|February 19th, 2008||#1|
White School: Jews Control the Media
[Dr. William Pierce's view]
Who Rules America?
By the Research Staff of National Vanguard Magazine
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 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 and 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 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. The preponderance of Jews in the media is so overwhelming, however, 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 increased 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 a 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.
The largest media conglomerate today is AOL-Time Warner, created when AOL bought Time Warner for $160 billion in 2000. The merger brought together Steve Case, a Gentile, as chairman of AOL-TW, and Time Warner chairman Gerald Levin, a Jew, as the CEO. Although AOL-TW isn't (yet) run entirely by Jews, the effect of this blend of leadership between a White capitalist whose biggest concern is money and a racially conscious Jew will be gradually to increase the Jewish influence within AOL. Steve Case won't complain when Gerald Levin begins hiring mostly Jews to fill key positions beneath him because Case's own profits won't be affected. After Case dies or retires, the Jews will have complete control at AOL.
Before the merger, AOL was the largest Internet service provider in America, and it will now be used as an online platform for the Jewish content from Time Warner.
Time Warner, Inc., with 1997 revenues of more than $13 billion, was the second largest of the international media leviathans when it was bought by AOL. Levin, chairman and CEO of Time Warner, had bought Turner Broadcasting Systems in 1996 from Ted Turner, who had been one of the few Gentile entrepreneurs in the media business. Ted Turner, as the company president, became the number three man at AOL-TW, after Case and Levin.
When Ted Turner, the Gentile media maverick, made a bid to buy CBS in 1985, there was panic in media boardrooms across the nation. Turner had made a fortune in advertising and then had built a successful cable-TV news network, CNN, with over 70 million subscribers. Although Turner employed a number of Jews in key executive positions in CNN and had never taken public positions contrary to Jewish interests, he is a man with a large ego and a strong personality and was regarded by Chairman 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 the company, and from 1986 until 1995 Tisch was the chairman and CEO of CBS, removing any threat of non-Jewish influence there. Subsequent efforts by Turner to acquire a major network were obstructed by Levin's Time Warner, which owns nearly 20 percent of CBS stock and has veto power over major deals. When his fellow Jew Sumner Redstone offered to buy CBS for $34.8 billion in 1999, Levin had no objection.
Thus, despite being an innovator and garnering headlines, Turner never commanded the "connections" necessary for being a true media master. He finally decided if you can't lick 'em, join 'em, and he sold out to Levin. Ted Turner is in one respect a reflection of Steve Case. Both of these White men are capitalists with no discernible degree of racial consciousness or responsibility. In July 2001, AOL Time Warner announced that yet another Jew, Walter Isaacson, formerly the editorial director of Time, Inc., will become the new chairman and CEO of CNN News Group, which oversees the news empire that Ted Turner built.
Time Warner's subsidiary HBO is the country's largest pay-TV cable network. Until the purchase in May 1998 of PolyGram by Edgar Bronfman, Jr., Warner Music was America's largest record company, with 50 labels, the biggest of which is Warner Brothers Records. Warner Music was an early promoter of "gangsta rap." Through its involvement with Interscope Records (prior to Interscope's acquisition by MCA), it helped to popularize a genre whose graphic lyrics explicitly urge Blacks to commit acts of violence against Whites.
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) and in publishing. Time Warner's publishing division (editor-in-chief Norman Pearlstine, a Jew) is the largest magazine publisher in the country (Time, Sports Illustrated, People, Fortune).
The second-largest media conglomerate today, with 1997 revenues of $23 billion, is the Walt Disney Company. Its chairman 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, under Walt Disney Studios, headed by Joseph E. Roth (also a Jew), includes Walt Disney Pictures, Touchstone Pictures, Hollywood Pictures, and Caravan Pictures. Roth founded Caravan Pictures in January 1993, and it is now headed by his fellow Jew Roger Birnbaum. Disney also owns Miramax Films, run by the 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, it has 225 affiliated stations in the United States and is part owner of several European TV companies.
ABC's cable subsidiary, ESPN, is headed by president and CEO Steven Bornstein, who is a Jew. The corporation also has a controlling share of Lifetime Television and A & E Television Networks cable companies, with 67 million subscribers each. ABC Radio Network owns 26 AM and FM stations, again in major cities such as New York, Washington, and Los Angeles, and has over 3,400 affiliates.
Although primarily a telecommunications company, Capital Cities/ABC earned over $1 billion in publishing in 1997. It owns seven daily newspapers, Fairchild Publications (Women's Wear Daily), Chilton Publications (automotive manuals), and the Diversified Publishing Group.
Number three on the list, with 1997 revenues of just over $13 billion, is Viacom, Inc., headed by Sumner Redstone (born Murray Rothstein). Viacom, which produces and distributes TV programs for the three largest networks, owns 13 television stations and 12 radio stations. It produces feature films through Paramount Pictures, headed by Jewess Sherry Lansing. Redstone acquired CBS following the December 1999 stockholders' votes at CBS and Viacom.
Working for Redstone as CBS's chief executive is a Jew named Melvin A. Karmazin. He is the boss and biggest individual shareholder of the company that owns the CBS Television Network, 14 major-market TV stations, 160 radio stations, the Country Music Television and the Nashville Network cable channels, and a large number of outdoor advertising assets.
Viacom's publishing division includes Simon & Schuster, Scribner, The Free Press, and Pocket Books. It distributes videos through over 4,000 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, and other networks. Since 1989 MTV and Nickelodeon have acquired larger and larger shares of the juvenile television audience. The first quarter of 2001 was the 16th consecutive quarter in which MTV was rated as the #1 cable network for viewers between the ages of 12 and 24. Redstone, who actually owns 76 per cent of the shares of Viacom, has offered Beavis and Butthead as teen role models and currently is the largest single purveyor of race-mixing propaganda to White teenagers and sub-teens in America and in Europe. MTV Networks plans to acquire The Music Factory (TMF) from the Dutch media and marketing group Wegener. TMF distributes music to almost 10 million homes in Holland and Belgium. MTV is expanding its presence in Europe through new channels, including MTV Dance (Britain) and MTV Live (Scandinavia). MTV Italy is active through Cecchi Gori Communications. MTV pumps its racially mixed rock and rap videos into 210 million homes in 71 countries and is the dominant cultural influence on White teenagers around the world.
Nickelodeon, with about 65 million subscribers, has by far the largest share of the four-to-11-year-old TV audience in America and also 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. As of early 2001, Nickelodeon was continuing a nine-year streak as the top cable network for children and younger teenagers.
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 Interscope Records, the foremost promoter of "gangsta rap." These companies now belong to Vivendi 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. With the revenue from PolyGram added to that from MCA and Universal, Bronfman became master of the fourth largest media empire, with annual revenues around $12 billion. One especially unfortunate aspect of the PolyGram acquisition was that it gave Bronfman control of the world's largest producer of classical music CDs: PolyGram owns the Deutsche Grammophon, Decca-London, and Philips record companies.
In June 2000, the Bronfman family sold Seagram to Vivendi, a French utilities company led by gentile Jean-Marie Messier. The combined company, Vivendi Universal, will retain Edgar Bronfman, Jr., as the vice chairman of the new company, and he will continue to be in charge of its entertainment division. The strategy for this merger seems to mirror that of AOL-Time Warner: infect and wait. Vivendi Universal will pay off the debts it assumed in the merger by selling Seagram's alcohol business, retaining its media empire.
With two of the top four media conglomerates in the hands of Jews, and with Jews in executive charge of the remaining two, it is difficult to believe that such an overwhelming degree of control came about without a deliberate, concerted effort on their part.
What about the other big media companies?
Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, which owns Fox Television Network, 20th Century Fox Films, and Fox 2000, is the fifth largest megamedia corporation in the country, with 1997 revenues of over $11 billion. It is the only other media company that comes even close to the top four. Murdoch is a Gentile Australian, but Peter Chernin, who is president and CEO of Fox Group, which includes all of News Corporation's film, television, and publishing operations in the United States, is a Jew. Under Chernin, as president of 20th Century Fox, is Laura Ziskin, a Jewess who formerly headed Fox 2000. Jew Peter Roth works under Chernin as president of Fox Entertainment. News Corporation also owns the New York Post and TV Guide, and they are published under Chernin's supervision. Murdoch told Newsweek magazine (July 12, 1999) that he would probably elevate Chernin to CEO of News Corporation, rather than allow the company to fall into the hands of his own children, none of whom are younger than their late twenties. It is hard to imagine a Jew giving a major media corporation to a Gentile underling when he has children waiting in the wings. For his part, Chernin was quite candid: "I get to control movies seen all over the world. . . . What could be more fun?"
Most of the television and movie production companies that are not owned by the largest corporations are also controlled by Jews. For example, New World Entertainment, proclaimed by one media analyst as "the premier independent TV program producer in the United States," is owned by Ronald Perelman, a Jew who also owns Revlon cosmetics and who offered a job to Monica Lewinsky when Bill Clinton was trying to keep her quiet.
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.
