges stick, he was ruined. (Of course, McCarthy was hated less for his “loose” charges than for his accurate ones. His real offense was stigmatizing the Left.)

The opposite applies to charges of “anti-Semitism.” The word has no precise definition. An “anti-Semite” may or may not hate Jews. But he is certainly hated by Jews. There is no penalty for making the charge loosely; the accused has no way of falsifying the charge, since it isn’t defined.

A famous example. When Abe Rosenthal accused Pat Buchanan of “anti-Semitism,” everyone on both sides understood the ground rules. There was a chance that Buchanan would be ruined, even if the charge was baseless. And there was no chance that Rosenthal would be ruined — even if the charge was baseless.

Such are the rules. I violate them, in a way, even by spelling them out.

“Anti- Semitism” is therefore less a charge than a curse, an imprecation that must be uttered formulaically. Being a “bogus predicate,” to use Gilbert Ryle’s phrase, it has no real content, no functional equivalent in plain nouns and verbs. Its power comes from the knowledge of its potential targets, the gentiles, that powerful people are willing to back it up with material penalties.

In other words, journalists are as afraid of Jewish power as politicians are. This means that public discussion is cramped and warped by unspoken fear — a fear journalists won’t acknowledge, because it embarrasses their pretense of being fearless critics of power. When there are incentives to accuse but no penalties for slander, the result is predictable.

What is true of “anti-Semitism” is also true to a lesser degree of other bogus predicates like “racism,” “sexism,” and “homophobia.” Other minorities have seen and adopted the successful model of the Jewish establishment. And so our public tongue has become not only Jewish-oriented but more generally minority-oriented in its inhibitions.

The illusion that we enjoy free speech has been fostered by the breaking of Christian taboos, which has become not only safe but profitable. To violate minority taboos is “offensive” and “insensitive”; to violate Christian taboos — many of them shared by religious Jews — is to be “daring” and “irreverent.” (“Irreverence,” of course, has become good.)

Jewry, like Gaul, may be divided into three parts, each defined by its borders vis-à-vis the gentile world. There are the Orthodox, who not only insist on borders but wear them. They often dress in attire that sets them apart; they are even willing to look outlandish to gentiles in order to affirm their identity and their distinctive way of life. At the other extreme are Jews who have no borders, who may (or may not) assimilate and intermarry, whose politics may range from left to right, but who in any case accept the same set of rules for everyone. I respect both types.

But the third type presents problems. These are the Jews who maintain their borders furtively and deal disingenuously with gentiles. Raymond Chandler once observed of them that they want to be Jews among themselves but resent being seen as Jews by gentiles. They want to pursue their own distinct interests while pretending that they have no such interests, using the charge of “anti-Semitism” as sword and shield. As Chandler put it, they are like a man who refuses to give his real name and address but insists on being invited to all the best parties. Unfortunately, it’s this third type that wields most of the power and skews the rules for gentiles. The columnist Richard Cohen cites an old maxim: “Dress British, think Yiddish.”

Americans ought to be free to discuss Jewish power and Jewish interests frankly, without being accused of denying the rights of Jews. That should go without saying. The truth is both otherwise and unmentionable.
http://www.sobran.com/establishment.shtml
 
Old November 19th, 2014 #28
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 43,446
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Jewish overrepresentation at elite universities explained
Kevin MacDonald on July 16, 2010 — 158 Comments

Steve Sailer has an important blog at VDARE.com quoting from Russel K. Nieli’s essay on No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life by Thomas Espenshade and Alexandria Radford. It’s no surprise that there is affirmative action for Blacks and Latinos: “To have the same chances of gaining admission as a black student with an SAT score of 1100, an Hispanic student otherwise equally matched in background characteristics would have to have a 1230, a white student a 1410, and an Asian student a 1550.”

Unfortunately, the authors lump Jews and non-Jews into the White category, but combining their results with what we know about Jewish admissions to elite universities yields some interesting results.

In a 1998 op-ed (“Some minorities are more minor than others”), Ron Unz pointed out “Asians comprise between 2% and 3% of the U.S. population, but nearly 20% of Harvard undergraduates. Then too, between a quarter and a third of Harvard students identify themselves as Jewish, while Jews also represent just 2% to 3% of the overall population. Thus, it appears that Jews and Asians constitute approximately half of Harvard’s student body, leaving the other half for the remaining 95% of America” (See also Edmund Connelly’s take.) A 2009 article in the Daily Princetonian (“Choosing the Chosen People”) cited data from Hillel, a Jewish campus organization, that with the exception of Princeton and Dartmouth, on average Jews made up 24% of Ivy League undergrads. (Princeton had only 13% Jews, leading to much anxiety and a drive to recruit more Jewish students. The rabbi leading the campaign said she “would love 20 percent”—an increase from over 6 times the Jewish percentage in the population to around 10 times.)

