Monday, June 30, 2008

Obama Anecdote

I am aquainted with a group of Racinians whom I thought would be slam dunk Obama voters. They are urban, mostly single, non religious. They tend to despise George Bush, want out of Iraq, favor gay marriage and are pro-choice.

So I was a bit surprised when one of them desribed himself as a McCain supporter. I was even more surprised when I learned that only one of this social group (of a dozen or so) intended to vote for Obama.

They tended to see Obama as just a slick politician and they were disgusted by the Wright assocoation.

I know the polls are showing Obama with a big lead in Wisconsin, and my observations are purely anecdotal, but I think an Obama win is not inevitable.


Caledonication said...

I've had similar conversations recently. My take is that McCain has been so "all over the board" with his ideology over the years, that he has both drawn and repelled all political persuasions at one point or another. Personally, I don't even see him as a Republican. I don't really know what to make of him. Some of the Democrats I know do like him over Obama. Regardless, I don't think he is quite as empty as Obama, save for the fact that he still nothing more than another politician.

Discriminator said...

Obama will lose this election big. The rulers of this nation built him up to celebrity status via their media. Clinton could have won the Democratic nomination if she exposed Obama's racist, separatist connections. She was forbidden to do so. Alan keys the republican than ran for the senate against Obama was also forbidden from letting the people of Ill learn about Obama's racist White hating connections. Well now (since April 08) somewhat of a green light has been given by the powers that be to expose obama though it was too little and too late for Clinton. White America is very perverted especially when it comes to healthy, protective racial instincts. However even as racial polluted as the nation has become, and as wimpy and full of foolish White guilt as our folk have become - still most White folk will not vote for a mulatto that hates White folk. The young MTV drones that vote will mostly vote for Obama since they have been exposed to more anti-White propaganda they get from school and from the culture. Many of our young say they hate White people and will vote for Obama just because he is not White. However even though we are no longer a majority except on paper, many White votes will be needed for Obama to win. Obama will not get a majority of White votes and perhaps not even a majority of Mestizo votes. He can't win with just White hating negroids, mulatto's and MTV wiggers. Thus he will lose big as was the plan from the start. Zog will use that loss to present America to Americans as still supposedly racist (I wish White America was). They will use their media and miseducation systems to rile up the negroids and mulatto's while cementing and creating more foolish White guilt. In reality most White Americans will not vote for Obama because Obama is a White hating racist rather than because they are racist. Unfortunately most White people would have foolishly supported Obama (or any other non-White)if he was not so obviously racist. In any case it does not matter much who the visible leaders of this nation are any more than it does in Iran where the president is a pawn for the religious rulers that control the finances, education and media of the nation. Here in the Jewnited states those that control the media, (music, news, movies & entertainment, art, publishing to include text books) finances (federal reserve banks, stock & commodity markets, banking, credit) and education are not religious in the typical sense of the word with most of them being atheist but still also Jewish. The nation will continue to be flushed down the toilet no matter who our visible leaders are, as has been the case for many many many decades. The same is the case for all White founded nations since all of them are ZOG nations. Under Reagan our folk continued to be miseducated with a perverted anti-White indoctrination and the nation was flooded with millions of illegal and legal non-White hordes. The same under the Bush president and Clinton. White people are being discriminated and will continue to be no matter who is president. Our race is being destroyed and that will continue unless our loyal folk take control over our own destiny. That will require an overthrow of ZOG and all that serve ZOG.
So the pitiful traitor McCaine is very lucky. The only democrat that ran that he could beat is Obama. Obama has seen his financial support fall drastically since his racial views were exposed a bit in April and his negatives went from 13% to over half. Early polls show the race close though every other time since I have been paying attention (1980) the democrat is about 20 points ahead at this stage in the game. That might be because of the liberal slant of the media and it is before republican commercials or because of polling more democrats than republicans. In any case with republicans being so unpopular now Obama should be 30 points ahead but is not. He will lose big!

Denis Navratil said...

discriminator, you have a problem with Obamas apparent racism. Fine, so do I. But what of yours?

"White America is very perverted especially when it comes to healthy, protective racial instincts." Is there a difference between healthy protective instincts and white racism? I think not.

"However even as racial polluted as the nation has become..." "Jewnited states", "negroids" etc... make it very clear you are a racist, and I suspect you are quite proud of it.

Though we may well agree on certain points, I find your racism disgusting and I will no longer tolerate it on this blog. I am sure there are plenty of blogs available for you to share your views with like minded people. This isn't one of them.

Urban Pioneer said...

Similar experience here as well. I have several Lefty and moderate friends in my social and family circle, who voted for Kerry and or Gore, and were Hillary supporters. who are not voting for Barack, some of them are in Wisc, and several in Michigan. Both decisive Swing states the Dems are counting on. Furthermore when u look at the Red/ Blue map from 2000 and 2004. I don't see which state Obama can bring over to his side; except perhaps Ohio and or Iowa. But that is not enough, especially if he looses Wisconsin.
Another point to consider, Racine County is very narrowly divided, and is a microcosm of the State of WI, so while your sampling may be small, Gallop, Rasmussan and other polling companies will tell you our county is very representative of the country right now. So if true, we may see Obama loose in a landslide. Just ask President Dukakis what the June 30th polls mean in an election year....

Discriminator said...

"discriminator, you have a problem with Obamas apparent racism. Fine, so do I. But what of yours?"
No I do not and that should be very clear from my posts. The question you pose is like an American General wondering why another American general has concerns about the enemies dangerous arms but not those of his own troops. I am a racist by the original definition still used in some dictionaries. That means I understand race exists, is important, and genetic. Beyond the definition I also understand the equality myth is insane and I am loyal to the best interests of MY race. It is wise for Obama to be racist and loyal to those he has chosen as his people (he is a mulatto - mixed race). It is not wise for White people to be less than hostile to Folks like Obama that are clearly enemies. I have listened to con servatives on talk radio dismiss calls from the typical "black" person pointing out that all black folk hate White folk at least a bit and that all black folk are racist. The conservative talking heads ignore the honesty from black folk and keep saying 90% of Americans are not racist despite the overwelming evidence that most all non_Whites are racist though it is true that close to 99% of White folk are actually anti-racist.

"White America is very perverted especially when it comes to healthy, protective racial instincts." Is there a difference between healthy protective instincts and white racism? I think not."

You are correct. All creatures - plants and animals, are naturally racist (sub-species ist). It is hard for those that are indoctrinated with mindless slogans about love and equality to get this but - it is often a matter of perspective. What is good for me is often not good for my enemies. When I win at chess that is good for me but bad for the person that lost. It is good for the wolf when he catches a rabbit but bad for the rabbit. Being racist and having strong racial loyalty is natural, healthy and protective for all races but that does not mean the other races are not still enemies just because we share traits. We all (humans) have legs to so does that mean you should not be after Bin Ladin? He has legs too?

I know that con servatives fear being politically correct more than most so if you fear racism so much then I can't stop you from banning my comments. I notice you ONLY are concerened with certain things just like most all others. Folks can advocate murder, infanticide, torture, rape and most any perversion and they will not be banned. But ZOG rulers are most opposed to White racism (all others are encouraged to be racist) and above that anti-semitism (actually anti-jewism since most Semites are not Jews and in fact hate them and most Jews have little Semite blood - when you control the media too include dictionaries you define words - btw - semitism (favoritism towards Jews) - causes most anti-semitism) that is the number one sin in the Jew S. A. Strong opposition to feminism and homosexuality are also taboo. So different opinions ar ok as long as they do not go beyond what your masters allow. I find your positions to be very very sick and destructive. So much so that if the nation was ruled my way you would be in jail at minimum if you did not straighten up (you would though - lemmings reflect their leadership. You would adapt to the new media and culture in terms of what is politically correct).

Yet I tolerate views I hate since I have no masters by choice and I do not fear being politically incorrect.

Caledonication said...