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 just the four largest motion picture companies mentioned above -- Disney, Warner Brothers, Paramount (Viacom), and Universal (Seagram) -- accounted for two-thirds of the total box-office receipts for the year 1997.
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 periods of 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 corporations. The Jewish presence in television news remains particularly strong.
NBC provides a good example of this. The executives at NBC recently were shuffled among the key positions. Andrew Lack, who had been chief of the network's news division, ascended to become its president and chief operations officer. Neal Shapiro, who had been producing Dateline NBC, moved into Lack's old job. Jeff Zucker, who had been producing the Today show, was promoted to NBC entertainment president (a job that apparently was created for him), and Jonathan Wald moved into Zucker's old spot after shoving aside Michael Bass, who had been filling in for Zucker with Today. Some time ago, Wald became the producer of the NBC Nightly News, taking the position from Jeff Gralnick. When Wald moved to Today, Steve Capus took over as Tom Brokaw's producer. It is not known at this time whether Capus is a Jew or not, but everyone else is.
A similar preponderance of Jews exists in the news divisions of the other networks. For example, in February 2000, Al Ortiz moved to head the "Special Events" coverage at CBS, making gentile Jim Murphy the executive producer of The CBS Evening News with Dan Rather -- and the only exception that we know of to an otherwise solidly Jewish cadre of television news producers. The new CBS Early Show, which replaced CBS This Morning, had an internal shakeup in which three producers were fired, ostensibly for not being "aggressive" enough. One wonders whether they were also not Jewish enough. The shakeup did not, however, affect the outgoing executive producer Al Berman, who transferred to a new job as a program developer, and Steve Friedman has become the executive producer of the Early Show.
Paul Friedman is still the executive producer of ABC World News Tonight with Peter Jennings. Rick Kaplan, once an executive at ABC, moved to CNN in 1997, where he became the president of CNN/USA.
The Print Media
After television news, daily newspapers are the most influential information medium in America. Sixty million of them are sold (and presumably read) each day. These millions are divided among some 1483 different publications (this figure is for February 2000). 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 1483 papers are independently owned; the rest belong to multi-newspaper chains. Only 104 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, which sells content to newspapers, is currently under the control of its Jewish 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 since 1992. He was promoted to his current job in 2000. Silverman reports to Jonathan Wolman, also a Jew, who is executive editor for the AP.
In only 47 cities in America are there more than one daily newspaper, and competition is frequently nominal even among them, as between morning and afternoon editions under the same ownership. Examples of this are the Mobile, Alabama, morning Register and afternoon Press-Register; and the Syracuse, New York, morning Post-Standard and afternoon Herald-Journal -- all owned by the Jewish Newhouse brothers through their holding company, Advance Publications.
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 30 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 12 television broadcasting stations and 87 cable-TV systems, including some of the country's largest cable networks; the Sunday supplement Parade, with a circulation of more than 22 million copies per week; some two dozen major magazines, including the New Yorker, Vogue, Mademoiselle, Glamour, Vanity Fair, Bride's, Gentlemen's Quarterly, Self, House & Garden, and all the other magazines of the wholly owned Conde Nast group.
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 $8 billion today.
The gobbling up of so many newspapers by the Newhouse family was in large degree made possible by the fact that newspapers 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 -- primarily as 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 September 1999 circulation of 1,086,000, 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. The executive editor is Joseph Lelyveld, also a Jew (he is a rabbi's son).
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; twelve magazines, including McCall's and Family Circle with circulations of more than 5 million each; seven radio and TV broadcasting stations; a cable-TV system; and three book publishing companies. 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, industry czar in America during the First World War.
The Washington Post is now run by Katherine Meyer Graham, Eugene Meyer's daughter. She is the principal stockholder and the board chairman of the Washington Post Co. In 1979 she appointed her son Donald publisher of the paper. He now also holds the posts of president and CEO of the Washington Post Co. The newspaper has a daily circulation of 763,000, and its Sunday edition sells 1.1 million copies.
The Washington Post Co. 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 7 million homes, and its cable TV service, Cable One, has 635,000 subscribers.
In a joint venture with the New York Times, the Post publishes the International Herald Tribune, the most widely distributed English-language daily in the world.
The Wall Street Journal, which sells 1.8 million copies each weekday, is the nation's largest-circulation daily newspaper. It is owned by Dow Jones & Company, Inc., a New York corporation that also publishes 24 other daily newspapers and the weekly financial tabloid Barron's, among other things. 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 was bought from the estate of the late Jewish media mogul Robert Maxwell (born Ludvik Hoch) by Jewish real-estate developer Mortimer B. Zuckerman. The Village Voice is the personal property of Leonard Stern, the billionaire Jewish owner of the Hartz Mountain pet supply firm. And, as mentioned above, the New York Post is owned by News Corporation under the Jew Peter Chernin.
The story is pretty 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 new media conglomerate formed by the 1989 merger of Time, Inc., with Warner Communications. The CEO of Time Warner Communications, as mentioned above, is Gerald Levin, a Jew.
Newsweek, as mentioned above, is published by the Washington Post Company, under the Jewess Katherine Meyer Graham. Its weekly circulation is 3.1 million.
U.S. News & World Report, with a weekly circulation of 2.2 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 the Atlantic Monthly and New York's tabloid newspaper, the Daily News, which is the sixth-largest paper in the country.
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, and when confronted with them 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 be no continued beating of the drums for another war against Iraq.
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 their minds and souls. If we fail to destroy it, it certainly will destroy our race.
Let us begin now to acquire knowledge and to take action toward this necessary end.
|February 19th, 2008||#2|
[Jew Ben Stein's view]
Ben Stein On Jewish Media Control
A few days after Marlon Brando scandalized the airwaves by referring to the Jews who worked in Hollywood as "kikes," I got a call from an editor at 60 Minutes. The woman wanted to know how I felt about Brando's use of words and his allegation that Hollywood is "run by Jews." She suggested the desired answer by noting that her researchers had conclusively proven that Jews do not run Hollywood.
Crafty 60 Minutes had studied the top slots in town. Their research showed that "only" about 60 percent of the most important positions in Hollywood were run by Jews. What did I think?
Hollywood is run by Jews; it is owned by Jews--and they should have a greater sensitivity about the issue of people who are suffering. Because...we have seen...the greaseball, we've seen the Chink, we've seen the slit-eyed dangerous Jap, we have seen the wily Filipino, we've seen everything but we never saw the kike. Because they knew perfectly well, that that is where you draw the [line]." --Brando on Larry King Live
I managed to disqualify myself by saying that while Hollywood was not really "run" by anyone (it's far too chaotic for that), if Jews were about 2.5 percent of the population and were about 60 percent of Hollywood, they might well be said to be extremely predominant in that sector. That was far too logical and un-PC an answer, and I never heard from her again.
But Jews are a big part of my thoughts (as they are of every Jew's thoughts). Plus, I live and struggle in Hollywood, so the combination intrigues me. What exactly is the role of the Jew in Hollywood? More to the point, what does it signify, if anything, if Jews have a big role? And, most interesting of all, why do we care?
First, it is extremely clear to anyone in Hollywood that Jews are, so to speak, "in charge" in Hollywood in a way that is not duplicated in any other large business, except maybe garments or scrap metal or folding boxes.
At mighty Paramount, the controlling stockholder is Sumner Redstone. Head of the studio is Jon Dolgen. Head of production is Sherry Lansing--all members of the tribe. At titanic Disney, the CEO is Michael Eisner, the world's most assimilated Jew, who might as well be a Presbyterian. Deputy head is Michael Ovitz, karate champ but also a Jew. Head of the studio is Joe Roth. At newly energized ICM, the top dogs are Jeff Berg and Jim Wiatt. At still overwhelming CAA, Jack Rapke and other members of my faith predominate. At William Morris, Jon Burnham and other Jews are, by and large, in the power positions.
This has always been true in Hollywood. The ex-furriers who created Hollywood were Eastern European Jewish immigrants, and all of the great edifice of fantasy-making in Hollywood is their handiwork. Names like Zukor and Lasky and Goldwyn and Cohn are the foundation of mass culture in America and the world.
There is a much quoted note that it took all these Eastern European Yiddish-speaking Jews to create the lasting, worldwide image of America and what America is--the mass culture mirror that America likes to hold up to its face. This thought is made concrete by the simple line at the beginning of Gone with the Wind that it is "A David O. Selznick Production." It took a Selznick, married to the daughter of a Louis B. Mayer, working with a Thalberg, to create the ultimate vision of romantic America--the antebellum South.
It took a Jew--Leslie Howard--to play Ashley Wilkes, the bedrock image of what a perfect American gentleman is supposed to be. Thus, the fact of Hollywood's being very largely Jewish is not exactly news. The news is that Hollywood is rapidly becoming ethnically far more diverse than it was only a couple of decades ago, when I first arrived here.
You can take it from the studio level, where probably the most powerful man in town is of the Australian faith--one Rupert Murdoch by name. Murdoch, no one's idea of a Jew, controls a major studio, a major broadcast network and the largest aggregation of TV stations in America.
