Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.conspiracy > #271766 > unrolled thread

the elite

Back to article view | Back to alt.conspiracy

Contents

  the elite Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-05 20:42 -0600
    Re: the elite Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-06 07:59 +0100
      Re: Re: the elite Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-06 04:19 -0600
        Re: the elite Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-07 10:08 +0100
          Re: Re: the elite Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-07 16:06 -0600
            Re: the elite Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-08 07:10 +0100
              Re: Re: the elite Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-08 19:37 -0600

#271766 — the elite

http://www.toqonline.com/

	An  enduring  aspect  of  the  self-concept  of  Jews  is
that  their  ascent  to elite status in America and elsewhere  is  the
natural  result  of  a  meritocracy. For example, after Elena Kagan
was nominated for the Supreme Court, Robert Frank penned an article in
the Wall Street Journal hailing  the  rise  of  a  meritocracy  where
Jews  could  finally  assume  their rightful  place  as  an  elite,
and  cheering the demise of those lazy, corrupt WASPs who did
everything they could to thwart the rise of the Jews, including
placing limits on Jewish enrollment in the elite universities.    The
fact  that  Kagan  is  remarkably  unqualified  to  be  a  Supreme
Court  Justice  in  terms  of  the  usual  standards  (judicial
experience,  academic  publications,  or  even   courtroom
experience)   never seems  to  have  entered  his  mind.    In
Frank's  view,  her  ascent  from  Princeton undergraduate to Harvard
Law, to high-level government positions and dean of Harvard Law  is
the  American  meritocracy  in action-a view that conveniently ignores
the role of her Jewish ethnic connections in greasing her ascent, most
egregiously her appointment as dean of Harvard Law by Larry Summers.  

	Ron  Unz  has  published  a  very  important article showing
that Kagan's  remarkable  rise  is  a  symptom  of  a  far  wider
issue-that  Jewish  admission  to  elite  universities  is  far  from
meritocratic.    Because  of their  role  in  replenishing  elites,
university  admissions  is  a  huge  lever  of power. The implication
of Unz's article (although he would probably shy away from this
wording) is  that  a  Jewish  elite  now  controls  this lever of
power and has used it  to  its  advantage,  resulting  in  a 
massive overrepresentation of Jews in elite universities compared to 
their  academic  qualifications  or  intelligence,  while
discriminating against non-Jewish Whites and against Asians.
		 
	Unz   suggests   that   an   important   reason   for   the
dramatic   Jewish overrepresentation  is  the  large  number of Jews
in faculty and administrative  positions  at  elite  universities.  He
points  to  the  "massive overrepresentation is found throughout the .
. . top administrative ranks of the rest of the Ivy League, and across
American leading educational institutions in general." He  also
points  to  the  "overwhelmingly liberal orientation of the elite
university community, the apparent willingness  of  many  liberals  to
actively  discriminate  against  non-liberals, and the fact that
American Jews  remain  perhaps  the  most  liberal ethnic community
may together help explain a significant portion of our skewed
enrollment statistics." 

	Indeed.  These  are  the  themes  of  a  paper  of  mine
arguing  that  the liberal orientation of the American professoriate
is a top-down phenomenon stemming from the very large
overrepresentation of Jews at the  highest  levels  of  academia  with
values  that  reflect  the  values  of  the  mainstream  Jewish
community  but  are  quite  at  odds  with  the  values of the great
majority of non-Jewish White Americans.   I  argue  that  just  
as Jewish ethnic networking is critical  to  the  massive
overrepresentation of Jews admitted to elite universities, Jewish
ethnic networking has  been  critical  to  Jewish  success  in scaling
the heights of the professoriate.  Indeed,  a  major  theme  of  The
Culture of Critique  is  that  the  academic  culture  of  the  left
(e.g.,  the Frankfurt School, Boasian anthropology and the
anti-Darwinian thrust of  the  social  sciences)  is  the  result of
Jewish ethnic networking.   A recent paper argues that liberals 
in the academic world are quite willing to admit that they would dis 
criminate against non-liberals. 
 
	The underrepresentation of non-Jewish Whites at elite
universities is yet another indication that the displacement of
non-Jewish White elites is moving ahead rapidly and that it's
completely beyond public discussion.  Unz  notes  that  Jewish
activist  organizations  and  Jews  in the media led the charge
against quotas  on  Jewish  enrollment.  Indeed, he is remarkably
candid about Jewish  media  influence,  saying  just  the sorts of
things that get people like me on the wrong side of the ADL: 
 

[Jerome]  Karabel  convincingly  demonstrates that the collapse of 
the long-standing Jewish quotas in the Ivy League during the 
decade following World War II occurred as a result of massive 
media and political pressure, pressure surely facilitated by very 
heavy Jewish ownership of America's major media organs, in- 
cluding all three television networks, eight of nine major Holly- 
wood studios, and many of the leading newspapers, including 
both the New York Times and the Washington Post. 
 