What's a "ZOG"?

smallgovsam said...

ZOG is an acronym for Zionist Occupation Government, a antisemitic conspiracy theory where Jews secretly control a country, while the formal government is merely a puppet regime.

It can also mean the epitome of stupidity, essence of asinine or apex of ignorance.

Discriminator said...

Smallgovsam - I am far more informed on these subjects than you with decades of research and education behind me. My IQ is 138. What about you?

Who Rules America?
The Alien Grip on Our News and Entertainment Media Must Be Broken

By the Research Staff of National Vanguard Books
P.O. Box 330 · Hillsboro · West Virginia 24946 · USA

THERE IS NO GREATER POWER in the world today than that wielded by the manipulators of public opinion in America. No king or pope of old, no conquering general or high priest ever disposed of a power even remotely approaching that of the few dozen men who control America's mass media of news and entertainment.

Their power is not distant and impersonal; it reaches into every home in America, and it works its will during nearly every waking hour. It is the power that shapes and molds the mind of virtually every citizen, young or old, rich or poor, simple or sophisticated.

The mass media form for us our image of the world and then tell us what to think about that image. Essentially everything we know—or think we know—about events outside our own neighborhood or circle of acquaintances comes to us via our daily newspaper, our weekly news magazine, our radio, or our television.

It is not just the heavy-handed suppression of certain news stories from our newspapers or the blatant propagandizing of history-distorting TV "docudramas" that characterizes the opinion-manipulating techniques of the media masters. They exercise both subtlety and thoroughness in their management of the news and the entertainment that they present to us.

For example, the way in which the news is covered: which items are emphasized and which are played down; the reporter's choice of words, tone of voice, and facial expressions; the wording of headlines; the choice of illustrations—all of these things subliminally and yet profoundly affect the way in which we interpret what we see or hear.

On top of this, of course, the columnists and editors remove any remaining doubt from our minds as to just what we are to think about it all. Employing carefully developed psychological techniques, they guide our thought and opinion so that we can be in tune with the "in" crowd, the "beautiful people," the "smart money." They let us know exactly what our attitudes should be toward various types of people and behavior by placing those people or that behavior in the context of a TV drama or situation comedy and having the other TV characters react in the Politically Correct way.

Molding American Minds

For example, a racially mixed couple will be respected, liked, and socially sought after by other characters, as will a "take charge" Black scholar or businessman, or a sensitive and talented homosexual, or a poor but honest and hardworking illegal alien from Mexico. On the other hand, a White racist—that is, any racially conscious White person who looks askance at miscegenation or at the rapidly darkening racial situation in America—is portrayed, at best, as a despicable bigot who is reviled by the other characters, or, at worst, as a dangerous psychopath who is fascinated by firearms and is a menace to all law-abiding citizens. The White racist "gun nut," in fact, has become a familiar stereotype on TV shows.

The average American, of whose daily life TV-watching takes such an unhealthy portion, distinguishes between these fictional situations and reality only with difficulty, if at all. He responds to the televised actions, statements, and attitudes of TV actors much as he does to his own peers in real life. For all too many Americans the real world has been replaced by the false reality of the TV environment, and it is to this false reality that his urge to conform responds. Thus, when a TV scriptwriter expresses approval of some ideas and actions through the TV characters for whom he is writing, and disapproval of others, he exerts a powerful pressure on millions of viewers toward conformity with his own views.

And as it is with TV entertainment, so it is also with the news, whether televised or printed. The insidious thing about this form of thought control is that even when we realize that entertainment or news is biased, the media masters still are able to manipulate most of us. This is because they not only slant what they present, but also they establish tacit boundaries and ground rules for the permissible spectrum of opinion.

As an example, consider the media treatment of Middle East news. Some editors or commentators are slavishly pro-Israel in their every utterance, while others seem nearly neutral. No one, however, dares suggest that the U.S. government is backing the wrong side in the Arab-Jewish conflict, or that 9-11 was a result of that support. Nor does anyone dare suggest that it served Jewish interests, rather than American interests, to send U.S. forces to cripple Iraq, Israel's principal rival in the Middle East. Thus, a spectrum of permissible opinion, from pro-Israel to nearly neutral, is established.

Another example is the media treatment of racial issues in the United States. Some commentators seem almost dispassionate in reporting news of racial strife, while others are emotionally partisan—with the partisanship always on the non-White side. All of the media spokesmen without exception, however, take the position that "multiculturalism" and racial mixing are here to stay and that they are good things.

Because there are differences in degree, however, most Americans fail to realize that they are being manipulated. Even the citizen who complains about "managed news" falls into the trap of thinking that because he is presented with an apparent spectrum of opinion he can escape the thought controllers' influence by believing the editor or commentator of his choice. It's a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation. Every point on the permissible spectrum of public opinion is acceptable to the media masters—and no impermissible fact or viewpoint is allowed any exposure at all, if they can prevent it.

The control of the opinion-molding media is nearly monolithic. All of the controlled media—television, radio, newspapers, magazines, books, motion pictures—speak with a single voice, each reinforcing the other. Despite the appearance of variety, there is no real dissent, no alternative source of facts or ideas accessible to the great mass of people that might allow them to form opinions at odds with those of the media masters. They are presented with a single view of the world—a world in which every voice proclaims the equality of the races, the inerrant nature of the Jewish "Holocaust" tale, the wickedness of attempting to halt the flood of non-White aliens pouring across our borders, the danger of permitting citizens to keep and bear arms, the moral equivalence of all sexual orientations, and the desirability of a "pluralistic," cosmopolitan society rather than a homogeneous, White one. It is a view of the world designed by the media masters to suit their own ends—and the pressure to conform to that view is overwhelming. People adapt their opinions to it, vote in accord with it, and shape their lives to fit it.

And who are these all-powerful masters of the media? As we shall see, to a very large extent they are Jews. It isn't simply a matter of the media being controlled by profit-hungry capitalists, some of whom happen to be Jews. If that were the case, the ethnicity of the media masters would reflect, at least approximately, the ratio of rich Gentiles to rich Jews. Despite a few prominent exceptions, the preponderance of Jews in the media is so overwhelming that we are obliged to assume that it is due to more than mere happenstance.

Electronic News & Entertainment Media

Continuing government deregulation of the telecommunications industry has resulted, not in the touted increase of competition, but rather in an accelerating wave of corporate mergers and acquisitions that have produced a handful of multi-billion-dollar media conglomerates. The largest of these conglomerates are rapidly growing even bigger by consuming their competition, almost tripling in size during the 1990s. Whenever you watch television, whether from a local broadcasting station or via cable or a satellite dish; whenever you see a feature film in a theater or at home; whenever you listen to the radio or to recorded music; whenever you read a newspaper, book, or magazine—it is very likely that the information or entertainment you receive was produced and/or distributed by one of these megamedia companies:

Time Warner. The largest media conglomerate today is Time Warner (briefly called AOL-Time Warner; the AOL was dropped from the name when accounting practices at the AOL division were questioned by government investigators), which reached its current form when America Online bought Time Warner for $160 billion in 2000. The combined company had revenue of $39.5 billion in 2003. The merger brought together Steve Case, a Gentile, as chairman of AOL-Time Warner, and Gerald Levin, a Jew, as the CEO. Warner, founded by the Jewish Warner brothers in the early part of the last century, rapidly became part of the Jewish power base in Hollywood, a fact so well-known that it is openly admitted by Jewish authors, as is the fact that each new media acquisition becomes dominated by Jews in turn: Speaking of the initial merger of Time, Inc. with Warner, Jewish writer Michael Wolff said in New York magazine in 2001 "since Time Inc.'s merger with Warner ten years ago, one of the interesting transitions is that it has become a Jewish company." ("From AOL to W," New York magazine, January 29, 2001)

The third most powerful man at AOL-Time Warner, at least on paper, was Vice Chairman Ted Turner, a White Gentile. Turner had traded his Turner Broadcasting System, which included CNN, to Time Warner in 1996 for a large block of Time Warner shares. By April 2001 Levin had effectively fired Ted Turner, eliminating him from any real power. However, Turner remained a very large and outspoken shareholder and member of the board of directors.