The head of programming at ABC is a full-on gentile, Ted Harbert. The owner and head of production of what has become the Tiffany studio, MGM, are Kirk Kerkorian and Frank Mancuso, alsonot members of Temple Israel. And on and on.
It is certainly true that there have always been goyim in Hollywood. But there are more gentiles in the Industry now, and there has formed a whole new route to Hollywood. No longer do young men and women work their way up solely by being mailroom clerks or nephews of producers or offspring of men in the linen-supply business. The standard route to Hollywood now is through Harvard and Yale. Sitcom writers and producers, movie scriptwriters and producers now come from the Ivy League far more than from the streets of Brooklyn. Most of the writing staff of the powerhouse Seinfeld is from the Harvard Lampoon.
So are many of the writers on Married...with Children, Friends and other stalwarts of the box. The route from Harvard Square to Hollywood is now hallowed by success and money. In fact, the agencies now beg and plead for Harvard Lampoon grads the way they once cried for the writers of The Jack Benny Radio Program. This change from borscht-belt origins to the halls of Harvard as a prime source of writing talent in Hollywood is a quantum shift. Many of the Harvard and Yale alums are, to be sure, Jews, but many are not.
Now, this is interesting to those of us who work here. But it is of no significance at all to the 99.9 percent of Americans who do not. The only possible significance of whether Hollywood is run by Jews or not must have to do with whether or not the product comes out "Jewish," or in some way different from the way it would if it were made solely by gentiles.Really, the point is even a little uglier than that. The only real reason why the question of whether Jews "run" Hollywood is at all interesting is because there is some residual thought--apparently as was in the mind of Marlon Brando--that Jews are sinister and alien.
Kike is a low Polish word meaning the nastiest, most alien connotation of Jew. That would mean that the Jewish product of Jewish Hollywood would be somehow subversive in some way. This would be akin to Wagner's notion that Jews had polluted and ruined German music with their innately subversive sensibility.
This is a thought so bizarre and even comical to anyone familiar with Hollywood that it merits laughter more than fear. Yes, of course, the Hollywood product is made mostly by Jews. But these Jews are in love with America. These are Jews who want to play polo, not davvinn in shul. These are Jews whose children play soccer and learn horseback riding in Malibu. These Jews, as soon as they have two million to rub together, buy farms in South Carolina (Joel Silver) or vast spreads in Colorado (Peter Guber).
"From Poland to polo in one generation," some wag said about Darryl Zanuck, and it makes the point. It was the Jews of the '30s and '40s who gave us the vision of America the Good, where money did not count--only goodness. Think of the works of William Wyler (maker of the ultimate pro-American heartstrings movie, The Best Years of Our Lives), or of MGM and its celebration of the swinging good life of Ginger and Fred.
Where does the idea come from of the perfect American family, occasionally quarreling mildly but ultimately working it all out in love and affection? From Ozzie and Harriet and Leave It to Beaver and I Love Lucy, with their largely Jewish writers and producers.
Where does the idea come from that parents and children, as polarized as they might be, will ultimately love each other? From Norman Lear and his factory for grinding out funny and touching affirmations of domestic life in America.
Where does the idea that blacks can be funny and endearing as millionaires and not just as servants and wide-eyed fools fleeing ghosts? Again, from Norman Lear and The Jeffersons. Hollywood's current product occasionally repels and even sickens me. I am truly disgusted with its language, its violence, its endless attacks on businessmen and military officers. (On the other hand, it never can attack the CIA enough for me.)
But these are eddies and ripples in the vast tide of Hollywood messages that encourage and hearten us in our daily struggle. Many Americans get this message far more from Hollywood than from worship, and these are by no means subversive messages.
So now, as the shrinks say, we may perhaps to begin. If any overall view of the Hollywood product shows it has been a wholesome influence on American life, why is Hollywood itself still so not trusted?
Why can a Marlon Brando attack it so explicitly for its Jewishness and a Dan Quayle and even a Bob Dole and even a Bill Clinton attack it on an ongoing basis for its alleged sinister quality?
I marvel that when people criticize the auto industry for making trucks that catch fire when they are struck and cars that turn over on a turn, no one ever says "the gentile auto industry." No one calls the pharmaceutical industry sinister or attacks it as alien even though it turns out a lot of pills that addict people.
As far as I can recall, Hollywood, and only Hollywood, gets the treatment as being somehow sinister and alien.
Other industries are bad--like big tobacco--but only Hollywood is un-American, even though its product kills a lot fewer Americans. It's hard to resist the thought that there are only two explanations for this:
--Envy. Life in Hollywood is thought to be fun, well-paid, glamorous and sexy. Naturally, many people sitting in cheerless offices in D.C. or elsewhere want to be in the seat where the mighty of Hollywood sit. Because they have no idea of how to get there, they express envy and criticism of the people who are there.
--Plain old primitive anti-Semitism. About two years ago, as I was having lunch at the Spokane airport, an obviously somewhat off waitress recognized me from my modest acting work and said she had once seen "that Jewish woman with the big nose and the great voice" and did I know her?
"Do you mean Barbra Streisand?" I asked Without missing a beat, she asked, "Say, do the Japanese control Hollywood, or do you people still run it?"
It's fear and racism at that level that motivates the issue of Hollywood as sinister and alien. Maybe it's so basic when it comes to Jews that it just will never go away. Or maybe it will take so long to go away that Hollywood will be Korean by then.
For now, Hollywood, in many ways the most successful cultural enterprise of all time and the most potent messenger of American values of all time, is changing, but it is still largely Jewish. And a very angry voice in my curly head makes me add, "What the hell of it?"
Last edited by Alex Linder; February 19th, 2008 at 05:05 PM.
|February 19th, 2008||#3|
[Jew Philip Weiss's view]
Do Jews Dominate in American Media? And So What If We Do?
by Philip Weiss
February 17, 2008
At least a half dozen times in recent months, the suggestion has come from serious people that Jews predominate in the American media--that if we are not dominant, we are a major bloc. In a Yivo event on Jews in journalism I've blogged about, a questioner said that Jews' outsize proportion in the media has granted us "a large influence over power." In his groundbreaking paper on the New York Times's role in shaping American policy toward Israel, Jerome Slater spoke of "religious beliefs and identifications" that affected the Times, and cited former executive editor Max Frankel's admission in his memoir (one also cited by Walt and Mearsheimer): "I was much more deeply devoted to Israel than I dared to assert."
Lately broadcast reporter John Hockenberry related that he wanted to do a piece on the hijackers' motivation after 9/11 but that NBC executive Jeff Zucker scotched the notion:
"Maybe," Zucker said, "we ought to do a series of specials on firehouses where we just ride along with our cameras. Like the show Cops, only with firefighters."... He could make room in the prime-time lineup for firefighters, but then smiled at me and said, in effect, that he had no time for any subtitled interviews with jihadists raging about Palestine. Weiss's emphasis
Then last month at a forum at the Nixon Center, former Bushie Dov Zackheim said, Jews don't dominate the policy-making process, but the media is a different story...
I don't know that anyone has visited the simple question raised by these statements: Do Jews dominate the media? This is something I know about personally. I’ve worked in print journalism for more than 30 years. I’ve worked for many magazines and newspapers, and for a time my whole social circle was editors and writers in New York. I don’t know television. I don’t know Washington journalism well. I don't know the west coast. My sample is surely skewed by the fact that I’m Jewish and have always felt great comfort with other Jews. But in my experience, Jews have made up the majority of the important positions in the publications I worked for, a majority of the writers I’ve known at these place, and the majority of the owners who have paid me. Yes my own sample may be skewed, but I think it shows that Jews make up a significant proportion of power positions in media, half, if not more.
Before considering what this means, let me make my experience concrete:
My serious journalism began at the Harvard Crimson in the 70s. A friend said the paper was a Jewish boys club; it was dominated by middle class Jews-- as apparently today there are a lot of Asians. Many of these Jews are now powerful presences in the media. Zucker is one of them. My first paying job was in Minneapolis. Five Harvard guys started a weekly; four of them were Jewish, including the publisher paying our meager salaries. I remember our editor walking the halls parodying the jingle we had on the radio. The jingle went: "We’ve got the news, we’ve got the sports…" He sang it as “We’ve got the Jews, we’ve got the sports.” Funny.
I was hired by a Jewish editor at my next job, the Philadelphia Daily News in 1978, and when I started freelancing in 1981, Jewish Harvard friends got me work at the Columbia Journalism Review and the Washington Monthly. A gentile brought me in at Harper’s and the New Republic. It was at the New Republic, a launching pad for any number of highly-successful journalists, that I briefly associated with Marty Peretz, and did a story for him mocking the United Nations, whose judgment he seeks at every turn to nullify because the U.N. is critical of Israel.
Fast forward. In New York, I have worked for a dozen magazines. Most of my editors have been Jewish. Both my book publishers were Jewish. At one point at one publishing house, the editor, his boss, and her boss were all Jewish, and so was the lawyer vetting the work—I remember her saying she would never travel to Malaysia because of the anti-Semitic Prime minister. Oh--and the assistant editor was half-Jewish.