	But  there  are  no  analogous  organizations  to  advance
the  interests  of non-Jewish  Whites  (or  Asians,  for  that
matter)  in  fairness  in  academic admissions (and much else). 

	It's therefore not surprising that Unz's article is not
getting the sort of  media  buzz  that,  say,  an  article  on  the
victimization  of  groups  loved  by the left (non-Whites, immigrants,
gays,  etc.)  would  receive.  As  Unz notes, "any significant
reduction in Jewish enrollment may often be denounced  as
[anti-Semitism]  by  the hair-trigger media"-the same media  that
yawns  at  the  gaping  underrepresentation of non-Jewish 
Whites. 
	 
	Asian activist groups will doubtless take heart from his
findings and perhaps pursue them publicly. But they will be able to do
so without having to raise any Jewish issues, making the very respecta
ble claim that Harvard and other elite universities are too White. In
a recent blog, Unz notes that an Asian-American professor has publi- 
cized  Unz's  findings,  but  predictably,  the  professor  cares
only  about the Asians and not the non-Jewish Whites.    The  complete
lack  of powerful groups seeking to advance the  interests  of
non-Jewish  White Americans  has  never  been  more  glaring.  

	Perhaps  an  enterprising  non-Jewish White person could use
Unz's article as the basis for a lawsuit, but doing so would perforce
open the can  of  worms  that  respectable  America still
abhors-dealing in an honest  way  with  Jewish  issues.  For  one
thing,  it  would  require  an  argument  that  it  makes  sense  to
formally distinguish Jews and non-Jewish Whites as separate groups,
contrary to present practice where there is no Jewish category in the
official university statistics. An argument that Jews should not be
considered  Whites  could  be  made. But  such  an  argument  would
be  strenuously  resisted  by  the  powers that be. 

	The pattern of admission to Ivy League universities is an
egregious example of Jews achieving elite status  far  in  excess  of
Jewish  IQ  or  any other personal trait. This phenomenon  has
occurred  in  other  times and  places,  such  as  the  conflict  over
Jewish  cultural  domination  in  the Soviet  Union. 

Beginning at least by 1942, there was concern within high 
governmental  circles  with  the  underrepresentation  of  ethnic  Rus
sians and the overrepresentation of  Jews  in  key  areas  of  the
cultural  and  economic  elite. The report noted that elite cultural
institutions "turned out to be  filled  by  non-Russian  people  
(mainly by Jews)" (in Kostyrchenko 1995, 15). For example, of 
the ten top executives of the Bolshoi Theater-the most prestigious
Soviet cultural institution-there  were  eight  Jews  and  one 
Russian.  Similar  disproportions  were  reported  in  prestigious 
musical  conservatories  and  among  art  and  music  reviewers  in 
elite publications. 

	Jews  seek  to  be  included  in  the  White  category
whenever  it  benefits them.   The   same   groups   that   are
horrified   at   "White   domination" would  never  complain  about
Jewish domination. Every year at Oscar time, the Los Angeles Times
bemoans  the  fact  that  "White  males"  dominate Hollywood, but they
never point out that the great majority of those  White  males  are
Jewish.  And  they  never  seem  too  bothered  by  the fact that
nothing changes. Jews have dominated Hollywood for nearly a century,
with no end in sight despite common knowledge of the situation. I
rather doubt it will be  different  in  the  case  of  university 
admissions. 

	Finally, Unz makes the important point that although the WASPs
did indeed attempt to hang onto their elite status by limiting Jewish 
enrollment, they had far more legitimacy  than  the  present  Jewish
ascendancy.

Many of the Jewish writers who focus on the history of elite uni- 
versity  admissions  .  .  .  rebuked  the  America  of  the  first
half  of  the Twentieth Century for having been governed by a narrow 
WASP ascendency, which overwhelmingly dominated and con- 
trolled the commanding heights of business, finance, education, 
and  politics;  and  some  of  their  criticisms  are  not
unreasonable.  But we should bear in mind that this dominant group of
White Anglo-Saxon  Protestants-largely  descended  from  among  the 
earliest  American  settlers  and  which  had  gradually  absorbed 
and assimilated substantial elements of Celtic, Dutch, German, 
and French background-was generally aligned in culture, reli- 
gion, ideology, and ancestry with perhaps 60 percent of Ameri- 
ca's total population at the time, and therefore hardly represent- 
ed  an  alien  presence.  