Levin overplayed his hand, and in a May 2002 showdown, he was fired by the company's board. For Ted Turner, who had lost $7 billion of his $9 billion due to Levin's mismanagement, it was small solace. Turner remains an outsider with no control over the inner workings of the company. Also under pressure, Steve Case resigned effective in May 2003. The board replaced both Levin and Case with a Black, Richard Parsons. Behind Parsons the Jewish influence and power remains dominant.

AOL is the largest Internet service provider in the world, with 34 million U.S. subscribers. It is now being used as an online platform for the Jewish content from Time Warner. Jodi Kahn and Meg Siesfeld, both Jews, lead the Time Inc. Interactive team under executive editor Ned Desmond, a White Gentile. All three report to Time Inc. editor-in-chief Norman Pearlstine, a Jew. Their job is to transfer Time Warner's content to target specific segments of America Online's audience, especially women, children, and teens.

Time Warner was already the second largest of the international media leviathans when it merged with AOL. Time Warner's subsidiary HBO (26 million subscribers) is the nation's largest pay-TV cable network. HBO's "competitor" Cinemax is another of Time Warner's many cable ventures.

Until the purchase in May 1998 of PolyGram by Jewish billionaire Edgar Bronfman, Jr., Warner Music was America's largest record company, with 50 labels. Warner Music was an early promoter of "gangsta rap." Through its involvement with Interscope Records (prior to Interscope's acquisition by another Jewish-owned media firm), it helped to popularize a genre whose graphic lyrics explicitly urge Blacks to commit acts of violence against Whites. Bronfman purchased Warner Music in 2004, keeping it solidly in Jewish hands.

In addition to cable and music, Time Warner is heavily involved in the production of feature films (Warner Brothers Studio, Castle Rock Entertainment, and New Line Cinema). Time Warner's publishing division is managed by its editor-in-chief, Norman Pearlstine, a Jew. He controls 50 magazines including Time, Life, Sports Illustrated, and People. Book publishing ventures include Time-Life Books, Book-of-the-Month Club, Little Brown, and many others. Time Warner also owns Shoutcast and Winamp, the very tools that most independent Internet radio broadcasters rely on, and, as a dominant player in the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), was essentially "negotiating" with itself when Internet radio music royalty rules were set that strongly favored large content providers and forced many small broadcasters into silence. (The Register, "AOL Time Warner takes grip of net radio," 8th April 2003)

Ted Turner's Lesson: "Be very careful with whom you merge."

When Ted Turner, the Gentile media maverick, made a bid to buy CBS in 1985, there was panic in the media boardrooms across the country. Turner had made a fortune in advertising and then built a successful cable-TV news network, CNN, with over 70 million subscribers.

Although Turner had never taken a stand contrary to Jewish interests, he was regarded by William Paley and the other Jews at CBS as uncontrollable: a loose cannon who might at some time in the future turn against them. Furthermore, Jewish newsman Daniel Schorr, who had worked for Turner, publicly charged that his former boss held a personal dislike for Jews.

To block Turner's bid, CBS executives invited billionaire Jewish theater, hotel, insurance, and cigarette magnate Laurence Tisch to launch a "friendly" takeover of CBS. From 1986 to 1995 Tisch was the chairman and CEO of CBS, removing any threat of non-Jewish influence there. Subsequent efforts by Ted Turner to acquire CBS were obstructed by Gerald Levin's Time Warner, which owned nearly 20 percent of CBS stock and had veto power over major deals. But when his fellow Jew Sumner Redstone offered to buy CBS for $34.8 billion in 1999, Levin had no objections.

Thus, despite being an innovator and garnering headlines, Turner never commanded the "connections" necessary for being a media master. He finally decided if you can't lick 'em, join 'em, and he sold out to Levin's Time Warner. Ted Turner summed it up:

"I've had an incredible life for the most part. I made a lot of smart moves, and I made a lot of money. Then something happened, and I merged with Time Warner, which looked like the right thing to do at the time. And it was good for shareholders.

"But then I lost control. I thought I would have enough moral authority to have all the influence in the new company. If you go into business, be very careful with whom you merge.

"I thought I was buying Time Warner, but they were buying me. We had kind of a difference in viewpoint. Then they merged with AOL, and that was a complete disaster, at least so far. I have lost 85 percent of my wealth."

Disney. The second-largest media conglomerate today, with 2003 revenues of $27.1 billion, is the Walt Disney Company. Its leading personality and CEO, Michael Eisner, is a Jew.

The Disney empire, headed by a man described by one media analyst as a "control freak," includes several television production companies (Walt Disney Television, Touchstone Television, Buena Vista Television) and cable networks with more than 100 million subscribers altogether. As for feature films, the Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group includes Walt Disney Pictures, Touchstone Pictures, Hollywood Pictures, and Caravan Pictures. Disney also owns Miramax Films, run by the Jewish Weinstein brothers, Bob and Harvey, who have produced such ultra-raunchy movies as The Crying Game, Priest, and Kids.

When the Disney Company was run by the Gentile Disney family prior to its takeover by Eisner in 1984, it epitomized wholesome family entertainment. While it still holds the rights to Snow White, the company under Eisner has expanded into the production of a great deal of so-called "adult" material.

In August 1995, Eisner acquired Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., which owns the ABC television network, which in turn owns ten TV stations outright in such big markets as New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Houston. In addition, in the United States ABC has 225 affiliated TV stations, over 2,900 affiliated radio stations and produces over 7,200 radio programs. ABC owns 54 radio stations and operates 57 radio stations, many in major cities such as New York, Washington, and Los Angeles. Radio Disney, part of ABC Radio Networks, provides programming targeting children.

Sports network ESPN, an ABC cable subsidiary, is headed by President and CEO George W. Bodenheimer, who is a Jew. The corporation also controls the Disney Channel, Toon Disney, A&E, Lifetime Television, SOAPnet and the History Channel, with between 86 and 88 million subscribers each. The ABC Family television network has 84 million subscribers and, in addition to broadcasting entertainment (some of it quite raunchy for a "family" channel), is also the network outlet for Christian Zionist TV evangelist Pat Robertson.

Although primarily a telecommunications company, ABC/Disney earns over $1 billion in publishing, owning Walt Disney Company Book Publishing, Hyperion Books, and Miramax Books. It also owns six daily newspapers and publishes over 20 magazines. Disney Publishing Worldwide publishes books and magazines in 55 languages in 74 countries, reaching more than 100 million readers each month

On the Internet, Disney runs Buena Vista Internet Group, ABC Internet Group,,,, Mr. Showbiz, Disney Online, Disney's Daily Blast,,, ESPN Internet Group,,,,, Infoseek (partial ownership), and Disney Interactive.

Viacom. Number three on the list, with 2003 revenues of just over $26.5 billion, is Viacom, Inc., headed by Sumner Redstone (born Murray Rothstein), a Jew. Melvin A. Karmazin, another Jew, was number two at Viacom until June 2004, holding the positions of president and chief operating officer. Karmazin remains a large Viacom shareholder. Replacing Karmazin as co-presidents and co-COOs are a Jew, Leslie Moonves, and Tom Freston, a possible Jew. (We have been unable to confirm Freston's Jewish ancestry; he has done work for Jewish organizations and was involved in the garment trade, a heavily Jewish industry, importing clothing from the Third World to the U.S. in the 1970s.)

Viacom produces and distributes TV programs for the three largest networks, owns 39 television stations outright with another 200 affiliates in its wholly-owned CBS Television Network, owns 185 radio stations in its Infinity radio group, and has over 1,500 affiliated stations through its CBS Radio Network. It produces feature films through Paramount Pictures, headed by Jewess Sherry Lansing (born Sherry Lee Heimann), who is planning to retire at the end of 2005.