I should point out that I have worked with many gentile editors and writers, and I have never been aware of any employment discrimination against them (though I may not be the best source). In fact, at Spy, the three top editors were all non-Jews and when I used the epithet WASP it was removed from my copy. But that is the exception. Generally it’s been Jews Jews Jews. When I hear NPR do a piece with its top political team and both are Jews... when a Jewish friend calls me and gossips about lunches with two top news execs at major publications who are both Jewish and who I’ve known for 20 years... when a Jewish editor friend tells me that Si Newhouse would be disturbed if Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter-- who has done such courageous work against the Iraq war-- did anything to expose the Israel lobby... and when I say that my income has been derived overwhelmingly from Jewish-owned publications for years—this is simply the ordinary culture of the magazine business as I know it.
I have some ideas why Jews have predominated, but that’s not the purpose of this posting. Last year Senator Russ Feingold, buttonholed on CSPAN about why so many speakers on air were Jewish, said, “Well, we’re good at talking…” That'll do for now.
The real issue is, Does it matter? Most of my life I felt it didn't. It’s just the way it is, at this point in history. It will change (as Clyde Haberman pointed out at that Yivo event). Jews are the latest flavor of the establishment. In his landmark book, The Jewish Century, Slezkine reports that Jews were the majority of journalists in Berlin and Vienna and Prague, too, in the late 1800s, if I remember correctly.
Now I think it does matter, for two reasons. Elitist establishment culture, and Israel. As to elitism, I worry when any affluent group has power and little sense of what the common man is experiencing. I feel the same discomfort with my prestige-oriented "caste" that E. Digby Baltzell did with his calcified caste, the WASPs--when he called for an end to discrimination against Jews in the early '60s. The values of my cohort sometimes seem narrow: globalism, prosperity, professionalism. In Israel the values are a lot broader. None of my cohort has served in the military, myself included. A lot of our fathers did; but I bet none of our kids do. Military service is for losers--or for Israelis.
So we are way overrepresented in the chattering classes, and way underrepresented in the battering classes. Not a great recipe for leadership, especially in wartime.
Then there’s Israel. Support for Israel is an element of Jewish religious practice and more important, part of the Jewish cultural experience. Even if you're a secular Jewish professional who prides himself on his objectivity, there is a ton of cultural pressure on you to support Israel or at least not to betray Israel. We are talking about a religion, after all, and the pressures faced by Jews who are critical of Israel are not that different from what Muslim women who want greater freedom undergo psychically or by evangelical Christians who want to support gay rights. It is worth noting that great Jewish heretics on the Israel question suffer anger or even ostracism inside their own families. Henry Siegman talked about this on Charlie Rose once, I recall--that even close family were not speaking to him over Israel. And I have seen this for myself on numerous occasions. There is not a lot of bandwidth on this issue. Conversations about Israel even inside the liberal Jewish community are emotionally loaded, and result in people not speaking to one another. I lost this blog at a mainstream publication because the editor was Jewish and conservative on Israel and so was the new owner, and the publisher had worked for AIPAC. And all of them would likely call themselves liberal Democrats.
As former CNN correspondent Linda Scherzer has said, "We, as Jews, must understand that we come with a certain bias ...We believe in the Israeli narrative of history. We support the values that we as Americans, Westerners, and Jews espouse. Thus, we see news reporting through our own prism."
There are many American Jewish journalists who have done great independent work re Israel/Palestine. Richard Ben Cramer and the late Robbie Friedman leap to mind. But both these guys are exceptional, and had to overcome/ignore a ton of pressure that most of us would quail under. They had to step outside the Jewish family to do their work...
The result is that Americans are not getting the full story re Israel/Palestine. Slater says this dramatically in his paper--that the Times has deprived American leadership of reporting on the moral/political crisis that Israel is undergoing, one that Haaretz has covered unstintingly. At Columbia the other night, Jew, Arab and gentile on a panel about the human-rights crisis in Gaza all said that Americans are not getting the full story. Ilan Pappe has marveled in his book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, that the Nakba is all but unmentioned in the U.S.--while Haaretz has sought at times to document it, for instance a former officer saying in 2004 that if he had not helped to destroy 200 villages in southern Israel in '48, there would be another million Palestinians in Israel. To repeat Scherzer's admission: "We believe in the Israeli narrative of history..."
Why does the American press behave differently from the Israeli press? I think the answer is guilt. The Jewish cohort of which I am a part has largely accepted the duty that Max Frankel felt, of supporting Israel. This duty is rarely interrogated, and yet consciously or not we all know that American public opinion/leadership is critical to Israel's political invulnerability; and we think that if we take their fingers out of the dyke, who knows what will happen. That is a ton of responsibility. This responsibility is not executed with special care. Generally, my cohort hasn't been to Israel, hasn't seen the West Bank. But they do feel kinship with Israeli Jews, and--above all--have guilt feelings about the Holocaust, or the American Jewish silence about it during the event, the Jewish passivity; and they are determined not to be passive during Israel's neverending existential crises. And thus they misunderstand Israel and fail to serve their readers.
|February 20th, 2008||#4|
Seven Jewish Americans Control Most US Media
From John Whitley
From southern France, Christopher Jones summarizes and comments on a report on the assassination of President Kennedy. Need I stress that WAIS censors only direct attacks on other WAISers and grossly improper laguage.
Christopher says: "I glanced at the Kennedy assassination site and found this; it fits into our discussion of Hollywood stereotypes and the slavish behavior of the US press after the 9/11 tragedy and in the run up to the invasion of Iraq. In a quick rundown, the website recapitulates an old story that I heard back in the late sixties and early seventies in California: that Kennedy was liquidated by the mafia whose kingpin was Meyer Lansky (pal of Lucky Luciano). In fact, I could add a small tidbit which the author may or may not have covered: that Marilyn Monroe was murdered by the mafia as a warning to her lovers; Bobby and Jack Kennedy. The story of the Corsican hit squad was documented in a TV documentary in Europe. Of course it would be interesting to know more about Auguste Ricord and his collaboration wih the Gestapo and if he had anything to do with our old friend, Mandel Szkolnikoff.
"Today, seven Jewish Americans run the vast majority of US television networks, the printed press, the Hollywood movie industry, the book publishing industry, and the recording industry. Most of these industries are bundled into huge media conglomerates run by the following seven individuals:
Gerald Levin, CEO and Director of AOL Time Warner
Michael Eisner, Chairman and CEO of the Walt Disney Company
Edgar Bronfman, Sr., Chairman of Seagram Company Ltd
Edgar Bronfman, Jr, President and CEO of Seagram Company Ltd and head of Universal Studios
Sumner Redstone, Chairman and CEO of Viacom, Inc
Dennis Dammerman, Vice Chairman of General Electric
Peter Chernin, President and Co-COO of News Corporation Limited
Those seven Jewish men collectively control ABC, NBC, CBS, the Turner Broadcasting System, CNN, MTV, Universal Studios, MCA Records, Geffen Records, DGC Records, GRP Records, Rising Tide Records, Curb/Universal Records, and Interscope Records.
Most of the larger independent newspapers are owned by Jewish interests as well. An example is media mogul is Samuel I. "Si" Newhouse, who owns two dozen daily newspapers from Staten Island to Oregon, plus the Sunday supplement Parade; the Conde Nast collection of magazines, including Vogue, The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, Allure, GQ, and Self; the publishing firms of Random House, Knopf, Crown, and Ballantine, among other imprints; and cable franchises with over one million subscribers."
I coul d add that Michael Eisner could depart Disney tomorrow but the company will remain in the hands of Shamrock Holdings, whose principal office is now located in Israel".
Bronfman Group Buys Time Warner Music
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Time Warner Inc. (TWX.N: Quote, Profile, Research) on Monday said it would sell its Warner Music business to a group led by media mogul Edgar Bronfman Jr. for $2.6 billion, in a move to trim the media group's debts and signaling a return of the former Seagram chairman to the music business.
The Bronfman group beat out a bid by EMI (EMI.L: Quote, Profile, Research) for the recorded music portion of the business for an estimated $1 billion.
By choosing the Bronfman bid, Time Warner is forsaking $250 million to $300 million in cost savings it could have realized by combining with EMI, home to such acts as The Beatles and Radiohead. Warner Music artists include Madonna, Led Zeppelin and R.E.M.
On the other hand, Time Warner is getting more cash up front by selling the entire business, which includes the music publishing company, and will have an easier path to regulatory approval. In the past, European and U.S. regulators have frowned on consolidation within the music business.
Bronfman's team, backed by some of America's biggest private equity houses including Thomas H. Lee Partners, is betting it can slash costs and turn Warner Music around ahead of a comeback in sales, a major challenge in an industry currently in decline.