Jews therefore constitute a vastly disproportionate share of the population classified as White at elite universities. Data from an earlier study by Espenshade show that around half of the students at elite universities are classified as White, suggesting that Jews and non-Jews classified as White are approximately equal in numbers. (Given that students from the Middle East are also classified as White, there is the suggestion that Jews outnumber non-Jewish students of Christian European descent.)

One might simply suppose that this is due to higher Jewish IQ. However, on the basis of Richard Lynn’s estimates of Ashkenazi Jewish IQ and correcting for the greater numbers of European Whites, the ratio of non-Jewish Whites to Jews should be around 7 to 1 (IQ >130) or 4.5 to 1 (IQ > 145). Instead, the ratio of non-Jewish Whites to Jews is around 1 to 1 or less. (See here.)

So there must be some other reason besides IQ that Jews are such a large percentage of the population classified as White at elite universities.

Espenshade and Radford show that there is discrimination against poor Whites and against non-urban Whites—exactly the population groups that are least likely to be Jewish. There is a “a general disregard for improving the admission chances of poor and otherwise disadvantaged whites.”

When lower-class whites are matched with lower-class blacks and other non-whites the degree of the non-white advantage becomes astronomical: lower-class Asian applicants are seven times as likely to be accepted to the competitive private institutions as similarly qualified whites, lower-class Hispanic applicants eight times as likely, and lower-class blacks ten times as likely. These are enormous differences and reflect the fact that lower-class whites were rarely accepted to the private institutions Espenshade and Radford surveyed. Their diversity-enhancement value was obviously rated very low.

One possible explanation is that the desire for better off students reflects the universities’ desire to have students who are better able to pay their way, so that more money can be diverted to less well-off non-Whites. Nieli points out that this “cannot explain why well-qualified lower-class whites are not at least offered admission without financial aid. The mere offer of admission is costless, and at least a few among the poor whites accepted would probably be able to come up with outside scholarship aid.” Right.

Nieli suggests that the real reason that rejecting less well-off Whites benefits the university is because it raises the yield score (the ratio of those accepted to those who enroll) and lowers the acceptance rate (the ratio of applicants received to those accepted) on the theory that less well-off Whites would not be able to afford to attend without scholarship money that the university wants to reserve for non-Whites. This makes them look good to the rating agencies.

This explanation seems rather ad hoc. Quite a few less well-off Whites would doubtless be willing to take out loans in order to satisfy their dream of an education at an elite university. To be convincing, Nieli should at least have some data supporting his theory. Even an anecdote or a colorful story gleaned from an academic cocktail party would be nice.

The other finding is

what might be called an urban/Blue State bias against rural and Red State occupations and values. This is most clearly shown in a little remarked statistic in the study’s treatment of the admissions advantage of participation in various high school extra-curricular activities. In the competitive private schools surveyed participation in many types of extra-curricular activities — including community service activities, performing arts activities, and “cultural diversity” activities — conferred a substantial improvement in an applicant’s chances of admission. The admissions advantage was usually greatest for those who held leadership positions or who received awards or honors associated with their activities. No surprise here — every student applying to competitive colleges knows about the importance of extracurriculars.

But what Espenshade and Radford found in regard to what they call “career-oriented activities” was truly shocking even to this hardened veteran of the campus ideological and cultural wars. Participation in such Red State activities as high school ROTC, 4-H clubs, or the Future Farmers of America was found to reduce very substantially a student’s chances of gaining admission to the competitive private colleges in the NSCE database on an all-other-things-considered basis. The admissions disadvantage was greatest for those in leadership positions in these activities or those winning honors and awards. … Excelling in these activities “is associated with 60 or 65 percent lower odds of admission.”

It’s interesting that the bias against Red State interests holds even when controlling for other variables such as family income. These students are being rejected not because of their family income but because of their attitudes and interests–a finding that casts doubt on the yield rate/acceptance rate explanation for the bias against less well-off Whites as well.

These data strongly suggest that Jewish overrepresentation at elite universities has nothing to do with IQ but with discrimination against non-Jewish White Americans, especially those from the working class or with rural origins. It would be interesting to see the dynamics of the admissions process. How many admissions officers are Jewish? And, whether or not they are Jewish,what pressures are they under to admit Jewish students? The brouhaha that engulfed the Princeton campus because Jews were “only” overrepresented by around 6.5 times their percentage of the population suggests that there is considerable pressure for high levels of Jewish admission. The Daily Princetonian ran four front-page articles on the topic, and the New York Times ran an article titled “The Princeton Puzzle.” (See here; the original NYTimes article is here.) Clearly anything less than 20% Jewish enrollment would be met with raised eyebrows and perhaps intimations of anti-Semitism.