Viacom was formed in 1971 as a way to dodge an anti-monopoly FCC ruling that required CBS to spin off a part of its cable TV operations and syndicated programming business. This move by the government unfortunately did nothing to reduce the mostly Jewish collaborative monopoly that remains the major problem with the industry. In 1999, after CBS had again augmented itself by buying King World Productions (a leading TV program syndicator), Viacom acquired its progenitor company, CBS, in a double mockery of the spirit of the 1971 ruling.

Redstone acquired CBS following the December 1999 stockholders' votes at CBS and Viacom. CBS Television has long been headed by the previously mentioned Leslie Moonves; the other Viacom co-president, Tom Freston, headed wholly-owned MTV.

Viacom also owns the Country Music Television and The Nashville Network cable channels and is the largest outdoor advertising (billboards, etc.) entity in the U.S. Viacom's publishing division includes Simon & Schuster, Scribner, The Free Press, Fireside, and Archway Paperbacks. It distributes videos through its over 8,000 Blockbuster stores. It is also involved in satellite broadcasting, theme parks, and video games.

Viacom's chief claim to fame, however, is as the world's largest provider of cable programming through its Showtime, MTV, Nickelodeon, Black Entertainment Television, and other networks. Since 1989 MTV and Nickelodeon have acquired larger and larger shares of the juvenile television audience. MTV dominates the television market for viewers between the ages of 12 and 24.

Sumner Redstone owns 76 per cent of the shares of Viacom. He offers Jackass as a teen role model and pumps MTV's racially mixed rock and rap videos into 342 million homes in 140 countries and is a dominant cultural influence on White teenagers around the world. MTV also makes race-mixing movies like Save the Last Dance.

Nickelodeon, with over 87 million subscribers, has by far the largest share of the four-to-11-year-old TV audience in America and is expanding rapidly into Europe. Most of its shows do not yet display the blatant degeneracy that is MTV's trademark, but Redstone is gradually nudging the fare presented to his kiddie viewers toward the same poison purveyed by MTV. Nickelodeon continues a 12-year streak as the top cable network for children and younger teenagers.

NBC Universal. Another Jewish media mogul is Edgar Bronfman, Jr. He headed Seagram Company, Ltd., the liquor giant, until its recent merger with Vivendi. His father, Edgar Bronfman, Sr., is president of the World Jewish Congress.

Seagram owned Universal Studios and later purchased Interscope Records, the foremost promoter of "gangsta rap," from Warner. Universal and Interscope now belong to Vivendi Universal, which merged with NBC in May 2004, with the parent company now called NBC Universal.

Bronfman became the biggest man in the record business in May 1998 when he also acquired control of PolyGram, the European record giant, by paying $10.6 billion to the Dutch electronics manufacturer Philips.

In June 2000, the Bronfman family traded Seagram to Vivendi for stock in Vivendi, and Edgar, Jr. became vice chairman of Vivendi. Vivendi was originally a French utilities company, and was then led by Gentile Jean-Marie Messier. A board of directors faction led by Bronfman forced Messier to resign in July 2002.

Vivendi also acquired bisexual Jew Barry Diller's USA Networks in 2002. (Diller is the owner of InterActive Corporation, which owns Expedia, Ticketmaster, The Home Shopping Network, Lending Tree,, CitySearch, Evite,, and other Internet businesses.) Vivendi combined the USA Network, Universal Studios, Universal Television, and theme parks into Vivendi Universal Entertainment (VUE).

After the Vivendi-NBC merger, Bronfman used his considerable personal profits to strike out on his own, and recently purchased Warner Music from Jewish-dominated Time Warner. The current chairman of NBC Universal is a Gentile often associated with Jewish causes, long-time NBC employee Bob Wright. Ron Meyer, a Jew, is president and chief operating officer of Universal Studios. Stacey Snider, also Jewish, is the chairman of Universal Pictures. The president of NBC Universal Television Group is Jeff Zucker, another Jew.

With two of the top four media conglomerates in the hands of Jews (Disney and Viacom), with Jewish executives running the media operations of NBC Universal, and with Jews filling a large proportion of the executive jobs at Time Warner, it is unlikely that such an overwhelming degree of control came about without a deliberate, concerted effort on the Jews' part.

Other media companies: Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation owns Fox Television Network, Fox News, the FX Channel, 20th Century Fox Films, Fox 2000, and publisher Harper Collins. News Corp. is the fifth largest megamedia corporation in the nation, with 2003 revenues of approximately $19.2 billion. It is the only other media company which comes close to the top four.

Its Fox News Channel has been a key outlet pushing the Jewish neoconservative agenda that lies behind the Iraq War and which animates both the administration of George W. Bush and the "new conservatism" that embraces aggressive Zionism and multiracialism.

Murdoch is nominally a Gentile, but there is some uncertainty about his ancestry and he has vigorously supported Zionism and other Jewish causes throughout his life. (Historian David Irving has published information from a claimed high-level media source who says that Murdoch's mother, Elisabeth Joy Greene, was Jewish, but we have not been able to confirm this.) Murdoch's number two executive is Peter Chernin, who is president and chief operating officer—and a Jew.

Under Chernin, Jews hold key positions in the company: Gail Berman runs Fox Entertainment Group; Mitchell Stern heads satellite television division DirecTV; Jane Friedman is chairman and CEO of Harper Collins; and Thomas Rothman is chairman of Fox Filmed Entertainment. News Corporation also owns the New York Post and TV Guide, and both are published under Chernin's supervision. The primary printed neoconservative journal, The Weekly Standard, is also published by News Corporation and edited by William Kristol, a leading Jewish neocon spokesman and "intellectual."

Most of the television and movie production companies that are not owned by the large media corporations are also controlled by Jews.

For example, Spyglass, an "independent" film producer which has made such films as The Sixth Sense, The Insider, and Shanghai Noon, is controlled by its Jewish founders Gary Barber and Roger Birnbaum, who are co-chairmen. Jonathan Glickman serves as president and Paul Neinstein is executive vice president. Both men are Jews. Spyglass makes movies exclusively for DreamWorks SKG.

The best known of the smaller media companies, DreamWorks SKG, is a strictly kosher affair. DreamWorks was formed in 1994 amid great media hype by recording industry mogul David Geffen, former Disney Pictures chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg, and film director Steven Spielberg, all three of whom are Jews. The company produces movies, animated films, television programs, and recorded music. Considering the cash and connections that Geffen, Katzenberg, and Spielberg have, DreamWorks may soon be in the same league as the big four.

One major studio, Columbia Pictures, is owned by the Japanese multinational firm Sony. Nevertheless, the studio's chairman is Jewess Amy Pascal, and its output fully reflects the Jewish social agenda. Sony's music division recently merged with European music giant BMG to form Sony BMG Music Entertainment, now one of the world's largest music distributors. It is headed by CEO Andrew Lack, formerly president and CEO of NBC—and a Jew. Sony's overall American operations are headed by a Jew named Howard Stringer, formerly of CBS, who hired Lack.

It is well known that Jews have controlled most of the production and distribution of films since shortly after the inception of the movie industry in the early decades of the 20th century. When Walt Disney died in 1966, the last barrier to the total Jewish domination of Hollywood was gone, and Jews were able to grab ownership of the company that Walt built. Since then they have had everything their way in the movie industry.

Films produced by seven of the firms mentioned above—Disney, Warner Brothers, Paramount (Viacom), Universal (NBC Universal), 20th Century Fox (News Corp.), DreamWorks, and Columbia (Sony)—accounted for 94% of total box-office receipts for the year 2003.