	 Indeed, the WASPs were racially aligned with around 
90 percent of the American population.  And  I  would  go  further
and note  that  the  new  Jewish  elite  is  not only unrepresentative
of the traditional  people  of  America,  it  has  shown  over  and
over  again  that  it  is  a  hostile elite-hostile to the traditional
people and culture of America. (Similarly,  Slezkine  shows  that
Jewish intellectual and cultural domination  in  the  USSR  and
throughout   Eastern   Europe   was   directed against the traditional
national cultures of those societies.)   

	In addition to the bulleted list above (e.g., Jewish
leadership in removing Christianity from the public square),  Jews
were  the  main  force behind the 1965 immigration law.


  As  Whites  continue  to  lose  political power and are displaced
from their elite status, their fate will increasingly be in the hands
of peoples, such as Jews, who have shown repeatedly that they are
hostile to the interests  of  Whites-first  and  foremost  the
interests  of  Whites  in  maintaining political and cultural power. 

	The  bottom  line,  therefore,  is  that  the  new  Jewish
elite  is  illegitimate. Not only is it not representative of the
traditional people and culture  of  the  people  who  built  America,
it has achieved elite status in great measure not as a result of merit
but because of ethnic networking (e.g., Hollywood and the media,
academia); and now Unz has shown conclusively that its vast
overrepresentation  in  elite  universities is being maintained
largely through Jewish ethnic networking. 


www.tomatobubble.com  www.ihr.org   http://nationalvanguard.org  

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com    

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#271767

Am 06.12.2015 03:42, schrieb Topaz:
>
> http://www.toqonline.com/
>
> 	An  enduring  aspect  of  the  self-concept  of  Jews  is
> that  their  ascent  to elite status in America and elsewhere  is  the
> natural  result  of  a  meritocracy.

If you read the Tora instead of the Bible, this in itself would not make 
you a better person, but would require to understand Hebrew and that is 
certainly a challenge.

So possibly the term 'Jew' actually means 'selected' and hence Jews are 
better in certain tasks (like speaking Hebrew).

On the other hand, they are not that many, so the chance of such an 
elite to gain political power are very small.

Other believers (like Hindus, Buddhists or Shintoists) have certainly 
also brilliant minds among their ranks, hence could participate in such 
a 'meritocracy'.

The term actually means something like 'governemnt by wise men/women'.

This sounds not that bad at all, since e.g. a few former US presidents 
seemed to be unable to eat without hurting themselves.

> For example, after Elena Kagan
> was nominated for the Supreme Court, Robert Frank penned an article in
> the Wall Street Journal hailing  the  rise  of  a  meritocracy  where
> Jews  could  finally  assume  their rightful  place  as  an  elite,
> and  cheering the demise of those lazy, corrupt WASPs who did
> everything they could to thwart the rise of the Jews, including
> placing limits on Jewish enrollment in the elite universities.

Did THAT happen?

This sounds like an idea, that is not supported by reality.

The USA have, nevertheless, confessional universities and collages, that 
are linked to certain social and economic groups. The access to e.g. 
Georgetown is limited to Jesuits and Jews can't be that.

Well, many people cannot do many things. This is in fact no big deal, 
since important is, what you can do, not what you can't.


  The
> fact  that  Kagan  is  remarkably  unqualified  to  be  a  Supreme
> Court  Justice  in  terms  of  the  usual  standards  (judicial
> experience,  academic  publications,  or  even   courtroom
> experience)   never seems  to  have  entered  his  mind.    In
> Frank's  view,  her  ascent  from  Princeton undergraduate to Harvard
> Law, to high-level government positions and dean of Harvard Law  is
> the  American  meritocracy  in action-a view that conveniently ignores
> the role of her Jewish ethnic connections in greasing her ascent, most
> egregiously her appointment as dean of Harvard Law by Larry Summers.

'Meritocracy' is actually meant as 'rise by OWN merits', not by 
inherited merits.

So it is irrelevant, what your forefather have done and to what kind of 
church they had belonged. Important is only, what the person in question 
DOES.

If people are promoted by 'invisible hands' and for other reasons than 
personal talents, this is a different system (elitism, corporatism etc.).

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#271785

On Sun, 06 Dec 2015 07:59:48 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:


>If you read the Tora instead of the Bible, this in itself would not make 
>you a better person, but would require to understand Hebrew and that is 
>certainly a challenge.
>
>So possibly the term 'Jew' actually means 'selected' and hence Jews are 
>better in certain tasks (like speaking Hebrew).
>
>On the other hand, they are not that many, so the chance of such an 
>elite to gain political power are very small.