The big picture is that this is a prime example of the corruption of our new elite. As noted previously, the poster child for this corruption is the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. The fact that she is a Princeton graduate now makes even more sense given that when she went to Princeton the percentage of Jews was around 18% — more in line with the de facto affirmative action policies favoring Jews that we see now in most Ivy League universities.

Whatever else one can say about the new elite, it certainly does not believe in merit. The only common denominator is that Whites of European extraction are being systematically excluded and displaced to the point that they are now underrepresented in all the important areas of the elite compared to their percentage of the population.

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net...ies-explained/

[normal whites are locked out of the better universities, but this is a double-edged score, as staying away from uni means avoiding debt, if the white is smart]
 
Old November 20th, 2014 #29
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 43,446
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Did We Vote for War?

By Patrick J. Buchanan
November 19, 2014

“How do you like the Journal’s war?”

So boasted the headline of William Randolph Hearst’s New York flagship that week in 1898 that the United States declared war on Spain.

While Hearst’s Journal, in a circulation battle with Joe Pulitzer’s World, was a warmongering sheet, it did not start the war.

Yet the headline comes to mind reading the Wall Street Journal, whose editorial pages seem to have concluded that on Nov. 4 America voted for new wars in the Middle East, and beyond.

On Nov. 13, the Journal’s op-ed page was given over to Mark Dubowitz and Reuel Marc Gerecht of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Assuming nuclear talks with Iran conclude unsuccessfully by the Nov. 24 deadline, they write, we have four options.

Two involve continued or tougher sanctions. The other two are a preemptive war featuring U.S. air and missile strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, or a U.S. attack to bring down Bashar Assad’s regime.

“Taking Mr. Assad down would let Tehran know that America’s withdrawal from the Middle East and President Obama’s dreams of an entente with Iran are over.”

It would surely do that.

But taking down the Syrian regime could also lead to a slaughter of Christians and Alawites, an al Qaida-ISIS takeover in Damascus, war with Iran, and attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and across the Middle East.
Which raises a question: What is this FDD?

Answer: A War Party think tank that in 2011, according to Philip Weiss of Mondoweiss website and Eli Clifton of Salon, took in $19 million from five rabidly pro-Israel givers.

Home Depot’s Bernard Marcus gave $10.7 million, hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer $3.6 million. Sheldon Adelson, the Vegas-Macau casino kingpin, chipped in $1.5 million.

Last week, Adelson and media mogul Haim Saban spoke of plans to dump hundreds of millions into the presidential campaigns of 2016.

What does the pair want from our next president? According to the Washington Post’s Phil Rucker and Tom Hamburger, action on Iran:
“Saban said that fundamentalist Iranians represent a real threat. If necessary to defend Israel, and as a last resort, he added, ‘I would bomb the living daylights out of the sons of bitches.’”

Echoed the 81-year-old Adelson, “I would not just talk. I would take action.”

Last year, at Yeshiva University, Adelson, who pumped $150 million into the 2012 campaign, said the U.S. should fire a nuclear missile into the Iranian desert as a warning to end their nuclear program, or the next atom bomb would be dropped on Teheran.

This billionaires boys club wants to buy U.S. foreign policy and a U.S. war on Iran. And the propagandists of FDD are paid to produce that war, in which they will not be doing the fighting and dying.

Back to the Journal. On Nov. 15, its lead editorial declared that the great “question before President Obama and Europe is how to stop the Napoleon of the Kremlin.”

Putin is Napoleon? Has the Journal lost it?

Vladimir Putin is 62. By age 40, Napoleon’s empire encompassed nearly all of Europe. France had swallowed Belgium, Holland, parts of Germany and the Italian coast to Rome. The Emperor had alliances with Austria, Russia, Denmark, Sweden and a truncated Prussia. Virtually all the resources, industries and populations of Continental Europe were at the service of the French Empire.

Putin has reacquired Crimea, which belonged to Russia before the United States was a nation, and is about the size of Vermont.

Napoleon made it to Moscow. Does the Journal think Putin will make it to Paris, as Czar Alexander I did, or to Berlin, as Stalin did?

The Journal hails the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 18-0 vote to arm the Ukrainians, and urges Congress to do the same.

And what would be the result of U.S. heavy weapons arriving in Kiev?

Would Putin recoil in shock and awe and scurry out of Crimea?

Probably not, as the Journal itself concedes, “In 15 years running Russia, Mr. Putin has never stood down.”