The big three in television network broadcasting used to be ABC, CBS, and NBC. With the consolidation of the media empires, these three are no longer independent entities. While they were independent, however, each was controlled by a Jew since its inception: ABC by Leonard Goldenson; NBC first by David Sarnoff and then by his son Robert; and CBS first by William Paley and then by Laurence Tisch. Over several decades these networks were staffed from top to bottom with Jews, and the essential Jewishness of network television did not change when the networks were absorbed by other Jewish-dominated media corporations. The Jewish presence in television news remains particularly strong.

NBC provides a good example of this. The president of NBC News is Neal Shapiro. Jeff Zucker is NBC Universal Television Group president. Reporting directly to Zucker is his close friend Jonathan Wald, formerly an NBC program producer, now a senior consultant for CNBC. David M. Zaslav is president of NBC Cable (and also a director of digital video firm TiVo Inc.). The president of MSNBC is Rick Kaplan. All of these men are Jews.

A similar preponderance of Jews exists in the news divisions of the other networks. Sumner Redstone, Tom Freston, and Les Moonves control Viacom's CBS. Moonves demonstrated his power in 2002 by replacing the entire staff of the new CBS Early Show. He is also a great-nephew of Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion, Israel's first prime minister. Al Ortiz (also a Jew) is executive producer and director of special events coverage for CBS News. Senior executive producer Michael Bass and Victor Neufeld (formerly producer of ABC's 20/20) produce the CBS Early Show; both are Jews.

At ABC, David Westin, who is a Jew according to Jeffrey Blankfort of the Middle East Labor Bulletin, is the president of ABC News. The senior vice president for news at ABC is Paul Slavin, also a Jew. Bernard Gershon, a Jew, is senior vice president/general manager of the ABC News Digital Media Group, in charge of, ABC News Productions, and ABC News Video Source.

The Print Media

After television news, daily newspapers are the most influential information medium in America. About 58 million of them are sold (and presumably read) each day. These millions are divided among some 1,456 different publications. One might conclude that the sheer number of different newspapers across America would provide a safeguard against minority control and distortion. Alas, such is not the case. There is less independence, less competition, and much less representation of majority interests than a casual observer would think.

In 1945, four out of five American newspapers were independently owned and published by local people with close ties to their communities. Those days, however, are gone. Most of the independent newspapers were bought out or driven out of business by the mid-1970s. Today most "local" newspapers are owned by a rather small number of large companies controlled by executives who live and work hundreds or even thousands of miles away. Today less than 20 percent of the country's 1,456 papers are independently owned; the rest belong to multi-newspaper chains. Only 103 of the total number have circulations of more than 100,000. Only a handful are large enough to maintain independent reporting staffs outside their own communities; the rest must depend on these few for all of their national and international news.

The Associated Press (AP), which sells content to newspapers, is currently under the control of its Jewish vice president and managing editor, Michael Silverman, who directs the day-to-day news reporting and supervises the editorial departments. Silverman had directed the AP's national news as assistant managing editor, beginning in 1989. Jewess Ann Levin is AP's national news editor. Silverman and Levin are under Jonathan Wolman, also a Jew, who was promoted to senior vice president of AP in November 2002.

In only two per cent of the cities in America is there more than one daily newspaper, and competition is frequently nominal even among them, as between morning and afternoon editions under the same ownership or under joint operating agreements.

Much of the competition has disappeared through the monopolistic tactics of the Jewish Newhouse family's holding company, Advance Publications. Advance publications buys one of two competing newspapers, and then starts an advertising war by slashing advertising rates, which drives both papers to the edge of bankruptcy. Advance Publications then steps in and buys the competing newspaper. Often both papers continue: one as a morning paper and the other as an evening paper. Eventually, though, one of the papers is closed—giving the Newhouse brothers the only daily newspaper in that city. For example, in 2001 the Newhouses closed the Syracuse Herald-Journal leaving their other Syracuse newspaper, the Post-Journal, with a monopoly.

The Newhouse media empire provides an example of more than the lack of real competition among America's daily newspapers: it also illustrates the insatiable appetite Jews have shown for all the organs of opinion control on which they could fasten their grip. The Newhouses own 31 daily newspapers, including several large and important ones, such as the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Newark Star-Ledger, and the New Orleans Times-Picayune; Newhouse Broadcasting, consisting of television stations and cable operations; the Sunday supplement Parade, with a circulation of more than 35 million copies per week; some two dozen major magazines, including The New Yorker, Vogue, Wired, Glamour, Vanity Fair, Bride's, Gentlemen's Quarterly, Self, House & Garden, and all the other magazines of the wholly-owned Conde Nast group. The staffing of the magazines is, as you might expect, quite Kosher. Parade can serve as an example: Its publisher is Randy Siegel, its editor and senior vice president is Lee Kravitz, its creative director is Ira Yoffe, its science editor is David H. Levy, and its health editor is Dr. Isadore Rosenfeld.

This Jewish media empire was founded by the late Samuel Newhouse, an immigrant from Russia. When he died in 1979 at the age of 84, he bequeathed media holdings worth an estimated $1.3 billion to his two sons, Samuel and Donald. With a number of further acquisitions, the net worth of Advance Publications has grown to more than $9 billion today. The gobbling up of so many newspapers by the Newhouse family was facilitated by newspapers' revenue structure. Newspapers, to a large degree, are not supported by their subscribers but by their advertisers. It is advertising revenue—not the small change collected from a newspaper's readers—that largely pays the editor's salary and yields the owner's profit. Whenever the large advertisers in a city choose to favor one newspaper over another with their business, the favored newspaper will flourish while its competitor dies. Since the beginning of the last century, when Jewish mercantile power in America became a dominant economic force, there has been a steady rise in the number of American newspapers in Jewish hands, accompanied by a steady decline in the number of competing Gentile newspapers—to some extent a result of selective advertising policies by Jewish merchants.

Furthermore, even those newspapers still under Gentile ownership and management are so thoroughly dependent upon Jewish advertising revenue that their editorial and news reporting policies are largely constrained by Jewish likes and dislikes. It holds true in the newspaper business as elsewhere that he who pays the piper calls the tune.

Three Jewish Newspapers

The suppression of competition and the establishment of local monopolies on the dissemination of news and opinion have characterized the rise of Jewish control over America's newspapers. The resulting ability of the Jews to use the press as an unopposed instrument of Jewish policy could hardly be better illustrated than by the examples of the nation's three most prestigious and influential newspapers: the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post. These three, dominating America's financial and political capitals, are the newspapers that set the trends and the guidelines for nearly all the others. They are the ones that decide what is news and what isn't at the national and international levels. They originate the news; the others merely copy it. And all three newspapers are in Jewish hands.

The New York Times, with a 2003 circulation of 1,119,000, is the unofficial social, fashion, entertainment, political, and cultural guide of the nation. It tells America's "smart set" which books to buy and which films to see; which opinions are in style at the moment; which politicians, educators, spiritual leaders, artists, and businessmen are the real comers. And for a few decades in the 19th century it was a genuinely American newspaper.

The New York Times was founded in 1851 by two Gentiles, Henry J. Raymond and George Jones. After their deaths, it was purchased in 1896 from Jones's estate by a wealthy Jewish publisher, Adolph Ochs. His great-great-grandson, Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., is the paper's current publisher and the chairman of the New York Times Co. Russell T. Lewis, also a Jew, is president and chief executive officer of The New York Times Company. Michael Golden, another Jew, is vice chairman. Martin Nisenholtz, a Jew, runs their massive Internet operations.

The Sulzberger family also owns, through the New York Times Co., 33 other newspapers, including the Boston Globe, purchased in June 1993 for $1.1 billion; eight TV and two radio broadcasting stations; and more than 40 news-oriented Web operations. It also publishes the International Herald Tribune, the most widely distributed English-language daily in the world. The New York Times News Service transmits news stories, features, and photographs from the New York Times by wire to 506 other newspapers, news agencies, and magazines.

Of similar national importance is the Washington Post, which, by establishing its "leaks" throughout government agencies in Washington, has an inside track on news involving the Federal government.