Here are some quotes from "The Shadow of Zog" by Israel Shamir: 

Jeff Blankfort writes, "Ardently pro-Israel American Jews are in
positions of unprecedented influence within the United States and have
assumed or been given decision making positions over virtually every
segment of our culture and body politic". And he quotes Benjamin
Ginsberg's "The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State":

"Jews played a central role in American finance during the 1980s, and
they were among the chief beneficiaries of that decade's corporate
mergers and reorganizations. Today, though barely 2 % of the nation's
population is Jewish, close to half its billionaires are Jews. The
chief executive officers of the three major television networks and
the four largest film studios are Jews, as are the owners of the
nation's largest newspaper chain and the most influential single
newspaper, the New York Times".

Is it a conspiracy of Jews to steal the Republic? No, no conspiracy is
necessary. In Jules Verne's juvenile novel, Children of Captain Grant,
a villain leads the captain's ship astray by placing a magnet brick
beneath the compass. The magnet does not conspire: it constrains the
compass. The sheer mass of self-involved Jews in the media acts in a
similar way and draws the superpower off its normal course. For the
media is the nerve system of a modern state. Modern democracy in
practice in a very complicated society can be compared to a
sophisticated computer. Its machinery can function successfully on one
condition: there is a free flow of information across the system.
While every input is instinctively checked and sieved on one
criterion, whether it is good for Jews..

Thus, concentration of Jews in the media created the distortion. A
takeover of every other part of industry or trade would be noticed and
reported in the media; but there is no remedy for media takeover... 

Gandhi could be condemned as 'racist', for he 'noticed' the privileged
position of the British in India. By PC logic, a good American should
reply to Mahatma: yes, there are some rich and powerful Brits in
India, but there are also poor Tommy Atkinses, governesses, honest
administrators, writers like Kipling and Orwell. On the other hand,
there are powerful and rich Rajas, important Brahmins. How do you
dare, sir, to demand 'de-colonisation'! This is sheer anti-English
racism!

An old Indian Air Force officer Joe Thomas actually reminded that,
"while the population of the US today is approximately the same as the
population of India a century ago, the British in India never numbered
more than 50,000 and still ruled India. They did not rule India by
force but by dominating Indian discourse. Indians fought for the
British and put down rebellions. During the two world wars, millions
of Indians fought as volunteers for Britain. If such a tiny group
could control India, then it is not strange that 100 times that number
can influence the United States"...


>
>Other believers (like Hindus, Buddhists or Shintoists) have certainly 
>also brilliant minds among their ranks, hence could participate in such 
>a 'meritocracy'.
>
>The term actually means something like 'governemnt by wise men/women'.
>
>This sounds not that bad at all, since e.g. a few former US presidents 
>seemed to be unable to eat without hurting themselves.
>
>> For example, after Elena Kagan
>> was nominated for the Supreme Court, Robert Frank penned an article in
>> the Wall Street Journal hailing  the  rise  of  a  meritocracy  where
>> Jews  could  finally  assume  their rightful  place  as  an  elite,
>> and  cheering the demise of those lazy, corrupt WASPs who did
>> everything they could to thwart the rise of the Jews, including
>> placing limits on Jewish enrollment in the elite universities.
>
>Did THAT happen?
>
>This sounds like an idea, that is not supported by reality.
>
>The USA have, nevertheless, confessional universities and collages, that 
>are linked to certain social and economic groups. The access to e.g. 
>Georgetown is limited to Jesuits and Jews can't be that.
>
>Well, many people cannot do many things. This is in fact no big deal, 
>since important is, what you can do, not what you can't.
>
>
>  The
>> fact  that  Kagan  is  remarkably  unqualified  to  be  a  Supreme
>> Court  Justice  in  terms  of  the  usual  standards  (judicial
>> experience,  academic  publications,  or  even   courtroom
>> experience)   never seems  to  have  entered  his  mind.    In
>> Frank's  view,  her  ascent  from  Princeton undergraduate to Harvard
>> Law, to high-level government positions and dean of Harvard Law  is
>> the  American  meritocracy  in action-a view that conveniently ignores
>> the role of her Jewish ethnic connections in greasing her ascent, most
>> egregiously her appointment as dean of Harvard Law by Larry Summers.
>
>'Meritocracy' is actually meant as 'rise by OWN merits', not by 
>inherited merits.
>
>So it is irrelevant, what your forefather have done and to what kind of 
>church they had belonged. Important is only, what the person in question 
>DOES.
>
>If people are promoted by 'invisible hands' and for other reasons than 
>personal talents, this is a different system (elitism, corporatism etc.).
>
   That is a good point.