Bronfman has had long ties to the music business, first as a songwriter for the likes of Dionne Warwick and Celine Dion, and later as head of Seagram when he bought entertainment group MCA from Japan's Matsushita for $5.7 billion. On his watch, the renamed Universal Music bought Polygram, creating the world's largest record company.
Bronfman merged his family's entertainment empire with France's Vivendi three years ago, only to see the family fortune disintegrate. When Vivendi put its entertainment assets on the block earlier this year, Bronfman led a group to buy the assets back but was ultimately outbid by NBC.
Hit by rampant piracy and competition from other entertainment such as video games, music sales are expected to fall for the fourth year in a row in 2004.
Earlier this month Sony Music (6758.T: Quote, Profile, Research) agreed to merge with Bertelsmann AG's (BERT.UL: Quote, Profile, Research) BMG.
© Reuters 2003. All Rights Reserved.
From Donna Halperin
Hi Jeff - I am Jewish and I take exception to some of the articles you post on your site. However, this particular article is staggering in its implications. It is said there are less than 15 million Jews on the planet. Most of us...and I know a lot of people... are kind, normal and not megalomaniacal in our approach to life. When someone of ANY religious or political persuasion reads this story and then also factors in the dominance of Jews in finance and the economy, government, science, the medical profession, the legal profession - in fact all the professions - one has to come away pondering how such staggering influence has been acquired by such a microscopic percent of the world's 7 BILLION people. For ANY group to wield such power clearly and obviously injects profound bias and skewing into all areas of a nation so dominated. Is there a Zionist/Jewish bias in Western society and especially the US? Is grass green? It is often whispered that Baron Rothschild really owns and controls Great Britain. It is reported that 7 of the 8 oligarch/gangsters who control most of Russia are Jews ...probably hard core Zionists. (Maybe Putin is trying to prevent a total Zionist takeover of Russia with the Lukos oil magnate's arrest?) And then look at the Zionist Jewish near domination of the Bush administration (no coincidence, that) and the more than one trillion dollars the kindly American people have given to Israel in 'loan guarantees'...not a penny of which has ever...or will ever... be paid back. I could go on but it when a Jew starts to point out the facts and connect the dots, they are quickly smeared as 'self-hating' and so forth. Well, this Jew is an American first and I'm hoping you continue to post factual articles like this on your site. Thank you.
|February 20th, 2008||#5|
Join Date: Jul 2007
|February 21st, 2008||#6|
Who Controls U.S. Media
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 which 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 a flood of non-White aliens from 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 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.
Electronic News & Entertainment Media
Continuing government deregulation of the telecommunications industry has resulted, not in the touted increased competition, but rather in an accelerating wave of corporate mergers and acquisitions that have produced a handful of multi-billion-dollar media conglomerates. Whenever you watch television, whether from a local broadcasting station or via a cable or satellite dish; whenever you see a feature film in a theater or at home; whenever you listen to the radio or 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.
The largest media conglomerate today is Walt Disney Company, whose chairman 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), its own cable network with 14 million subscribers, and two video production companies.
As for feature films, the Walt Disney Picture Group, headed by Joe Roth (also a Jew), includes Touchstone Pictures, Hollywood Pictures, and Caravan Pictures. Disney also owns Miramax Films, run by the Weinstein brothers, who have produced such ultra-raunchy movies such as The Crying Game, Priests, 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, under Eisner the company has expanded into the production of graphic sex and gratuitous violence. In addition to TV and movies, the corporation owns Disneyland, Disney World, Epcot Center, Tokyo Disneyland, and Euro Disney.
Disney also sells annually well over a billion dollars worth of consumer products: books, toys, and clothing. In August 1995 Eisner acquired Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., to create a media empire with annual sales of $16.5 billion. Capital Cities/ABC owns the ABC Television Network, which in turn owns ten TV stations outright in such big markets as New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and Houston. In addition, it has 225 affiliated stations in the United States and is part owner of several European TV companies.
ABC’s cable subsidiary, ESPN, is headed by president and CEO Steven Bornstein, who is a Jew. The corporation also has a controlling share of Lifetime Television and the Arts & Entertainment Network cable companies. ABC Radio Network owns 11 AM and ten FM stations, again in major cities such as New York, Washington, and Los Angeles, and has over 3,400 affiliates.
Although primarily a telecommunications company, Capital Cities/ABC earned over $1 billion in publishing in 1994. It owns seven daily newspapers, Fairchild Publications (Women’s Wear Daily), Chilton Publications (automotive manuals), and the Diversified Publishing Group.
Time Warner, Inc., is the second of the international media leviathans. The chairman of the board and CEO, Gerald M. Levin, is a Jew. Time Warner’s subsidiary HBO is the country’s largest pay-TV cable network.
Warner Music is by far the world’s largest record company, with 50 labels, the biggest of which is Warner Brothers Records, headed by Danny Goldberg. Stuart Hersh is president of Warnervision, Warner Music’s video production unit. Goldberg and Hersch are both Jews.
Warner Music was an early promoter of "gangsta rap." Through its involvement with Interscope Records, it helped popularize a new genre whose graphic lyrics explicitly urge Blacks to commit acts of violence against Whites.
In addition to cable and music, Time Warner is heavily involved in the production of feature films (Warner Brothers Studio) and publishing. Time Warner’s publishing division (editor-in-chief Norman Pearlstine, a Jew) is the largest magazine publisher in the country (Time, Sports Illustrated, People, Fortune).
Levin may soon be back as number-one media magnate if the planned deal with Turner Broadcasting System is completed. When Ted Turner, the Gentile media maverick, made a bid to buy CBS in 1985, there was a panic in media boardrooms across the nation. Turner had made a fortune in advertising and then had built a successful cable-TV news network, CNN. Although Turner employed a number of Jews in key executive positions in CNN and had never taken public positions contrary to Jewish interests, he is a man with a large ego and a strong personality and was regarded by Chairman 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 the company, and from 1986 till 1995 Tisch was the chairman and CEO of CBS, removing any threat of non-Jewish influence there. Subsequent efforts by Turner to acquire a major network have been obstructed by Levin’s Time Warner, which owns nearly 20 percent of CBS stock and has veto power over major deals.
Thus, despite being an innovator and garnering headlines, Turner has never commanded the wealth and power to be a true media master. Turner may have decided: if you can’t lick ‘em, join ‘em. If TBS merges with Time Warner, Levin will become Turner’s boss, and CNN, the only rival to the network news, will come under complete Jewish control.
Viacom, Inc., headed by Sumner Redstone (born Murray Rothstein), is the third largest megamedia corporation in the country, with revenues of over $10 billion a year. Viacom, which produces and distributes TV programs for the three largest networks, owns 12 television stations and 12 radio stations. It produces feature films through Paramount Pictures, headed by Jewess Sherry Lansing.
Its publishing division includes Prentice Hall, Simon & Schuster, and Pocket Books. It distributes videos through over 4,000 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, and other networks. Since 1989, MTV and Nickelodeon have acquired larger and larger shares of the juvenile television audience. Redstone, who actually owns 76 percent of the shares of Viacom ($3 billion), offers Beavis and Butthead as teen role models and is the largest single purveyor of race-mixing propaganda to White teenagers and sub-teens in America and Europe. MTV pumps its racially mixed rock and rap videos into 210 million homes in 71 countries and is the dominant cultural influence on White teenagers around the world.
Nickelodeon has by far the largest share of the four-to-11-year-old TV audience in America and also is expanding rapidly into Europe. Most of its shows do not yet display the blatant degeneracy which is MTV’s trademark, but Redstone is gradually nudging the fare presented to his kiddie viewers toward the same poison purveyed by MTV.
With the top three, and by far the largest, media conglomerates in the hands of Jews, it is difficult to believe that such an overwhelming degree of control came about without a deliberate, concerted effort on their part.
What about the other big media companies?
Number four on the list is Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, which owns Fox Television Network and 20th Century Fox Films. Murdoch is a Gentile, but Peter Chernin, who heads Murdoch’s film studio and also oversees his TV production, is a Jew.
Number five is the Japanese Sony Corporation, whose U.S. subsidiary, Sony Corporation of America, is run by Michael Schulhof, a Jew. Alan J. Levine, another Jew, heads the Sony Pictures division.
Most of the television and movie production companies that are not owned by the largest corporations are also controlled by Jews. For example, New World Entertainment, proclaimed by one media analyst as "the premiere independent TV program producer in the United States," is owned by Ronald Perelman, a Jew who also owns Revlon cosmetics. The chairman at New World, Brandon Tartikoff (formerly head of entertainment programming at NBC), is also a Jew.
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 direction 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 three.
Two other large production companies, MCA and Universal Pictures, are both owned by Seagram Company, Ltd. The president and CEO of Seagram, the liquor giant, is Edgar Bronfman, Jr., who is also president of the World Jewish Congress.
It is well known that Jews have controlled the production and distribution of films since the inception of the movie industry in the early decades of this century. This is still the case today.
Films produced by just the five largest motion picture companies mentioned above — Disney, Warner Brothers, Sony, Paramount (Viacom), and Universal (Seagram) — accounted for 74 percent of the total box-office receipts for the year to date (August 1995).