The Washington Post, like the New York Times, had a non-Jewish origin. It was established in 1877 by Stilson Hutchins, purchased from him in 1905 by John R. McLean, and later inherited by Edward B. McLean. In June 1933, however, at the height of the Great Depression, the newspaper was forced into bankruptcy. It was purchased at a bankruptcy auction by Eugene Meyer, a Jewish financier and former partner of the infamous Bernard Baruch, a Jew who was industry czar in America during the First World War. The Washington Post was run by Katherine Meyer Graham, Eugene Meyer's daughter, until her death in 2001. She was the principal stockholder and board chairman of the Washington Post Company; and she appointed her son, Donald Graham, publisher of the paper in 1979. Donald became Washington Post Company CEO in 1991 and its board chairman in 1993, and the chain of Jewish control at the Post remains unbroken. The newspaper has a daily circulation of 732,000, and its Sunday edition sells over one million copies.

The Washington Post Company has a number of other media holdings in newspapers (the Gazette Newspapers, including 11 military publications); in television (WDIV in Detroit, KPRC in Houston, WPLG in Miami, WKMG in Orlando, KSAT in San Antonio, WJXT in Jacksonville); and in magazines, most notably the nation's number-two weekly newsmagazine, Newsweek.

The Washington Post Company's various television ventures reach a total of about 12 million homes, and its cable TV service, Cable One, has 750,000 subscribers.

The Wall Street Journal sells 1,820,000 copies each weekday and is owned by Dow Jones & Company, Inc., a New York corporation that also publishes 33 other newspapers and the weekly financial tabloid Barron's. The chairman and CEO of Dow Jones is Peter R. Kann, who is a Jew. Kann also holds the posts of chairman and publisher of the Wall Street Journal.

Most of New York's other major newspapers are in no better hands than the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. In January 1993 the New York Daily News (circulation 729,000) was bought from the estate of the late Jewish media mogul Robert Maxwell (born Ludvik Hoch) by Jewish real-estate developer Mortimer B. Zuckerman. Another Jew, Les Goodstein, is the president and chief operating officer of the New York Daily News. And, as mentioned above, the neocon-slanted New York Post (circulation 652,000) is owned by News Corporation under the supervision of Jew Peter Chernin.

News Magazines

The story is much the same for other media as it is for television, radio, films, music, and newspapers. Consider, for example, newsmagazines. There are only three of any importance published in the United States: Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report.

Time, with a weekly circulation of 4.1 million, is published by a subsidiary of Time Warner Communications, the news media conglomerate formed by the 1989 merger of Time, Inc., with Warner Communications. The editor-in-chief of Time Warner Communication is Norman Pearlstine, a Jew.

Newsweek, as mentioned above, is published by the Washington Post Company, under the Jew Donald Graham. Its weekly circulation is 3.2 million.

U.S. News & World Report, with a weekly circulation of 2.0 million, is owned and published by the aforementioned Mortimer B. Zuckerman, who also has taken the position of editor-in-chief of the magazine for himself. Zuckerman also owns New York's tabloid newspaper, the Daily News, which is the sixth-largest paper in the nation.

Our Responsibility

Those are the facts of media control in America. Anyone willing to spend a few hours in a large library looking into current editions of yearbooks on the radio and television industries and into directories of newspapers and magazines; into registers of corporations and their officers, such as those published by Standard and Poors and by Dun and Bradstreet; and into standard biographical reference works can verify their accuracy. They are undeniable. When confronted with these facts, Jewish spokesmen customarily will use evasive tactics. "Ted Turner isn't a Jew!" they will announce triumphantly, as if that settled the issue. If pressed further they will accuse the confronter of "anti-Semitism" for even raising the subject. It is fear of this accusation that keeps many persons who know the facts silent.

But we must not remain silent on this most important of issues. The Jewish control of the American mass media is the single most important fact of life, not just in America, but in the whole world today. There is nothing—plague, famine, economic collapse, even nuclear war—more dangerous to the future of our people.

Jewish media control determines the foreign policy of the United States and permits Jewish interests rather than American interests to decide questions of war and peace. Without Jewish media control, there would have been no Persian Gulf war, for example. There would have been no NATO massacre of Serb civilians. There would have been no Iraq War, and thousands of lives would have been saved. There would have been little, if any, American support for the Zionist state of Israel, and the hatreds, feuds, and terror of the Middle East would never have been brought to our shores.

By permitting the Jews to control our news and entertainment media we are doing more than merely giving them a decisive influence on our political system and virtual control of our government; we also are giving them control of the minds and souls of our children, whose attitudes and ideas are shaped more by Jewish television and Jewish films than by parents, schools, or any other influence.

The Jew-controlled entertainment media have taken the lead in persuading a whole generation that homosexuality is a normal and acceptable way of life; that there is nothing at all wrong with White women dating or marrying Black men, or with White men marrying Asian women; that all races are inherently equal in ability and character—except that the character of the White race is suspect because of a history of oppressing other races; and that any effort by Whites at racial self-preservation is reprehensible.

We must oppose the further spreading of this poison among our people, and we must break the power of those who are spreading it. It would be intolerable for such power to be in the hands of any alien minority with values and interests different from our own. But to permit the Jews, with their 3,000-year history of nation-wrecking, from ancient Egypt to Russia, to hold such power over us is tantamount to race suicide. Indeed, the fact that so many White Americans today are so filled with a sense of racial guilt and self-hatred that they actively seek the death of their own race is a deliberate consequence of Jewish media control.

Once we have absorbed and understood the fact of Jewish media control, it is our inescapable responsibility to do whatever is necessary to break that control. We must shrink from nothing in combating this evil power that has fastened its deadly grip on our people and is injecting its lethal poison into our people's minds and souls. If our race fails to destroy it, it certainly will destroy our race.

smallgovsam said...

The following is an article by Thomas Sowell entitled "Is Anti-Semitism Generic?" I believe it will in part explain your prejudice, discriminator.

The horrors of the Holocaust should have permanently discredited anti-Semitism but that ancient and venomous hatred has had a recent resurgence in Europe. How much of this is due to a growing Muslim population in Europe is a question for which there is no ready answer.

Many of the explanations of anti-Jewish attitudes and actions over the centuries, including mob violence and mass expulsions, have focused on things unique to Jews or unique to the Christian-Jewish relationship in Europe or the Muslim-Jewish relationship in the Middle East. Yet many of the same attitudes and actions—and some of the very same words and phrases—have been directed at other groups which have had none of the factors which are said to explain anti-Jewish attitudes and actions among Christians and Muslims. What these other groups—the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, Ibos in Nigeria, Marwaris in Burma, overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia, and Lebanese in a number of countries—have had in common with the Jews has not been religion, race, or language, but their economic and social roles.

These groups have all been, at some point in their history, “middleman minorities”—that is, people whose work takes place somewhere between producers and consumers, whether in retail trade or money-lending. Often these middleman minorities began at the petty level of a peddler with a pack on his back or a little pushcart. Even such large enterprises as Macy’s, Bloomingdale’s, and Levi Strauss among the Jews, and Haggar and Farah among the Lebanese, began at the level of the lowly peddler.

Beginning as a peddler was a very widespread experience among Jewish men who emigrated from Eastern Europe to nineteenth-century America. The next step up was often owning a little retail shop. A similar pattern of petty retailing could be found among the Lebanese in Brazil and among the Chinese in Southeast Asia, as well as among other middleman minorities in countries around the world. In their early stages, these shop owners often lived in their little establishments. At one time Lebanese storekeepers in Sierra Leone simply slept on their counters at night. In India, Marwaris were often missed by census takers because they did not live in any residential neighborhood but in their own little shops in business districts. In America, Jewish storekeepers often lived in back of their stores or over the stores, as Milton Friedman’s family did.

