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.