And if Putin, seeing U.S. weapons arriving in Kiev, sent in the Russian army to annex Luhansk and Donetsk, took Mariupol on the Black Sea coast, established a land bridge to Crimea, and then offered to negotiate, what would Kiev do?

Even with U.S. weapons Ukraine cannot defeat Russia.

What would we do? Accept defeat? Send U.S. advisers or troops into Ukraine? Launch strikes on Russian forces? Blockade Crimea? Are we really prepared for war with Russia, over Donetsk?

Since Nov. 4, the Journal and its neocon allies have been cawing for U.S. troops to fight ISIL in Iraq and Syria, for U.S. air strikes on Assad’s regime, for bombing Iran, and for arming Ukraine to fight the Russians in a war that Kiev would surely lose.

Was this what America voted for on Nov. 4?

Is this what the Grand Old Party has on offer — endless war?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/11/p...ican-politics/
 
Old December 21st, 2014 #30
littlefieldjohn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,757
littlefieldjohn
Default Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban: Billionaire Funders for Israel

Quote:
The analogy to billionaires and their greed is especially appropriate because two billionaires, Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban, have recently turned up as key players behind the Israeli-American Council.

The IAC was first established in 2007 for the Los Angeles-area Israeli expat community, but the two billionaires are now relaunching it at the national level, hoping to organize the estimated 500,000-800,000 Israelis living in the United States into an AIPAC for Israeli expats-kind of an AIPAC without the A.

The IAC made its Washington debut in November with an "Inaugural National Conference" headlined by the 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and former Democratic senator (and now constant critic of Democrats) Joseph Lieberman. The event followed, and was something of a celebration of, the Republican sweep in this year’s midterm elections. According to Israeli journalist Chemi Shalev, writing about the new group in Haaretz, the IAC’s goal is "not only to organize Israeli Americans to support Israel but to form an independent political lobbying group that could one day compete and outflank AIPAC itself."



(The IAC’s board chair denies that, and says the goal is not to challenge AIPAC but to strengthen it, although AIPAC has always resisted that particular piece of logic when it comes to its turf.) In any case, the creation of an Israeli-American pro-Israel advocacy organization is an incredible vision, because it takes the AIPAC model and turns it upside down.

AIPAC was established in 1963 because the Israeli government decided that relying on Israelis, registered as foreign agents, to advance Israel’s interests (as is the case with other governments) would not be effective in the long run. Foreign agents must register with the Justice Department. Their activities and spending are monitored, and they cannot involve themselves in American political campaigns.

And so AIPAC was created as an American organization, directed by an American board of directors and with an American membership. It would not (at least openly) take orders from the Israeli government. Although AIPAC’s stand on every issue related to the Middle East would invariably be identical to that of the Israeli government, it would still be able to claim that it was simply promoting the views of its American membership. This set-up also—and this is significant—limits the taint of “dual loyalty” that would accrue if Jewish Americans were seen as following the Israeli government in lock step.

This formula is largely accountable for AIPAC’s success. Had it not been devised, there would have been no way for the pro-Israel lobby to fully insert itself into US policy-making in the Middle East, let alone to direct both individual donors and the various pro-Israel PACS to support or defeat various candidates for office—not to mention keeping the winners in line once they are sworn in. Without that ability, it is hard to imagine that the lobby’s chokehold on US Middle East policy would have ever developed.

Nevertheless, this is the opposite of what Adelson and Saban are pulling off: the establishment of an organization, proud of its Israeli nature, operating in the United States to advance the goals of the Israeli government through political action.

Its genius (if that is the correct word) is that Adelson and Saban are top funders, respectively, of the Republican and Democratic parties, although as Adelson points out, “when it comes to Israel we’re on the same side.”

Adelson was one of Mitt Romney’s top donors in 2012, while Saban is the top donor to and a close associate of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic front-runner for 2016. He says he will spend “whatever it takes” to make her president. So the Israeli-American Council starts with tremendous clout.

But why is it necessary? Yes, Adelson and Saban do employ the kind of extreme rhetoric that AIPAC eschews as counterproductive. Saban, for instance, said at the November conference in Washington that if the Iranians balked at demands to totally eliminate their nuclear potential he would, as a last resort, “bomb the living daylights out of the sons of bitches.” And both Adelson and Saban openly professed a desire to limit media criticism of Israel by agreeing that they should find a way to purchase The New York Times and bemoaning their failure to snatch up The Washington Post when it was recently on the market.

AIPAC is not nearly that blunt (or honest) about its desires, but for the most part, it more than gets the job done. Look at how the United States responded to Israel’s Gaza onslaught this past summer: Congress overwhelmingly supported it, with less than a dozen legislators even offering sympathy to the Gazans. As for President Obama, he repeatedly emphasized Israel’s “right to defend itself,” even though that—as opposed to the strangulation of Gaza—was hardly the issue. Why isn’t all that good enough for Adelson and Saban?