www.tomatobubble.com  www.ihr.org   http://nationalvanguard.org  

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com    

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#271798

Am 06.12.2015 11:19, schrieb Topaz:

>> If you read the Tora instead of the Bible, this in itself would not make
>> you a better person, but would require to understand Hebrew and that is
>> certainly a challenge.
>>
>> So possibly the term 'Jew' actually means 'selected' and hence Jews are
>> better in certain tasks (like speaking Hebrew).
>>
>> On the other hand, they are not that many, so the chance of such an
>> elite to gain political power are very small.
>
>
> Here are some quotes from "The Shadow of Zog" by Israel Shamir:
>
> Jeff Blankfort writes, "Ardently pro-Israel American Jews are in
> positions of unprecedented influence within the United States and have
> assumed or been given decision making positions over virtually every
> segment of our culture and body politic". And he quotes Benjamin
> Ginsberg's "The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State":
>
> "Jews played a central role in American finance during the 1980s, and
> they were among the chief beneficiaries of that decade's corporate
> mergers and reorganizations. Today, though barely 2 % of the nation's
> population is Jewish, close to half its billionaires are Jews. The
> chief executive officers of the three major television networks and
> the four largest film studios are Jews, as are the owners of the
> nation's largest newspaper chain and the most influential single
> newspaper, the New York Times".


In modern times we have 'secular states', instead of 'theocracy'.

So the USA is not based on religion, whether Christian, Jewish or other.

But we have, hidden actually, kind of 'tribalism', which is based on 
ethnic relations and assumed privileges of either of these groups.

But 'All men are created equal' !

This does not mean, they are equal, but have similar rights.

This would not allow to ascribe privileges to a certain set of these 
people, e.g. because they have a certain believe, a certain 'colour' or 
a certain ethnic background, or a certain region from where their 
forefathers came.

The members of such groups may - nevertheless - believe in the own 
supremacy.  It is perfectly acceptable, to declare the own group to be 
more brilliant than others, as long as you wouldn't demand privileges in 
return.

You may even gain certain influential positions and that is acceptable 
as well, as long as others are not excluded from such positions, because 
they have other believes.



> Is it a conspiracy of Jews to steal the Republic? No, no conspiracy is
> necessary.

You cannot 'steal the Republic'. The Republic is 'owned' by the citizens.

It may be possible for some group to gain more influence than others, 
but still the country is there where it was before and still full of 
citizens.

..
> Thus, concentration of Jews in the media created the distortion. A
> takeover of every other part of industry or trade would be noticed and
> reported in the media; but there is no remedy for media takeover...


Well, maybe people should be more selective in what they regard as 
entertainment.

Also interesting is the fact, that these believes are actually very 
similar: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

They all have the same roots in some very ancient form of monotheism.

The differences are actually added by the various conquerors of the region.

Romans added 'zaroastrism' (and a few others) to early Christianity, 
what created the current Catholic church.

Babylon and the Pharaohs left their traces in the same kind of ideas, 
what formed Judaism.

Islam derived from the occupation of the city 'Merv', to where an early 
Christian sect had fled from Syria. The Arabs have conquered this city 
and kept this believe, but changed in into Arabic (from Aramaic).

So it's more or less 'on thing', only with later additions by various 
occupiers.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#271819

On Mon, 07 Dec 2015 10:08:10 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:


>In modern times we have 'secular states', instead of 'theocracy'.
>
>So the USA is not based on religion, whether Christian, Jewish or other.
>
>But we have, hidden actually, kind of 'tribalism', which is based on 
>ethnic relations and assumed privileges of either of these groups.
>
>But 'All men are created equal' !
>
>This does not mean, they are equal, but have similar rights.
>
>This would not allow to ascribe privileges to a certain set of these 
>people, e.g. because they have a certain believe, a certain 'colour' or 
>a certain ethnic background, or a certain region from where their 
>forefathers came.
>
>The members of such groups may - nevertheless - believe in the own 
>supremacy.  It is perfectly acceptable, to declare the own group to be 
>more brilliant than others, as long as you wouldn't demand privileges in 
>return.
>
>You may even gain certain influential positions and that is acceptable 
>as well, as long as others are not excluded from such positions, because 
>they have other believes.
>

>You cannot 'steal the Republic'. The Republic is 'owned' by the citizens.

Vice President Joe Biden said:

"Jewish heritage has shaped who we are - all of us - as much or more
than any other factor in the last 223 years. And that's a fact," Biden
told a gathering of Jewish leaders on May 21 in Washington, DC. "The
truth is that Jewish heritage, Jewish culture, Jewish values are such
an essential part of who we are that it's fair to say that Jewish
heritage is American heritage," he also said. 