What has been remarkable about such groups has not been simply their eventual prosperity but the utter poverty from which their prosperity arose over the years or generations. People on welfare in America today live better than the immigrant Jews did on New York’s Lower East Side. A 1908 study, for example, found that about half the families on the Lower East Side slept three or four people to a room, nearly one-fourth slept five or more to a room, and fewer than one-fourth slept two to a room. During that same era, Chinese immigrants typically arrived in Southeast Asian countries in similar rock-bottom poverty. According to Victor Purcell’s landmark study, The Chinese in Southeast Asia, “Immigrant Chinese arriving in Indonesia usually brought nothing but a bundle of clothes, a mat, and a pillow.” It was much the same story with Lebanese immigrants to colonial Sierra Leone and, in a later era, Korean immigrants and Vietnamese refugees to the United States.

These and other similarities among middleman minorities in countries around the world have caused the overseas Chinese to be called “the Jews of Southeast Asia,” the Ibos to be called “the Jews of Nigeria,” the Parsees to be called “the Jews of India,” and the Lebanese to be called “the Jews of West Africa.”

What is chilling is what other things these groups have been called. “Parasites” has been another epithet applied to middleman minorities because, as retailers or money-lenders, they do not produce any physical product but are simply intermediaries between manufacturers and customers. “Bloodsuckers” is another epithet expressing the notion that middleman minorities do not add anything to the wealth of a community or nation but simply manage to extract a share of the existing wealth for themselves, at the expense of others. This charge has rung out against innumerable middleman minorities, from the villages of India to black ghettos in the United States.

In many times and places, middleman minorities have been forced to flee for their lives from mobs or have been expelled en masse by political authorities. Yet the departure of these supposed “parasites” and “exploiters” has not been followed by a more prosperous life by the rest of the population but usually by economic decline—sometimes catastrophic decline, as the economy of Uganda collapsed after middleman minorities from India and Pakistan were expelled during the 1970s. Similar things happened after the expulsions of Jews in Europe in various periods of history or other middleman minorities in parts of Asia.

“Clannish” is another epithet applied to the Parsees in India, to the Jews in the United States, and to other middleman minorities in places in between. To a certain extent, clannishness goes with the territory, so long as these groups remain locally predominant in retailing or in money-lending. Where a minority operates most of the retail stores or pawn shops and other money-lending places in a community with a different majority population, the whole basis of the middleman minority’s livelihood is their cultural difference from that majority. Southeast Asian peasants who did not save could get loans and credit from overseas Chinese middlemen only because the overseas Chinese did save. For the overseas Chinese to allow their children to become part of the larger culture around them and absorb their values and behavior patterns would have been to have the family commit economic suicide. The same has been true of other middleman minorities around the world.

The economic necessity of maintaining a separate culture has meant not only social separation but also resentments of that separation by the surrounding community—resentments that could easily be whipped up to political hostility or outright violence by suitably talented demagogues. This has happened in innumerable times and places, as mobs have been aroused to lethal fury against the Marwaris in Burma, the Ibos in Northern Nigeria, the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, the Lebanese in Sierra Leone, the overseas Chinese in Saigon, Jakarta, and Kuala Lumpur, and the Jews in many parts of both medieval and modern Europe.

Lethal violence against middleman minorities has been on a scale seldom approached by violence against other kinds of minorities, such as conquered indigenous groups or formerly enslaved people. All the blacks lynched in the entire history of the United States do not add up to as many people as the number of Chinese slaughtered by mobs near Saigon in 1782, or the Jews killed by mobs in Central Europe in 1096 or in Ukraine in 1648, much less the slaughters of Armenians by mobs in the Ottoman Empire during the 1890s or during the First World War. Only the Nazi Holocaust exceeded the slaughter of Armenians and, while the Holocaust was the ultimate catastrophe for Jews, it was also the culmination of a long history of lethal mass violence unleashed against middleman minorities around the world.

Why such venom against this particular kind of minority? Why such violence against groups who are themselves typically non-violent?

Part of the answer may be the role of middleman minority, as such. Retailing and money-lending have long been regarded by the economically unsophisticated as not “really” adding anything to the economic well-being of a community, even when the people engaged in those activities have not been a separate group within the community. After all, both medieval Europe and the Islamic countries regarded the charging of interest as a sin and, in other societies in Asia and Africa, it was considered morally suspect, even without a religious prohibition against it. An often-cited article by a British economist who was a prisoner of war in Germany during World War II pointed out how middleman economic activities arose spontaneously among the POWs—and how the individuals who engaged in these activities were resented by the other POWs, even though these individuals were not from some middleman minority, but ranged from a Catholic priest to a Sikh.

For much of human history, most people did arduous work in agriculture, and the rise of industrial societies meant for most of them simply the transfer of the scene of that arduous labor from the farm to the factory. In that setting, people who made a living more easily, and with clean hands, just by selling what others had produced, and who received back more money than they had lent, were readily resented. Add in the factor of ethnic differences in the case of middleman minorities, and there are the ingredients for resentments to arise spontaneously and for demagogues to be able to raise those resentments to a higher pitch.

Perhaps even more important is the inherent threat that middleman minorities present to the egos of others when those minorities begin in poverty and then rise above the economic level of those around them. What are those others supposed to make of what has happened? Inspiring as rags-to-riches stories may be to some, especially observers at some distance, to those immediately in contact with the middleman minorities, who have seen them arrive destitute, often with little more than a few words of the local language, and then rise above the people around them, this phenomenon offers few alternatives other than to question themselves for having let these newcomers outperform them or to become hostile to the newcomers and be ready to believe that they have done something illegitimate to achieve success—the latter explanation being one that is usually readily supplied by demagogues and readily accepted by those who hear it.

When people are confronted with a choice between hating themselves for their stagnation or hating others for their progress, they seldom hate themselves.

Despite studies in the United States showing what hard work and frugal living usually preceded Korean immigrants’ reaching the point where they could even open a small shop in a black ghetto, and the very long hours of work put into those shops to enable them to survive economically, it has been widely believed in the black community that the success of the Koreans or other Asian immigrants has been due to some government favors which those immigrants received and which have not been available to blacks. What else can the residents of those ghettos believe without a high cost to their own egos? A black official in charge of a state agency that dispenses aid to small businesses recalled being besieged with claims from a black audience that his agency helped Asian businesses get started in preference to helping blacks. Nothing he said about the preposterousness of the notion that he would do that made any dent on the audience. The cost of believing him was just too high.

The role of ego in the hostility toward middleman minorities is shown in other ways as well. Even killing them has often not been sufficient for those who hate them. They must also be humiliated and dehumanized. Their women must be stripped naked in public, as Armenian women were during the mob violence in the Ottoman Empire and as Jewish women were in the Nazi death camps, and whatever sadistic humiliations could be thought of were inflicted on men and women alike. When it was suggested during the 1990s that the Asians who had been expelled from Uganda 20 years earlier should be brought back in hopes of restoring that country’s economy, the hostile responses included that of a group which threatened to kill them “in the most despicable way ever” if they dared to come back. Simply killing them would not be enough to assuage the wounded egos of those they had so greatly outperformed.

The movement of particular minorities out of the middleman occupations in which they began does not necessarily lead to an abatement of the hostility against them. The same capacity for hard work, frugal living, and long-term planning which was essential for survival as middleman minorities has often lead to great success in education, in the professions, and in large-scale business enterprises.

Even middleman minorities with little or no education themselves have often seen the value of education for their children. Thus, even though the Chinese immigrants who arrived in Southeast Asia in the nineteenth century were often illiterate, once they began to prosper in their little shops and other enterprises, they began to finance the creation of Chinese schools. In later generations, the Chinese minority in Malaysia produced an absolute majority of the students at the University of Malaysia, until government-imposed quotas cut back their numbers. They were an overwhelming majority of those receiving degrees in engineering in the 1960s—404 Chinese to 4 Malays. This concentration of college and university students from middleman minority backgrounds in the more difficult and more remunerative specialties has been a common pattern, whether among the overseas Chinese in Malaysia, among the Lebanese in Brazil, or among Jews in a number of countries.