The answer is simple. The lobby, effective as it is, does not have their names on it. It’s just AIPAC, or “the lobby.” As Adelson demonstrated during the Romney campaign, he wants Republicans to think only of him when it comes to matters relating to Israel or funding from its friends. This was demonstrated early this year, when he had potential Republican candidates for president audition before him in a Las Vegas event that the media dubbed “the Adelson primary.” In fact, Ohio Governor John Kasich made clear that even in a room full of Jewish millionaires and billionaires, only one mattered, addressing his audience repeatedly as “Sheldon.” And when New Jersey Governor Chris Christie horrified the right-wing crowd by referring to the occupied territories as occupied territories, it was to “Sheldon” that he directed his mea culpa.


The Saban primary was not conducted at a Las Vegas hotel but at the Haim Saban Forum at the Brookings Institution in Washington (Saban subsidizes Brookings’ Middle East activities).

Held in December 2013 and again last week, Saban featured only one 2016 presidential hopeful this year: Hillary Clinton (Vice President Joseph Biden, who also spoke, will probably not run). Clinton does not have to audition for Saban, because everyone already knows that she is his candidate and that he will be her go-to guy on both Israel issues and funding from pro-Israel donors. He just likes to show her off as his prize catch, the way Adelson paraded Romney around last time.

This is why Adelson and Saban are eager to take their places in the Israel lobby galaxy. AIPAC is not them, and they would like politicians to see their faces when the thought of Israel pops into their heads. Simply put, they want to be the Koch brothers on Israel. And they want to be even more influential than they are, by virtue of having both parties in their pockets and not just one.
http://www.thenation.com/article/192...others-israel#
 
Old December 28th, 2014 #31
littlefieldjohn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,757
littlefieldjohn
Default Pennsylvania – Community Leaders Condemn Antisemitic Graffiti On Jewish Residence

http://jpupdates.com/2014/12/27/penn...ish-residence/

Quote:

12/27/14
Jewish community members, religious leaders and political officials gathered in Yardley on Friday afternoon to denounce an anti-Semitic slur - “Move Jew” – onto the garage of the Raker family’s home in Lower Makefield Township in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, earlier in the week.

On Monday, Lower Makefield resident Michael Raker and his daughter Samantha discovered the message “Move Jew” spray-painted on their garage door before heading to work that morning.

“I think my heart stopped for a second,” Smantha Raker recalled in a conversation with the Philly Inquirer. “It was shocking.” She said she immediately called the police, who are investigating the incident.

Since Monday, Raker has told local media, she has felt unsafe in her own home. She said she had no idea who may have committed the act. At one point this week she asked her father to watch as she answered a knock at the front door.

State Rep. Steve Santarsiero (D-Bucks), said the purpose of the gathering was “to say in a loud voice that there is no place for hate in this community.

“Things like this cannot be tolerated,” added Rabbi Josh Gruenberg of Yardley’s Congregation Beth El. “This is not the community we are going to be.”

 
Old April 16th, 2015 #32
Robbie Key
Senior Member
 
Robbie Key's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 3,423
Robbie Key
Default

Obama, in meetings with Jewish leaders and donors, stresses how much he cares
By Ron KampeasApril 14, 2015 3:19pm

WASHINGTON (JTA) – Jewish leaders expected President Barack Obama to sell them hard on the Iran nuclear deal. Instead, participants in two White House meetings on Monday said he offered a softer pitch on how deeply he cares for Israel and the Jewish people.

“He tried to explain he understands Jewish trauma, history, the Jewish feeling of being alone in a bad neighborhood,” said a participant in the first meeting, which was attended by 15 top officials from Jewish organizations.

Another described the meeting as “intense.”
“There was an openheartedness, there were some deep reflections by the president,” this participant said.

Sources said the second meeting, for Jewish fundraisers for the Democratic Party, had a similar cast.
“He said, ‘I consider it a moral failure if something happened to Israel on my watch,’” a participant in the fundraisers’ meeting said. “He said, ‘I feel like I’m a member of the tribe.’”

JTA spoke to six participants in the meetings, both of which were off the record. None agreed to be identified because of ground rules set by the White House. Additionally, representatives of a number of groups gave JTA descriptions of the meetings. The accounts did not differ.

All six participants used “therapeutic” to describe the tone of the meetings.
Obama’s tone – at times anguished, according to participants – signals his concerns about how his presidency, heading into lame duck territory, is perceived in terms of his relationship to Israel and to Jews.

He raised these concerns in an interview with The New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman posted April 5 on the newspaper’s website.