Biden knows what's he talking about. He was a US Senator for 26 years,
held important posts in Congress, and was twice a US presidential
candidate. Few men have been more deeply involved in Washington
politics, or are more intimately familiar with the realities of power
in American public life. 

Even though Jews make up only one or two percent of the US population,
the Jewish role in American cultural and political life has been
"outsized" and "immense," Biden said. 

"You make up eleven percent of the seats in the United States
Congress," he told his Jewish audience. He might also have mentioned
that three of the nine members of the US Supreme Court are Jewish, and
that Jews are vastly overrepresented in other high-level federal,
state and city government posts, including chairman of the Federal
Reserve System, and as the mayors of America's three most populous
cities. 

"The Jewish people have contributed greatly to America. No group has
had such an outsized influence per capita," he also said. Biden went
on to speak about the Jewish role in shaping popular attitudes with
regard to race relations, the role of women in society, and "gay
rights," and thereby in changing policies, laws and behavior. 

"I believe what affects the [social- political] movements in America,
what affects our attitudes in America, are as much the culture and the
arts as anything else ... It wasn't anything we [politicians]
legislatively did," he went on. "It was [such television shows as]
'Will and Grace,' it was the social media. Literally. That's what
changed peoples' attitudes. That's why I was so certain that the vast
majority of people would embrace, and rapidly embrace" same-sex
marriage. 

"Think - behind of all that, I bet you 85 percent of those changes,
whether it's in Hollywood or social media, are a consequence of Jewish
leaders in the industry. The influence is immense, the influence is
immense," he said. 


>
>It may be possible for some group to gain more influence than others, 
>but still the country is there where it was before and still full of 
>citizens.
>
>..
>> Thus, concentration of Jews in the media created the distortion. A
>> takeover of every other part of industry or trade would be noticed and
>> reported in the media; but there is no remedy for media takeover...
>
>
>Well, maybe people should be more selective in what they regard as 
>entertainment.
>
>Also interesting is the fact, that these believes are actually very 
>similar: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
>
>They all have the same roots in some very ancient form of monotheism.
>
>The differences are actually added by the various conquerors of the region.
>
>Romans added 'zaroastrism' (and a few others) to early Christianity, 
>what created the current Catholic church.
>
>Babylon and the Pharaohs left their traces in the same kind of ideas, 
>what formed Judaism.
>
>Islam derived from the occupation of the city 'Merv', to where an early 
>Christian sect had fled from Syria. The Arabs have conquered this city 
>and kept this believe, but changed in into Arabic (from Aramaic).
>
>So it's more or less 'on thing', only with later additions by various 
>occupiers.
>
>TH

www.tomatobubble.com  www.ihr.org   http://nationalvanguard.org  

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com    

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#271834

Am 07.12.2015 23:06, schrieb Topaz:

>> In modern times we have 'secular states', instead of 'theocracy'.
>>
>> So the USA is not based on religion, whether Christian, Jewish or other.
>>
>> But we have, hidden actually, kind of 'tribalism', which is based on
>> ethnic relations and assumed privileges of either of these groups.
>>
>> But 'All men are created equal' !
>>
>> This does not mean, they are equal, but have similar rights.
>>
>> This would not allow to ascribe privileges to a certain set of these
>> people, e.g. because they have a certain believe, a certain 'colour' or
>> a certain ethnic background, or a certain region from where their
>> forefathers came.
>>
>> The members of such groups may - nevertheless - believe in the own
>> supremacy.  It is perfectly acceptable, to declare the own group to be
>> more brilliant than others, as long as you wouldn't demand privileges in
>> return.
>>
>> You may even gain certain influential positions and that is acceptable
>> as well, as long as others are not excluded from such positions, because
>> they have other believes.
>>
>
>> You cannot 'steal the Republic'. The Republic is 'owned' by the citizens.
>
> Vice President Joe Biden said:

This guy may say what he like to say, since -after all - there is right 
of free speech.


>
> "Jewish heritage has shaped who we are - all of us - as much or more
> than any other factor in the last 223 years. And that's a fact," Biden
> told a gathering of Jewish leaders on May 21 in Washington, DC. "The
> truth is that Jewish heritage, Jewish culture, Jewish values are such
> an essential part of who we are that it's fair to say that Jewish
> heritage is American heritage," he also said.


The Pilgrim Fathers were not Jewish. Influential immigrants were 
predominantly Christians, but also other believes systems are present 
and among them many Jews.

> Biden knows what's he talking about.

That does not make it better.


