I've often said the JQ is like a bad car wreck: once you see it, you can't unsee it. Therefore, when I read USA Today's article, 10 Super-Rich People Dominate giving to Super PACs active in Midterm Elections for Congress, I couldn't help but wonder how many of the ten were Jewish. A quick search produced the following results:
- Richard Uihlein: non-Jew
- Thomas Steyer: Jew
- S. Donald Sussman: Jew
- George Marcus: non-Jew (Greek Orthodox)
- Charles Koch: non-Jew
- Steven Cohen: Jew
- Bernard Marcus: Jew
- Geoffrey Palmer: Jew
- Deborah Simon: Jew
According to USA Today's analysis, these “10 super-rich individuals” account for more than 20% of the money that is funding federal super PACs:
Donations from 10 super-rich individuals account for more than 20% of the money filling the bank accounts of federal super PACs, a USA TODAY analysis shows, highlighting how a small group of wealthy patrons is racing to influence which party will control Congress for the remainder of President Trump’s first term.
In the United States, 1.7% of the population is Jewish. Yet, six of the ten “super-rich” people who are using their wealth to influence American politics are Jewish. It's also important to note that half of those on the list support Republicans, and the other half Democrats. So, although Jews collectively vote 70% Democrat, three of the five Republican lobbyists mentioned are Jewish. As are three of the five Democrat donors. Therefore, not only are Jews disproportionately represented on the list in general, but they are also significantly disproportionate on each side of the political aisle.
On one side of the political spectrum you have Left-wing liberalism, which is widely endorsed (and often led) by Jews. In the status quo, the terms “liberal” and “Democrat” have essentially become synonymous. And considering 32% of Jewish Millennials aren't religious, the argument has been put forth that liberalism has become a replacement for Judaism:
Beginning in the 1930s, but accelerating from the 1950s, there came a new manifestation of "Americanized" non-Orthodox Judaism. Not only would Jews be transformed into a denationalized segment of the general national ethnic majority, practicing a sanitized and palatable "in" version of Judaism. But Judaism itself would be recast as part and parcel of the new political thinking gaining popularity in the West, the wave of liberalism. American Jews - the main Diaspora community surviving World War II - would advance themselves in Western society and promote their acceptance to an ever greater extent by allying themselves with liberal political causes, indeed would largely take over the leadership of American (and to a lesser extent non-American) political liberalism.
There emerged a new form of Jewish assimilationism, the "Liberalism-as-Judaism" form of pseudo-Judaism. Especially in the United States, this "school of thought" held that Judaism was nothing more nor less than the American liberal political agenda, including the advocacy - in the name of Judaism and "Prophetic Ethics" - of liberal fashionable political ideas. The beginnings of this were in the New Deal era, when American Jewish support for Franklin D. Roosevelt was nearly unanimous. It continued after World War II.
The "Liberalism as Judaism" School argued that all of Judaism and Jewish tradition could be boiled down into a search for civil "justice" and secular "freedom". Since it was axiomatic, in the eyes of Jewish liberals, that the liberal political agenda was synonymous with justice, freedom, and righteousness and that the opponents of liberalism were evil and unjust, "Judaism" itself could be conscripted in the cause of promoting liberal partisanship.
On the other side of the political paradigm we have “Right-wing” neoconservatism. A movement founded in the mid-20th century by Jewish intellectuals who had become increasing dissatisfied with Stalin's Communism. Ideologically, they were on the political Left. But they didn't like the direction the “New Left” was headed, due mostly to Black anti-Semitism and the lack of regard for Israel. The former “Trotskyites” rebranded themselves as conservatives, and by the late 90's had become a strong force within the Republican party:
The neoconservatives are often depicted as former Trotskyites who have morphed into a new, closely related life form. It is pointed out that many early neocons—including The Public Interest founder Irving Kristol and coeditor Nathan Glazer, Sidney Hook, and Albert Wohlstetter—belonged to the anti-Stalinist far left in the late 1930s and early 1940s, and that their successors, including Joshua Muravchik and Carl Gershman, came to neoconservatism through the Socialist Party at a time when it was Trotskyite in outlook and politics. As early as 1963 Richard Hofstadter commented on the progression of many ex-Communists from the paranoid left to the paranoid right, clinging all the while to the fundamentally Manichean psychology that underlies both. [Half a century] later the dominant strain of neoconservatism is declared to be a mixture of geopolitical militarism and “inverted socialist internationalism.”
As the neoconservative movement evolved, their primary focus became the welfare of Israel. It is a widely accepted theory that NeoCons served as the fundamental driving force behind Bush's war in Iraq in 2003, which many considered a war for Israel:
Previously terming themselves “leftists,” and now calling themselves “conservatives,” in actuality neo-cons seem to be neither. Rather, their ideology largely revolves around passionate devotion to Israeli interests.