It has been personally difficult for me to hear the sort of expressions that somehow we don’t have, this administration has not done everything it could to look out for Israel’s interest,” Obama told Friedman. “And the suggestion that when we have very serious policy differences, that that’s not in the context of a deep and abiding friendship and concern and understanding of the threats that the Jewish people have faced historically and continue to face.”

The worries come in the wake of a crisis in U.S.-Israel relations, focused mostly on disagreements over the Iran nuclear talks, but also fueled by lingering resentments over the collapse last year of the U.S.-brokered Israeli-Palestinian peace talks and the difficulties that Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have in communicating with one another.

Jewish voter approval of Obama is at 54 percent, Gallup reported last week, just eight points above the national average of 46 percent. Jewish approval of Obama has routinely run 10-15 points higher than the national average throughout his presidency.
Earlier this month, the major powers and Iran announced the outline of a deal that would exchange sanctions relief for restrictions aimed at keeping Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Congress was considering legislation that would require its review of any deal, and Obama had said he would veto it.

Last week, Secretary of State John Kerry held a meeting with Jewish leaders from the same organizations attending the White House meeting asking them not to lobby in favor of the legislation.

However, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate by Monday afternoon were close to a compromise on the legislation that would address White House concerns, and Obama told the second meeting with Jewish leaders that his concerns about the bill were allayed.

It’s not clear what the compromises were, but Democrats were seeking to remove from the bill determinations for the contents of a final deal, which is due by June 30, and instead confine the bill to mandating congressional review of any deal. Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told MSNBC on Tuesday morning that a deal had been reached and that the bill was ready for a committee vote to take place that afternoon.

A number of the more conservative organizational leaders attending the first meeting, among them Rabbi Marvin Hier, the dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and Allen Fagin, the Orthodox Union’s CEO, challenged Obama on the particulars of the Iran deal, including concerns that the sanctions relief went further than merited by the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activity.

Hier told JTA that he raised annihilationist anti-Israel comments by Iranian leaders coincident with the talks – and with the 70th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany, as well as the threat posed to Israel by Hamas, the terrorist group controlling Gaza.

“What meaning do these negotiations have when were not confronting remarks by Ayatollah Khamenei?” Hier asked, referring to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The meeting with the fundraisers became more of a strategy session on how Obama could better his messaging to Jewish-Americans, Israelis and the wider American community. Advice included being more communicative with Congress, which has regarded the White House as insulated, and engaging directly with the Israeli public, which is still reeling over the bitter exchanges prior to Netanyahu’s speech to Congress in March. The address was arranged without consulting the White House.

Along with Obama, National Security Adviser Susan Rice attended the first meeting. The second meeting included Vice President Joe Biden, who for decades has been close to the pro-Israel community, and Valerie Jarrett, one of Obama’s closest advisers.

Organizations represented at the first meeting included the World Jewish Congress, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, J Street, the National Council of Jewish Women, B’nai B’rith International, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the Jewish Federations of North America, the National Jewish Democratic Council, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and the Israel Policy Forum, as well as representatives from the Reform, Conservative and Orthodox streams.

The second meeting, with 14 invitees, included major Democratic givers and fundraisers, including Haim Saban, the Israeli-American entertainment mogul who has been critical of Obama’s Middle East policies; and Democratic donors associated with AIPAC, including past presidents Amy Friedkin and Howard Friedman, and with J Street, including Alexandra Stanton, Lou Susman and Victor Kovner.

Not all of the Jewish leaders at the first meeting were won over by the president’s appeal for understanding.

“People who come in with an anger and a dislike still walked out with an anger and a dislike,” said a participant who was sympathetic to the president but asked tough questions. “But a little guilty.”

http://www.jta.org/2015/04/14/news-o...-much-he-cares
 
Old October 18th, 2016 #33
Robbie Key
Senior Member
 
Robbie Key's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 3,423
Robbie Key
Default

[jew admits the 1900s was the century of the Jews]

Opinion: The 20th century was the Jewish century

By SETH J. FRANTZMAN \ 10/17/2016 20:23

Never before in history and likely never again will such a small group of people create such influence as did Jews in the 20th century.

Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud, Leon Trotsky, Elie Wiesel, Noam Chomsky, Shimon Peres, Steven Spielberg, Garry Kasparov. It’s hard to think of an industry or a profession in which Jews did not excel in the past century. From well-known communists such as Genrikh Yagoda and Rosa Luxemburg, and communist spies such as the Rosenbergs, to the most zealous anti-communists such as Roy Cohn. Captains of industry and of social justice, from Golda Meir to Bob Dylan.

Leaders of the 1968 student rebellion like Daniel Marx Cohn-Bendit and of the forces arrayed against it, such as Milton Friedman. Comedians, artists, heads of secret police, terrorists, chemists, writers.