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, CBS first by William Paley and then by Laurence Tisch, and NBC first by David Sarnoff and then by his son Robert. Over periods of 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 corporations. The Jewish presence in television news remains particularly strong.
As noted, ABC is part of Eisner’s Disney Company, and the executive producers of ABC’s news programs are all Jews: Victor S. Neufeld (20-20), Bob Reichbloom (Good Morning America), and Rick Kaplan (World News Tonight).
CBS was recently purchased by Westinghouse Electric Corporation. Nevertheless, the man appointed by Laurence Tisch, Eric Ober, remains president of CBS News, and Ober is a Jew.
At NBC, now owned by General Electric, NBC News president Andrew Lack is a Jew, as are executive producers Jeff Zucker (Today), Jeff Gralnick (NBC Nightly News), and Neal Shapiro (Dateline).
The Print Media
After television news, daily newspapers are the most influential information medium in America. Sixty million of them are sold (and presumably read) each day. These millions are divided among some 1,500 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.
The days when most cities and even towns had several independently owned newspaper published by local people with close ties to the community are gone. 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. The fact is that only about 25 percent of the country’s 1,500 papers are independently owned; the rest belong to multi-newspaper chains. Only 100 of the total number have circulations of more then 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.
In only 50 cities in America are there more than one daily newspaper, and competition is frequently nominal even among them, as between morning and afternoon editions under the same ownership. Examples of this are the Huntsville, Alabama, morning News and afternoon Times; the Birmingham, Alabama, morning Post Herald and afternoon News; the Mobile, Alabama, morning Register and afternoon Press; the Springfield, Massachusetts, morning Union, afternoon News, and Sunday-only Republican; the Syracuse, New York, morning Post-Standard and afternoon Herald-Journal — all owned by the Jewish Newhouse brothers through their holding company, Advance Publications.
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 26 daily newspapers, including several large and important ones, such as the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Newark Star-Ledger, and the New Orleans Times-Picayune; the nation’s largest trade book publishing conglomerate, Random House, with all its subsidiaries; Newhouse Broadcasting, consisting of 12 television broadcasting stations and 87 cable-TV systems, including some of the country’s largest cable networks; the Sunday supplement Parade, with a circulation of more than 22 million copies per week; some two dozen major magazines, including the New Yorker, Vogue, Mademoiselle, Glamour, Vanity Fair, Bride’s, Gentlemen’s Quarterly, Self, House & Garden, and all the other magazines of the wholly owned Conde Nast group.
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 $8 billion today.
The gobbling up of so many newspapers by the Newhouse family was in large degree made possible by the fact that newspapers 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 this 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 — primarily as 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 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 which set the trends and the guidelines for nearly all the others. They are the ones which 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 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 last 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-grandson, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., is the paper’s current publisher and CEO. The executive editor is Max Frankel, and the managing editor is Joseph Lelyveld. Both of the latter are also Jews.
The Sulzberger family also owns, through the New York Times Co., 33 others newspapers, including the Boston Globe, purchased in June 1993 for $1.1 billion; twelve magazines, including McCall’s and Family Circle with circulations of more than 5 million each; seven radio and TV broadcasting stations; a cable-TV system; and three book publishing companies. 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, the industry czar in America during the First World War.
The Washington Post is now run by Katherine Meyer Graham, Eugene Meyer’s daughter. She is the principal stockholder and board chairman of the Washington Post Co. In 1979, she appointed her son Donald publisher of the paper. He now also holds the posts of president and CEO of the Washington Post Co.
The Washington Post Co. has a number of other media holdings in newspapers, television, and magazines, most notably the nation’s number-two weekly newsmagazine, Newsweek.
In a joint venture with the New York Times, the Post publishes the International Herald Tribune, the most widely distributed English language daily in the world.
The Wall Street Journal, which sells 1.8 million copies each weekday, is the nation’s largest-circulation daily newspaper. It is owned by Dow Jones & Company, Inc., a New York corporation which also publishes 24 other daily newspapers and the weekly financial tabloid Barron’s, among other things. 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 was bought from the estate of the late Jewish media mogul Robert Maxwell (born Ludvik Hoch) by Jewish real-estate developer Mortimer B. Zukerman. The Village Voice is the personal property of Leonard Stern, the billionaire Jewish owner of the Hartz Mountain pet supply firm.
Other Mass Media
The story is pretty much the same for other media as it is for television, radio and newspapers. Consider, for example, newsmagazines. There are only three of any note 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 new media conglomerate formed by the 1989 merger of Time, Inc., with Warner Communications. The CEO of Time Warner Communications, as mentioned above, is Gerald Levin, a Jew.
Newsweek, as mentioned above, is published by the Washington Post Company, under the Jewess Katherine Meyer Graham. Its weekly circulation is 3.2 million.
U.S. News & World Report, with a circulation of 2.3 million, is owned and published by the aforementioned Mortimer B. Zuckerman, who has taken the position of editor-in-chief of the magazine for himself. Zuckerman also owns the Atlantic Monthly and New York’s tabloid newspaper, the Daily News, which is the sixth-largest paper in the country.
Or consider books. There are literally thousands of publishers in the United States, and among these thousands are many with little or no direct Jewish control; there are some which actually dare to publish books not approved by the Jewish Establishment. But all of the latter publishers are very small, and their books seldom reach the great mass of Americans who buy their reading material from drugstore news racks or from the chain bookstores.
Among the giant publishing conglomerates, however, the situation is quite kosher. Three of the six largest book publishers in the United States, according to Publisher’s Weekly, are owned or controlled by Jews. The three are first-place Random House (with its many subsidiaries, including Crown Publishing Group), third-place Simon & Shuster, and sixth-place Time Warner Trade Group (including Warner Books and Little, Brown).
As pointed out above, the Newhouse family owns Random House, and Gerald Levin is CEO of Time Warner Communications, of which Time Warner Trade Group is a division. Simon & Shuster is a subsidiary of Viacom, Inc., of which the chairman and CEO is Sumner Redstone, as already noted.
Another publisher of special significance is Western Publishing. Although it ranks only 13th in size among all U.S. publishers, it ranks first among publishers of children’s book, with more than 50 percent of the market. Its chairman and CEO is Richard Snyder, a Jew, who just replaced Richard Bernstein, also a Jew.
|February 21st, 2008||#7|
The Destructive Media
Jewish Control of the American Mass Media Has Real Consequences for the United States and the World
By Dr. William Pierce
One of the subjects we've covered a number of times in this newsletter is the Jewish control of the news and entertainment media and the enormous damage this control is doing to America and to our people. We write about this so much because there's hardly anything in the world more important, hardly anything which demands our attention more urgently.
The evidence of the damage being done is quite obvious, but somehow many people manage to not notice that evidence. I had a newspaper reporter in my office a few weeks ago, and he asked me, "Why do you object to the Jews controlling the media? Aren't they running things about the same way anyone else would?"
I told him, "No, they're running things to fit their Jewish agenda, and that agenda is not good for us."
Then he asked me for specific examples: "What are the Jews doing with their control of the media that's harmful to us?"
Now, I really don't believe that the reporter wanted an answer to that question, because this was a man who knew which side his bread was buttered on. He couldn't afford to be thinking bad thoughts about the people on whom his career depended, but I gave him an answer anyway. I gave him some specific, concrete examples of the way in which the Jewish control of our news and entertainment media was damaging us as a people. Perhaps you'll be interested in hearing some of those examples too, and so I'll share them with you.
The first example I gave the reporter involved the largest media conglomerate in America, the Walt Disney Company. I reminded the reporter that Walt Disney, who was a Gentile -- who was one of us -- had been a pioneer in the motion picture industry. He was one of the men who built Hollywood. He built it by giving us films like Snow White and Fantasia and Cinderella. These were not just healthy, wholesome films: they were films which struck a deeply responsive chord in us, because Walt Disney shared our roots.
While Disney was winning a place in the hearts of people of European descent all over the world, the rest of Hollywood was being taken over by Jews. By the late 1920s it was apparent that not only was there money to be made in motion pictures, but motion pictures could become a very influential medium, and so Jews began taking over.
By the time Disney died he was about the only major non-Jewish film maker left in Hollywood. After his death Jews took control of the Disney company, and today it is controlled by Michael Eisner. Eisner immediately began making propaganda films designed to encourage degeneracy in viewers.
I gave to the reporter as an example of Eisner's films one that came out a couple of years ago and received all sorts of acclaim and awards from Jewish reviewers in the New York Times and other Jewish newspapers: it was The Crying Game, which was made by the Miramax division of Disney, a division headed by the Weinstein brothers. The Crying Game was a film about homosexuality and transvestitism and interracial sex. The message of the film was that these things are all right: that homosexuals and transvestites are people just like us, and that we should love them, and that it's all right for us to share their life-style.