Lebanese immigrants to various countries have, in their early stages, included many who were illiterate and few who were highly educated. Nevertheless, they—like the Chinese, the Jews, the Armenians, and others—came from a culture that valued education, even when most of them had very little education themselves. Nor was education the key to their initial rise. Typically it was after becoming established economically as entrepreneurs that middleman minorities could then afford to dispense with their children’s labor in order to let them go to school instead and, still later, pay for them to continue on into higher education.

In schools and colleges, the children of middleman minorities tended to excel, whether among the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, the Chinese in Southeast Asia, or the Jews in the United States. But even the Jews, with their legendary reverence for learning, did not rise in America initially through education. A survey of students in the College of the City of New York in 1951, when the students there were predominantly Jewish, showed that only 17 percent of their fathers who were born before 1911 had completed the eighth grade.

Consider again the case of the Korean immigrant or Vietnamese refugee who has set up a small business in one of America’s black ghettos. Although this small-scale entrepreneur may have begun with very little money and may never become fluent in English or polished in manner, nevertheless his growing prosperity over the years may become manifest to ghetto residents, and his American-born children are likely to be heading off to colleges, perhaps prestigious colleges, while the children of many of the people in the community around his shop have prospects of low-paid jobs or unemployment, and many face prospects of jail. Add in the factor that this community lives in an atmosphere where “unfair” disparities are resented by those who set the tone in both the general society and in the local ghetto. All the ingredients are there for attitudes and actions which are called “anti-Semitism” when directed against Jews but which are very similar to the attitudes and actions to which other middleman minorities have been subjected in many times and places around the world.

Caledonication said...

Discriminator. What part of your last post "didn't" you copy and paste? Isn't it customary for reseachers to list their sources? A couple of links would have made more sense than posting a couple of websites worth of text in your comment.

I never divulge my IQ. There is too fine a line between genius and insanity.


Anonymous said...

I love it when people indictate how smart they are by posting their IQ then demonstrate how stupid they are with their "post". I read a story years ago about Mick Jagger working for some ultra secret British intelligence unit and described their concert and the killing of a fan at Altamont as part of some plan to take over the world. It was quite well written, amazingly believable, and absolute utter bullshit.

Discriminator said...

Smallgovsam - for those that want to believe as they are supposed to believe any bull will convince them. My hatred towards enemies is based on their threat to me, mine and what and whom I love. I am well aware of the tendency for the inferior to hate the superior and the other way around as well. I know that immigrants that do well because of hard work and sacrifice along with working together with friends and family, are often hated by those locals that do not do as well.

Much of the info in the article you posted is not accurate though it will do for the stupid masses. Some of the minority "middleman" groups spoke about were not a benefit to the economy, but rather a great harm. Oh but that truth would not fit with the popular approved anti-racist message of the article.

In reality many of the so called "middleman" minorities throughout the world have done great harm to the nations they infested. They have leeched from productive society adding costs to products and services without adding any benefit. Often they are involved with criminal/violent activities that take advantage of peoples weaknesses and sicknesses.

The popular take is that non-Whites are ALWAYS a positive addition and always good and always at least equal to us. If you do some research (OLDER books/articles)you will find many cases when cleansing a nation of Jews has been very positive for the nation cleansed. Think of Spain for example. After the Jews were cleansed the nation was able to defeat the Muslims that Jews had helped and thus they retook their lands. Spain went on to reach great heights once the nation was cleansed of Jews by King Fernandez and Queen Isabella.

Jews have ALWAYS been heavily involved with illegal activities in any nation they infest. Jews have ALWAYS worked together in secrecy (conspiracy) to take advantage of the hated hosts in the nations they infest. Jews hate non-Jews. The Talmud makes it clear Jews are our greatest enemy. They know it well and act accordingly. All the advice on how to rob, cheat, steal, and kill us is not like any other religious advice.

Only Jews (among religions)consider themselves Jews even if atheist. They are born Jews. Ever here of an atheist christian like those atheist Jews? What about a christian Muslim? Well there are christian Jews. One is always a Jew no matter religion. Obviously being a Jew is more than just religious. It is part racial with the genetic link being that those born of a Jewish mother are considered Jews. It is part religious. It is part a conspiracy against ALL non-Jews. That is clear from the Talmud and many other Jewish writings from long ago to the current times.

Only Jews do not make attempts to convert others to their religion considering converts to be fake Jews. Only Jews keep their most holy works as secret as possible and do their best to create false perceptions (via lies)among non-Jews about their religion. The actions of Jews proves they are hostile to us as well. Their control of the media and the hostility of the media towards us and how the media works to pervert our folk should make it clear what Jewish intent is.

Yes Jewish leadership is intelligent. They have long term goals they work together in secret on and they take care of their own looking out for ONLY Jewish interests while they preach to us via their media how favoritism is evil. Yes they work hard at ripping us off and destroying us. Yes it is our stupidity that allows them to screw us.

So it is not just that Jews are successful that bothers me - it is what they are successful at - it is that they are very successful in their plans to dominate the world and then destroy the White race.

Is it wise for me not to act against an enemy invading army just because they are a smart and hardworking well trained disciplined army? Why should any majority put up with a minority group just because that minority is hardworking and smart? And it just so happens that according to Jew propaganda you can't find one example of a non-White group that is actually of harm to us. They all happen to be of benifit and equal. Never any case in history mentioned about a non-White group having an inferior culture or civilization or ANYTHING negative. Every time a minority (non-White) group is of benifit - never are they up to no good. Yes they stupid massses will buy most anything.

When it comes to minorities - if their success is of harm to the locals they have good reason to hate them. No people should allow another people to come into their lands and harm them without putting up a fight. Even the North American Mongoloids (Indians) put up the best fight they could to stop the White invaders. Our folk won - they lost.

Anti-Semitism is partly caused by Semitism (favoratism towards Jews). Jews teach us favoratism is evil while they practice it to the max. They discriminate against non-Jews most ALWAYS! Look at all of the movies, TV programs, and other Jew media and how it is loaded with Jews hiring Jews. There are many citcoms with completely Jewish casts (Friends/Everybody loves Raymond/Sienfield/many many more), and many others with mostly Jew casts- non-Jews need not audition. It is clear Jews have an agenda to get control of those things that are required to rule. That is why they control the media (public opinion)& fianance. There are many field that other intelligent folks get involved in but Jews ONLY concentrate where power over the masses is involved. Here in Wisconsin with 30,000 less than 1/2 of 1% Jews they control 100% of the media and much of our industry and financial institutions and both of our US senators are Jews.

Anonymous - Being of low IQ it is common to confuse smarts or learned knowledge with intelligence. The Jew media does push propaganda intended to confuse people on many important subjects and to create false perceptions on those same subjects. Intelligence is one of those subjects. I did say that I had done much research on race and related subjects so that is a claim to being smart on that subject. However my mention of my IQ is not related to being smart (any learned material) but rather related to my ability to reason things out. Intelligence is far more important than smarts since without high intelligence one is not able to identify likely truths from likely untruths. Thus just reading and doing research might make one seem smart and informed though what they have learned might be all wrong. If one reads current material (Jew propaganda)on race he will mainly be misinformed. Those with high IQ's can usually tell when the material they are reading is likely bull using logic skills. They typical person accepts most everything they are taught as fact without question. So we have a typical member of the stupid masses (YOU) calling an intelligent independent thinker (ME) ignorant because I am not parroting what everyone else has been taught to parrot and in fact I am stating facts that are very unpopular, actually forbidden

Anonymous said...

Wow - let me just say that I didn't call you ignorant, I called you stupid.

Anonymous said...

Let me add, Mr. Most Racist Person I Ever Read Drivel From, that I am quite sure that I have bowel movements that are smarter than you . . .