Never before in history and likely never again will such a small group of people create such influence as did Jews in the 20th century. How can we understand this influence? Is it overstated? Why did it occur? Why will the 21st century witness an overall decline? Population was one factor. In 1900 there were an estimated 1.6 billion people in the world, and around 10 million Jews. Around 0.6 percent. The number of Jews would peak at 17 million on the eve of the Holocaust when there were 2.3 billion people in the world. Today the number of Jews is not only far less as a percent (.01%), but the Jewish population is concentrated almost entirely in the US and Israel. In 1900 by contrast Jews were a major minority in many of the world’s cities, from Odessa to Baghdad. Not only were there more Jews as a percentage of the world’s population, they were concentrated in the most influential cities in the world. Before urbanization became standard in countries like China and Russia, Jews were urbanized and were pioneers in new industries.

If you traveled the world in the year 1900 many of its major cities had substantial Jewish populations. In Vienna 9% of the locals were Jewish, in Berlin around 4%, but almost 10% of Dresden. Similar populations were found in Amsterdam and Prague. In England and France there were significant but smaller communities, whereas in eastern Europe there were many cities that had massive Jewish populations, such as Krakow, Chernivtsi, Edirne (now in Turkey), Lvov, Salonika, Warsaw, Minsk, Odessa, Kishinev and Budapest, with between 20% and 60%. Romania had numerous towns that were over 30% Jewish. Further east, Damascus was 5% Jewish and Aleppo almost 10%. Algiers was almost a sixth Jewish, and in Egypt there were 30,000 Jews. Many cities in North Africa were more than 5% Jewish.

A quarter of Baghdad’s population was Jewish.

All of that is gone now, often leaving only a bare memory that it ever existed. Between Nazism, Communism, nationalism and Islamism in the Muslim world, almost all Jewish communities have been destroyed, and in many cases their contributions to local culture forgotten.

But the contributions of Albert Memmi, Jacques Derrida, Yitzhak Kaduri and others cannot be forgotten.

Is there a tendency toward navel-gazing when it comes to celebrating Jewish achievements and influence? The disproportionate influence is borne out in statistics. Start writing in Google “percent of Nobel prize win...” and by the time you get there it will fill it in for you “who are Jewish.” The response will tell you 20% of winners were Jewish. In other fields, such as philosophy, visual arts and architecture it might be more difficult to quantify. But obviously the influence is disproportionate when one considers just a list of great Jewish architects such as Louis Kahn, Daniel Libeskind, Frank Gehry, Oscar Niemeyer.

The same disproportionate achievement is clear in the world of business. Do we have to wade through more names than Soros, Adelson, Ellison, Ballmer, Bloomberg, Isidor Straus, Loeb, Weill? More than half the major players in Barbarians at the Gate, from Peter Cohen to Henry Kravis and the Pritzker family, were Jewish. Jews played such an outsized role in fashion and cosmetics in the 20th century that you could spend a lifetime in Ralph Lauren, Kenneth Cole and Calvin Klein outfits.

Jews played a smaller role in politics, but nevertheless an influential one. There were great Jewish mayors such as three from Toronto: Nathan Phillips, Mel Lastman and Philip Givens. Fiorello La Guardia’s mother was Jewish, as was Ed Koch. France had two Jewish prime ministers. Jews played major roles as advisers, consultants and in various other capacities around the centers of political power.

Beyond all this there is another, larger current in 20th century history that has to be acknowledged: Jews were both the progenitors and victims of the mass social movements of the century. They played a massively outsized role in social democratic movements, socialism and communism, which made sense since they were the primary victims of nationalism, fascism and Nazism. Amid all that, Jews played a major role in social justice movements including in South Africa and the US. Beyond all that some Jews sought to revolutionize their society through the creation of a Jewish state, eventually creating one of the most successful new countries of the 20th century, with one of the strongest armies in the world.

What has to make us pause when we think of all this is how used to this achievement and tremendous contributive role Jewish communities have become. But there is an inevitable let-down coming as Jewish communities decline into obscurity in most countries. Even in those countries where they once had disproportionate roles, they are outpaced by other minorities. Their role is often forgotten in the rewriting of history by groups, whether it be African-Americans in the US, or South African history.

No one in the Muslim Middle East wants to remember Jewish labor activists, Jewish businessmen from Iraq, Jewish philosophers. The time when physics and psychoanalysis could be called “Jewish sciences,” both derisively and accurately, or when Hollywood could be called “Jewish,” are nearing an end.