> Even though Jews make up only one or two percent of the US population,
> the Jewish role in American cultural and political life has been
> "outsized" and "immense," Biden said.

He uses the term 'Jewish' in connection with 'people' instead of to 
'believe'.

So he actually promotes 'racism' and/or 'tribalism' and that is against 
main constitutional principles of the United States.


>
> "The Jewish people have contributed greatly to America. No group has
> had such an outsized influence per capita," he also said. Biden went
> on to speak about the Jewish role in shaping popular attitudes with
> regard to race relations, the role of women in society, and "gay
> rights," and thereby in changing policies, laws and behavior.

This is in fact true, but I wonder whether the Jews are predominantly 
proud about 'gay rights'.

...
>
> "Think - behind of all that, I bet you 85 percent of those changes,
> whether it's in Hollywood or social media, are a consequence of Jewish
> leaders in the industry. The influence is immense, the influence is
> immense," he said.
>
'The Jews' refer actually to people from Africa, since the queen of 
Sheba gave them to the Pharao as contribution. The Empire of the Queen 
of Sheeba was were is today Ethiopia.

So a main feature of (Old Testament) Jews was black skin.

Now, how many blacks are influential in Hollywood?



TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#271844

On Tue, 08 Dec 2015 07:10:23 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:


>This guy may say what he like to say, since -after all - there is right 
>of free speech.
>
>
>The Pilgrim Fathers were not Jewish. Influential immigrants were 
>predominantly Christians, but also other believes systems are present 
>and among them many Jews.
>
>
>That does not make it better.
>

>He uses the term 'Jewish' in connection with 'people' instead of to 
>'believe'.
>
>So he actually promotes 'racism' and/or 'tribalism' and that is against 
>main constitutional principles of the United States.


Jews are an ethnic group. They are not just a religion. If a Jew
becomes a Christian or an atheist he still says he is a Jew. Most of
the Jews in the Jew country are atheist. They say that a Jew is anyone
that has a Jewish mother. Therefore it is a hereditary thing.

We are for having a nation of White people. Jews would be White enough
to join us if it weren't for other important factors. One  factor is
that they don't want our race to live. They want to be the only
Caucasians to survive on the earth.

The Jews have their own Jew country, but they demand multi-culture and
pluralism for us. Their leaders agree with something Hitler wrote:

"A State which, in an epoch of racial adulteration, devotes itself to
the duty of preserving the best elements of its racial stock must one
day become ruler of the Earth."

 
     Jews are enemies of White civilization.  Here are some quotes
from a very pro-Jewish book that was first published in 1925. The book
is "Stranger than Fiction" by Lewis Browne.

      "But save for such exceptions, the Jews who led or participated
in the heroic efforts to remold the world of the last century, were
neither Reform or Orthodox. Indeed, they were often not professing
Jews at all.
      "For instance, there was Heinrich Heine and Ludwig Borne, both
unfaltering champions of freedom. And even more conspicuously, there
was Karl Marx, one of the great prophetic geniuses of modern times. 
     "Jewish historians rarely mention the name of this man, Karl
Marx, though in his life and spirit he was far truer to the mission of
Israel than most of those who were forever talking of it. He was born
in Germany in 1818, and belonged to an old rabbinic family. He was not
himself reared as a Jew, however, but while still a child was baptized
a Christian by his father. Yet the rebel soul of the Jew flamed in him
throughout his days, for he was always a 'troubler' in Europe."


      "Then, of course, there are Ludwig Borne and Heinrich Heine, two
men who by their merciless wit and sarcasm became leaders among the
revolutionary writers. Karl Marx, Ferdinand Lassalle, Johann Jacoby,
Gabriel Riesser, Adolphe Cremieux, Signora Nathan- all these of Jewish
lineage played important roles in the struggle that went throughout
Europe in this period. Wherever the war for human liberty was being
waged, whether in France, Germany, Austria, Hungary, or Italy, there
the Jew was to be found. It was little wonder that the enemies of
social progress, the monarchists and the Churchmen, came to speak of
the whole liberal movement as nothing but a Jewish plot."


      "The Jews had become the money lenders of Europe for quite
evident reasons. The Church sternly forbade all Christians to engage
in the pursuit...
      "So the Jews became the money lenders of Europe. They developed
a great shrewdness and cunning in the one and only field of
opportunity left open to them. And with their shrewdness and cunning
they developed a certain cruelty and greed. That was natural. The
world was cruel to them, so when the chance was theirs, they were
cruel in return..."      