Racial and sexual roles deliberately were made ambiguous in the film: a British soldier who just happens to be a Negro, an Irishman's mulatto girl friend who just happens to be a man wearing a dress. I doubt that I've ever seen a film with a sicker, more destructive message. And this film was held up by the Jewish media as wonderfully "sensitive," as wonderfully artistic. Nor was The Crying Game any sort of fluke or exception to the rule. Mr. Eisner has produced many other films with a similarly destructive message.
I also gave the reporter to whom I was speaking examples about the destructive way in which the Jews use their control of the news media. Do you remember the enormous hullabaloo in the news media a few months ago when two White soldiers at Fort Bragg, in North Carolina, got drunk and shot a convicted Black crack dealer and his female companion? It was on the television news and in the big newspapers day after day after day. "Racism in the Army!" the headlines were screaming. News commentators wrung their hands and agonized over "White supremacy" at Fort Bragg. "What can we do about White supremacy in the military?" they moaned. And, of course, the politicians, who certainly know which side their bread is buttered on, had to get into the act. The White House issued statements. The secretary of the Army announced that an investigation would be launched to find out about White racists in the Army and then to boot them out when it found them. We were treated to tearful television interviews with the relatives of the slain Black crack dealer. We're still hearing about the killing of this convicted Black criminal by two drunken White soldiers, as Jewish groups continue to use it as an example in their media campaign for new laws against what they call "hate crimes" and "hate speech." Just two weeks ago there was yet another big article about it headed "Extremism in the Ranks" in Newsweek magazine, which is owned by the Jewish Washington Post. Everybody has heard about this shooting at Fort Bragg.
Now I'll tell you about a shooting you haven't heard about -- unless you happen to live in the immediate vicinity of Camp Pendleton, the big Marine base in southern California. Last month, on March 5, 1996, a 28-year-old Marine sergeant who was stationed at Camp Pendleton hid a .45-caliber pistol under his jacket, walked into the office of the executive officer of his unit, Lt. Colonel Daniel Kidd, and shot Kidd twice in the back, killing him. He then turned his pistol on the commanding officer, Lt. Col. Thomas Heffner, and shot Heffner in the chest, critically wounding him.
Both Lt. Colonel Kidd and Lt. Colonel Heffner are White. The murderer, Sergeant Jessie Quintanilla, is a dark-skinned Pacific Islander from Guam. When Quintanilla ran out of the office after shooting the two White officers, he shouted that he had done it "for the Brown side" and that the killings of Whites would continue until all non-Whites are released from prison.
Amazingly, not even the San Diego-area newspapers, which could hardly avoid at least reporting the bare facts of the shootings, suggested that race was a motive or that the killing of Lt. Colonel Kidd was a "hate crime." They ignored the race factor. The national media, so far as I am aware, have scrupulously avoided the whole story. No statements from the White House, no call for investigations of Brown racism in the Marines, no headlines anywhere about "extremism," no calls from Jewish organizations for new laws to control "haters" in the military.
Now, what is the difference between the shootings at Fort Bragg and the shootings at Camp Pendleton which could have justified the glaring difference in the way they were treated by the controlled news media? Was it that the Fort Bragg shootings were a more serious crime than the Camp Pendleton shootings? Was the killing of a convicted Black drug dealer by two drunken White soldiers more newsworthy than the cold-blooded murder of a White Marine Corps officer with an outstanding service record by a non-White sergeant with a hatred of White people? Was the Fort Bragg shooting more cause for concern on the part of ordinary Americans than the Camp Pendleton shooting?
I don't think so.
Let me suggest that the difference in the way in which the shootings were treated by the news media stems from the fact that the Jewish bosses of the media have an agenda of their own, and they slant the news accordingly. They make the news fit their agenda. The Jews who control the news media have a program to "sensitize" White Americans about racial matters, and by that I mean that they want to instill in White Americans a sense of White racial guilt, to make White Americans feel that any sense of White racial solidarity is reprehensible, to persuade them that any White resistance to demands by non-Whites is "racist" and therefore wicked.
And so they deliberately -- I say deliberately, knowingly, calculatingly -- create the impression with their biased and selective reporting of the news that White attacks on non-Whites are a far bigger problem than non-White attacks on Whites, whereas exactly the opposite is true. The shooting at Fort Bragg suited the Jews' purpose, and so they gave it enormous publicity and drummed it into everyone's consciousness. The shooting at Camp Pendleton didn't suit their purpose, and so they gave it minimal coverage in the news media they control. That's the sort of thing I have in mind when I say that the Jewish control of the media is doing enormous damage to our people. It's giving the average American a grossly distorted view of the world.
I'll give you another example, one which most of us probably have heard about. In Chicago earlier this year a White mother and her two young children were murdered by Blacks in an especially horrible manner. The White woman was slashed open with a butcher knife, and an unborn infant was ripped from her womb by Blacks who wanted the baby. The woman's children, a ten-year-old daughter and an eight-year-old son, were stabbed to death. These were racial killings, but because the victims were White and the murderers were Black most of the media would have preferred to ignore them. The unusually atrocious nature of the crime caught the attention of the tabloids, however, and so the rest of the news media were obliged to give it minimal and grudging coverage. But there were no demands from Jewish organizations, like the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center, for new "hate crime" laws because of these hate-inspired murders. There were no hand-wringing editorials about the murders in the New York Times or the Washington Post. The television networks wasted no tears on the victims. The whole attitude of the media was: the less said about these murders the better.
Can you imagine how different the treatment by the media would have been if the races of the victims and the murderers had been interchanged? Imagine that a gang of neo-Nazi skinheads had grabbed a pregnant Black woman and her two Black children, had stabbed the Black children to death and then killed the Black woman by ripping her open with a knife and tearing her unborn child from her body and running off with it. That would have been on the front page and the editorial page of the New York Times, the Washington Post, and every other Jewish newspaper in the country for weeks. Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather would still be telling us about it every evening. Every television screen in the country would still be full of politicians, priests, and rabbis telling us what we must do to eliminate "White racism." They would be telling us what kind of "racist" books and "racist" radio programs and "racist" music the skinheads were exposed to which led them to kill the Black family. And of course, spokesmen for the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League would be given non-stop media coverage as they clamored for laws to make Politically Incorrect speech illegal. You know that's the way it would be handled.
And that sort of slanted news is damaging, because tens of millions of White Americans actually believe what they see on television and read in the newspapers. They cannot distinguish between the real world and the slanted world portrayed by the media masters. They assume that real people behave the way the actors in Mr. Eisner's The Crying Game behaved; moreover, they assume that's approved behavior. They assume that the news stories selected for the evening television news programs are truly representative of what is happening in the world. Their opinions and attitudes are shaped by the slanted world of the media rather than by the real world. In the long run this Jewish media control is not just damaging: it is lethal. It will destroy us. And that, of course, is just what it is intended to do.
Here's another specific example of the way in which the Jewish control of our media is used to damage us as a people. Do you remember the Republic of South Africa? Do you remember what the media did to that country? Let me remind you. For years the mass media in America maintained a solid wall of hostility against South Africa. The Whites there were unspeakably wicked, according to the media, because they practiced a system they called "apartheid," which simply means apartness, or separation of the races.
Now, it is true that we always have had a busybody element among our own people -- egalitarians and other foolish or malicious types who always are looking for an opportunity to force others to conform to their ideas -- but without the support of the Jewish media the busybody element would not have been able to do much damage. It was the controlled media which made "apartheid" a dirty word; it was the controlled media which made the attitude toward South Africa a major political issue in this country; it was the controlled media which made a government enforced boycott of trade with South Africa politically popular; it was the controlled media which viciously attacked anyone who had a good word to say about South Africa; it was the controlled media over here which provided a forum for the handful of South African traitors and terrorists who were trying to destabilize their own society.
And ultimately it was the controlled media which destroyed South Africa. As the economic damage to South Africa from the trade boycott mounted, White South Africans found themselves under increasing pressure. Furthermore, they were being subjected to the same anti-White hate propaganda that we were. The films they saw, the television programs they watched in South Africa came from Hollywood and New York. And eventually the South Africans became so demoralized that they foolishly turned their country over to Black rule, hoping that somehow that would make the world love them and their economy would improve.
What actually has happened, of course, is that crime and mismanagement have skyrocketed and standards have fallen, and now the White South Africans who are able to go some place else are leaving. What has happened to every other country in sub-Saharan Africa after the Whites turned the government over to the Blacks is now happening to South Africa. It is slipping back toward the jungle. And the controlled media in America played the largest single role in bringing this result about.
And this result was deliberate. It was calculated. It was planned. It was not because of any fuzzy-minded, do-gooder sentiment on the part of the media bosses. They knew exactly what they were doing. It was cold-blooded. Compare this media concern with equality for Blacks in South Africa with the attitude of the media toward the behavior of the Jewish government in Israel. That government practices what is known as collective punishment. If a Palestinian is suspected of being a freedom fighter -- suspected, not convicted -- the Jewish government punishes his whole family. His wife, his parents, his children will be arrested and tortured. The house they live in will be blown up. Have you ever heard the controlled media criticize this sort of behavior?