The freedom and mobility that enabled Jewish achievement in the 20th century is also enabling the diversification of minority achievement beyond Jews. Concentration and demographic decline have had their impact, as has the ethnic cleansing and genocide of Jews. This will have a long-term effect on Jewish self-perception and self-understanding regarding the influence of Jews in the world. The feeling of almost universal respect that those like Elie Wiesel commanded, the respect paid those like Shimon Peres, and the role of “public intellectual” adopted by men like Noam Chomsky, will pass in the 21st century.

For better or for worse, it is worthwhile to reflect on this passing, and the heritage that was provided to 21st century by their legacy.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Terra-I...century-470293
 
Old May 16th, 2018 #34
RickHolland
Bread and Circuses
 
RickHolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Jewed Faggot States of ApemuriKa
Posts: 6,589
Blog Entries: 1
RickHolland
Default

Notice how this "religion" is involved in politics like a political ideology.

Organized jewry lobbying to shape gentile countries policy.

https://www.facebook.com/europeanjewishunion/

https://www.ejassociation.eu/

https://eurojewcong.org/

https://www.eujs.org/

http://ejp.eu/
__________________
Only force rules. Force is the first law - Adolf H. http://erectuswalksamongst.us/ http://tinyurl.com/cglnpdj Man has become great through struggle - Adolf H. http://tinyurl.com/mo92r4z Strength lies not in defense but in attack - Adolf H.
 
Old July 8th, 2018 #35
littlefieldjohn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,757
littlefieldjohn
jewsign Fearing breakup of Israel lobby, liberal Zionists stress the power of Jewish unity

Quote:
The partisan divide over Israel has never been greater (as Pew documented this week). Republicans love Israel, while Democrats are ambivalent. The difference represents a fundamental political divide: Democratic liberals know about the occupation and they don’t like it, and that’s driving them to have far greater solidarity with Palestinians than Israelis, by nearly two to one.

You might think that the liberal Democratic shift would hearten liberal Zionists who are trying to end the occupation. Finally, U.S. politicians will criticize Israel, and force change. But no; there is panic among liberal Zionists writing in the Forward. More than they hate the occupation, they hate the possibility of Israel turning into a political football. For that could lead to Israel ultimately losing its protection by the U.S. from all international criticism.

They warn that Jews must stick together, because that is how we exercise power, by speaking in one voice to the U.S. establishment.

Jane Eisner, the editor of the Forward, wrote last week, “Trump Has Handed The Israel Lobby To Evangelicals. That’s Terrifying.” What’s terrifying to Eisner is the possibility that a powerful institution Jews built, the lobby, will be undermined: “as ‘pro-Israel’ becomes synonymous with conservative Republicans, American Jews — still largely identified with the Democratic party — will move away,” she says.

Eisner urges American Jews to stay true to the lobby. “[T]here are many ways to love and support Israel,” she says, even if you don’t like Netanyahu; and she tells Jews there’s an organization for them: AIPAC.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee remains the largest, richest and dominant Israel lobby in Washington, and its “big tent” approach still defines support for Israel in Congress and beyond. AIPAC prides itself on being bipartisan, and its annual convention attracts scores and scores of lawmakers from both sides of the aisle. While the number of yarmulke-wearing Orthodox Jews attending that convention has increased over the years, AIPAC still finds support in all Jewish religious denominations, and has actively courted other faith groups into its fold.

But after Trump’s unlikely victory, AIPAC is now directly challenged by Christians United for Israel, an evangelical lobby with a more hard-line and partisan approach that aligns with those setting the agenda in the White House.

AIPAC has long supported settlements and occupation and discrimination– whatever the Israeli government wants. But if AIPAC loses Democratic Jews, then Israel will become politicized; and Israel could come under a lot of pressure. Eisner is endorsing the idea that the lobby is an institution of Jewish influence, on the Democratic side anyway (and she downplays Sheldon Adelson’s influence on the right).

Yehuda Kurtzer, a Zionist speaker who appears at J Street gatherings, issued a very similar warning in the Forward this week: “The biggest threat to the Jews? The Partisan divide.”

Kurtzer says “Jewish power” derives from Jews sticking together.

People don’t like talking about Jewish power out loud because, despite good intentions, it either sounds anti-Semitic itself or gives fodder for anti-Semites. But Jewish power in America has been essential to Jewish thriving in America, and it has required instruments of solidarity — and specifically, the technique of presenting to the rest of the world an image, even if a facade, of communal unity.

That is an astute analysis. But as Kurtzer concedes, Jews now feel secure enough in the U.S. that they don’t need to huddle in a Jewish collective. And this loss of collective identity concerns him.
http://mondoweiss.net/2018/01/fearing-breakup-zionists/
 
Reply

Tags
jewish power

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:36 AM.
Page generated in 0.22623 seconds.