The point I'm trying to establish is that regardless of one's affiliations with either Republican or Democrat, the policies in both parties are greatly influenced by Jews. Honestly, I don't think the majority of Americans care if it's a Jew or Gentile that is influencing political policy as long as that person's loyalty is to America. And with regard to Jews, that often seems to be a conflict of interest.
Just me pointing out the discrepancy between Jew and non-Jew is considered a form of anti-Semitism (calling a Jew a “Jew” because they're Jewish). Because if one recognizes an obvious demographic disparity within the sphere of political influence, their observation has to be fueled by hatred and not inquisition.
Those ignorant to the Jewish Question don't differentiate the correlation between Jewish elites and Gentile elites. All they see is rich people doing what rich people do (more specifically, they see rich “White” people). Which is exactly how Jews are able to discreetly infiltrate institutions of power and insert their dominance on Gentile society.
But what gullible Gentiles don't seem to grasp is that Jews are an ethnically cohesive tribe who operate on an in-group/out-group dynamic as part of an inherent evolutionary survival strategy. This strategy is often deceptive (name change, masquerading as “fellow White people,” etc), in the sense that it's rooted in paranoia and victimhood. And rightfully so. Jews have been expelled from 109 countries in the last 2,000 years (it's almost impossible to logically conceptualize that every single one of those 109 countries were just anti-Semitic, and that Jews were always the innocent victims of circumstance):
American Jews overwhelmingly say they are proud to be Jewish and have a strong sense of belonging to the Jewish people, according to a major new survey by the Pew Research Center.
The JQ is often perceived as intellectually complicated. And it certainly can be. Particularly to altruistic, egalitarian, individualistic Whites who don't possess the innate trait of group loyalty. But the JQ can be analogously simplified. For example, the primary distinction between Jews and Blacks (with regard to their social hierarchy) is IQ. Both groups are tribal, to the degree that their loyalty lies with the in-group. Blacks might even be more racially loyal than Jews (98% of Black women voted for Doug Jones in the recent Alabama Senate election). However, high Jewish IQs help enable them to generate wealth and status, which places them in positions of prominence and power. Positions that allow Jews to pursue Jewish interests that often don't align with American interests.
Jews have the only ethnostate on the planet. Yet, there are almost as many Jews in the United States as there are in Israel (6.5 million vs 5.3 million). The USA and Israel are home to 90% of the world's Jews. Does the amount of foreign aid ($3.8 billion per year) we send to Israel coincide with American interests, or Jewish interests?
The United States has finalized a $38 billion package of military aid for Israel over the next 10 years, the largest of its kind ever, and the two allies plan to sign the agreement on Wednesday, American and Israeli officials said.
The package will provide an average of $3.8 billion a year over the next decade to Israel, already the largest recipient of American aid, including financing for missile defense systems that defend against rockets fired by groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. Under a previous 10-year agreement that expires in 2018, the United States provides about $3 billion a year, but lately Congress has added up to $500 million a year for missile defense.
Looking ahead to the next decade, Mr. Netanyahu initially sought as much as $45 billion, but Mr. Obama refused to go that high. Money for missile defense is included in the package, and the two sides agreed not to seek additional funds from Congress over the next decade unless both agree, such as in case of a war.
Certainly nobody is naive enough to think that Israel is the “largest recipient of America aid” based exclusively on need, and without any persuasion by the Jewish lobby. To emphasize my point, lets hypothetically replace the Jewish elite in America with Japanese elites who possess the same attributes as Jews. Which country do you think would receive more American aid? Japan or Israel?
All to often we perpetually rant about problems without mention of a solution. It's one thing to cognitively identify an issue, but it's another to hopelessly obsess. With that being said, as powerful as the Jews are, they're not omnipotent. They're a small minority with a seat at the table. It's important that we don't negatively stray down the path of “anti-Semitism,” but rather positively fixate on being pro-American.
Perhaps some may deem my next sentence as contradictory to the premise of this thesis, but “It's the Jews!” is slave morality with an end game of demoralization. We can't claim ourselves the genius behind world history in one narrative. Then write another version that describes us as an easily manipulated mass of morons.
Instead of cucking to the Jew's cries of “Nazi” and “anti-Semite,” the narrative needs to be reframed and deflected: “There's a homeland for Americans, and there's a homeland for Jews. Which are you?”
Hyphenated-Americans are un-American. Therefore, Whites are the only true “Americans” (White men created America for White people). As America becomes more-and-more racially diverse, and Whites become a dispossessed majority, we will be forced to become more ethnocentric. Which is a good thing. Because before we can build walls, we have to build loyalty.