Who Is a Jew? DNA Can Hold the Key 
The Telegraph (Britain) 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7346496/View-from-the-Lab-Who-is-a-Jew-DNA-can-hold-the-key.html

.. .. Even 20 years later the thought of a genetic test for Jewish
descent would have been treated with horror. Now, one has emerged and
is not despised but hailed by many Jews themselves. A scan of half a
million variable sites across the genomes of several hundred Europeans
and Americans, each aware from their family history of having had a
recent Jewish or a non-Jewish ancestry, gave an absolute separation
between Jews and others: even a single Jewish grandparent was enough
to provide an unambiguous identity, written in DNA.

>This is in fact true, but I wonder whether the Jews are predominantly 
>proud about 'gay rights'.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2088319/Tel-Aviv-trumps-New-York-named-worlds-best-gay-city.html
Tel Aviv has been named the world's number one gay city.

The Israeli metropolis beat out competition from New York to top a
survey carried out by American Airlines and GayCities.com to find the
most popular destination for gay travellers.

It landed a staggering 43 per cent of the vote, way ahead of runner-up
New York's 14 per cent and third-placed Toronto with 7 per cent.

Sao Paolo came in at four with 6 per cent, while rounding out the top
five with 5 per cent each were London and Madrid.

GayCities described Tel Aviv as 'the gay capital of the Middle East is
exotic with a Mediterranean c'est la vie attitude'.

Tel Aviv Mayor Ron Huldai hailed his 'free city' and said he is proud
of the survey results.

He wrote on his Facebook page: 'Victory in this competition further 
highlights the fact that Tel Aviv is a city that respects all people 
equally, and allows all people to live according to their values and 
desires.


>'The Jews' refer actually to people from Africa, since the queen of 
>Sheba gave them to the Pharao as contribution. The Empire of the Queen 
>of Sheeba was were is today Ethiopia.
>
>So a main feature of (Old Testament) Jews was black skin.
>
>Now, how many blacks are influential in Hollywood?
>

The Old Testament says that God likes one race of people more than
others.  It makes sense that it would be the White race. Compare
Europe to Africa. 

This is the definition of the word "adam" in Strong's Concordance:
 
      "to show blood (in the face), i.e. flush or turn rosy:- be
(dyed, made) red (ruddy)."

      This can only be describing a White man. Look at people today
and see which ones have rosy red cheeks. They are light skinned White
people.  

     The Bible says David was ruddy. This is the definition of the
Hebrew word "ruddy":

      "reddish (of the hair or of the complexion):-red, ruddy."

       David had rosy cheeks (or red hair) and did not look like a
typical Jew.

   The original Israelites were White people.    

 Jews are like the American Indians of today. These people say they
are Indians but the original Indians were clearly described as having
red skin. Today Indians may look brown or white, but not red. Neither
are Jews like the original Israelites. 

     The religious leaders of the Jews were the Pharisees. Jesus
condemned them in the harshest words. 

  Matthew 23:33  "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye
escape the damnation of hell?"

     The New Jewish Encyclopedia, edited by David Bridger, PH.D in
association with Samual Wolk, Rabbi, J.S.D,  copyright 1962, Published
by Behrman House, inc.,1261 Broadway, New York 1, N.Y.,  Library of
Congress Catalog Card Number: 62-17079, says on page 376:

 "The Pharisees are therefore regarded as those authorities who helped
develop and preserve traditional Judaism as it is known today."

 The old drawing of Jesus were probably correct. He probably had blond
hair and blue eyes.
     
John 7:1  "After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would
not walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill him."

John 20:19  "the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled
for fear of the Jews"

2 Co 11:24   "Of the Jews five times recieved I forty stripes save
one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned"

Mathew 27: 20+25  "But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the
multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus...then
answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our
children."

Acts 25:24  "ye see this man, about whom all the multitude of the Jews
have dealt with me, both at Jerusalem and also here, crying that he
ought not to live any longer."

John 8:42,44,48  "Jesus said unto them...Ye are of your father the
devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from
the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth
in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a
liar, and the father of it...Then answered the Jews..."

     The religious leaders of the Jews were the Pharisees. Jesus
condemned them in the harshest words. 

  Matthew 23:33  "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye
escape the damnation of hell?"

     The New Jewish Encyclopedia, edited by David Bridger, PH.D in
association with Samual Wolk, Rabbi, J.S.D,  copyright 1962, Published
by Behrman House, inc.,1261 Broadway, New York 1, N.Y.,  Library of
Congress Catalog Card Number: 62-17079, says on page 376:

 "The Pharisees are therefore regarded as those authorities who helped
develop and preserve traditional Judaism as it is known today."



www.tomatobubble.com  www.ihr.org   http://nationalvanguard.org  

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com    

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | alt.conspiracy

csiph-web