Now, patriots have various concerns, various priorities. Some of them believe that we should concern ourselves first and foremost with the way the U.S. government handles its finances, with ruinous taxation and scandalous welfare programs. Some of them believe that our out-of-control immigration situation is our most pressing problem. Others are concerned primarily with the government's failure to deal effectively with street crime. And some have focused on the breakdown of our educational system under the impact of forced equality, or on the decay of our morals.
But I tell you that we can solve none of these problems until we regain control of our news and entertainment media. So long as the Jews control our mass media they will control our politicians, and so long as they control our politicians they will control the policies of the government. We will not be able to shut down the welfare system or control our borders or make our cities safe or restore our standards and values so long as the controlled mass media are able to make a majority of our people feel guilty for wanting to do these things, so long as the media are able to make people believe that keeping Mexicans and Haitians out of the country or shutting off the flow of welfare is racist, and that racism is the worst of all sins.
So long as the Jews control our mass media they will be able to keep enough of our people confused and misled and divided so that we cannot regain control of our government by peaceful, democratic means.
If we are to regain control of our destiny and survive as a people, then we have only two choices: violent revolution to take the control of the mass media back by force, or gentle but effective persuasion to lead more and more of our people from confusion into understanding.
I personally believe that violent revolution is not feasible at this time, and as long as the course of gentle persuasion remains open to us, that is the course we must choose. I believe that the only proper thing for us to do now is to continue building our own media and making them more effective -- media like our series of radio broadcasts and our World Wide Web sites on the Internet and the books and magazines published by National Vanguard Books.
|February 21st, 2008||#8|
Join Date: Feb 2005
Edmund Connelly's The Jews of Prime Time
What we do claim is that the northern European, and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But that is the full statement of the case. They came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it. We are determined that they shall not. (Congressional Record, 4/8/1924, 5922)
|February 22nd, 2008||#9|
[Neocons control not only the government under Bush, but the top 'conservative' (sic) publications - Weekly Standard and National Review, and they intimidate the sad-sack paleoconservatives who maintain whatever is left of true conservatism.]
The Neocons as a Hostile Conservative (!) Elite
I haven't read Jacob Heilbrunn's book on the neocons yet, but I'm not sure I need to after seeing Philip Weiss's review. Weiss's review makes it clear that Heilbrunn's book corroborates several of the themes in my writing on the neocons and on Jewish intellectual and political movements generally.
First, neoconservatism is a Jewish movement. That should have been clear to everyone by now, but references to the Jewish basis of the movement have been noticeably missing from much of the mainstream media, to the point that Bill Kristol was introduced as a columnist at the New York Times as simply a "conservative." This is critical because the neocons have now become the conservative establishment. When Kristol (or Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity) hold forth at Fox News, most people have no idea that they are tuning into the public face of a fundamentally Jewish movement that elbowed out more traditional conservatives.
Secondly, Jewish neocons not only have a strong Jewish identity, they also have strong Jewish interests. This is obvious from their involvement in pro-Israel activism, their personal relationships with Israeli leaders, and close ties with other Jews and with the wider Jewish community. In fact, I have argued that the neocons are more strongly identified as Jews than the mainstream liberal/left Jews — that the neocons form the vanguard of the Jewish community. After all, neocons were the first segment of the Jewish community to strongly condemn the USSR, both for its domestic anti-Semitism and for its alliances with Arab governments. Prominent neocons like Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz began their political careers by making alliances with Cold War hawks like Henry Jackson This was at a time when the Jewish left was prominently involved in defending the USSR, apparently blind to the fact that the status of Jews as an elite in the USSR had changed greatly following World War II.
And the neocons are notorious for their strong ties to the most extreme racialist and nationalist segments of Israeli society — elements that the mainstream liberal/left Jewish community probably wishes would disappear or at least be less visible. (Hence the uproar over Christiane Amanpour's God's Jewish Warriors.) Indeed, the Jewish liberal/left has a huge blind spot, continuing to pursue its leftist multicultural agenda in the U.S. while ignoring the fact that the organized Jewish community is deeply complicit in dispossessing the Palestinians and erecting a racialist, apartheid state in Israel. As Weiss has noted elsewhere, "Steve Rabinowitz, Clinton friend, told me this year that if anyone did a study of how much [Democrat] money comes from Jews, it would fuel conspiracy theories." The Jewish liberal/left lavishly supports Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, but makes no attempt to wrest control of the pro-Israel lobby from the hands of what James Petras terms the "reactionary minority of American Jews" who head the major American Jewish organizations.
But more interestingly, Heilbrunn points to the “lifelong antipathy toward the patrician class among the neocons … [that] prompted them to create their own parallel establishment.” In this regard, the neocons are entirely within the American Jewish mainstream. As I noted in a previous blog (also commenting on Philip Weiss), "Jews have become an elite, but an elite that does not identify with its subjects — a hostile, estranged but very wealthy elite that still sees themselves as outsiders." And along with the American Jewish mainstream, the neocons have been vital players in the establishment of a variety of policies opposed to the interests and attitudes of the American majority, most egregiously unrestricted immigration which has successfully altered the ethnic composition of the country. Indeed, neoconservative Ben Wattenberg famously wrote that "The non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality."
This hostility toward the traditional peoples and culture of America among people calling themselves conservatives is striking — the antithesis of normal and natural conservative tendencies. As Sam Francis noted, what the neocons dislike about traditional conservatives is simply that they "are conservative at all":
There are countless stories of how neoconservatives have succeeded in entering conservative institutions, forcing out or demoting traditional conservatives, and changing the positions and philosophy of such institutions in neoconservative directions…. Writers like M. E. Bradford, Joseph Sobran, Pat Buchanan, and Russell Kirk, and institutions like Chronicles, the Rockford Institute, the Philadelphia Society, and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute have been among the most respected and distinguished names in American conservatism. The dedication of their neoconservative enemies to driving them out of the movement they have taken over and demonizing them as marginal and dangerous figures has no legitimate basis in reality. It is clear evidence of the ulterior aspirations of those behind neoconservatism to dominate and subvert American conservatism from its original purposes and agenda and turn it to other purposes…. What neoconservatives really dislike about their “allies” among traditional conservatives is simply the fact that the conservatives are conservatives at all—that they support “this notion of a Christian civilization,” as Midge Decter put it, that they oppose mass immigration, ... that they entertain doubts or strong disagreement over American foreign policy in the Middle East, that they oppose reckless involvement in foreign wars and foreign entanglements, and that, in company with the Founding Fathers of the United States, they reject the concept of a pure democracy and the belief that the United States is or should evolve toward it.
Francis, S. (2004). The neoconservative subversion. In B. Nelson (ed.), “Neoconservatism.” Occasional Papers of the Conservative Citizens’ Foundation, Issue Number Six, 6–12. St. Louis: Conservative Citizens’ Foundation, p. 9.
That the New York Times can call Kristol a conservative without shame or irony is a striking commentary on the death of American conservatism.
There are several other themes highlighted in Weiss's review that are worth mentioning because they are typical of other Jewish intellectual and political movements. Heilbrunn describes neocon "cabals" in the State Department and in academic departments at elite universities. This is a reference to Jewish ethnic networking. In general, all of the important Jewish intellectual and political movements — from psychoanalysis and Boasian anthropology to neoconservatism — have a mutually reinforcing core of Jews centered around charismatic leaders. In the case of the neocons, individuals such as Leo Strauss, Richard Perle, and Norman Podhoretz have played this role. Neoconservative cabals have been largely successful in controlling or at least heavily influencing elite institutions in academia, the government, think tanks, and the media.
And finally, the neocons are prime examples of another important theme of Jewish intellectual life — self-deception. Weiss writes:
The reader is left with the shadowy sense that the neocons have a pro-Israel agenda that they are not upfront about. But it isn’t a conspiracy, Heilbrunn warns. The neocons have convinced themselves that the U.S. and Israel have congruent interests. “They just believe this stuff. They’re not agents,” an anonymous source tells him, speaking of Cheney aide David Wurmser, who is married to an Israeli.
Married to an Israeli. The neocons may believe it, but the rest of us need not be so foolish. For example, Douglas Feith is depicted by Heilbrunn as having published a letter defending the capture of the West Bank while still a teenager. Feith has also been credibly charged with spying for Israel, and was deeply involved in the disinformation used by the U.S. government to justify the invasion of Iraq. He has close ties to the settler movement, and was a participant in the notorious "A Clean Break" paper that advised the Israeli government that removing Saddam Hussein should be an Israeli strategic goal. The authors of this report speak as Jews and Israelis, not as U.S. citizens: “Our claim to the land—to which we have clung for hope for 2000 years—is legitimate and noble.”
European Americans may have a difficult time processing all of this. Their individualism and their own fragile and beleaguered sense of ethnicity make them less likely to attribute ethnic motives to others. And there is an imposing edifice of taboos surrounding even the mention of Jewish influence, much less anything that hints that Israel is the first loyalty of Jewish neocons — an edifice aggressively maintained by the organized Jewish community. But the rather unpleasant facts are staring European Americans in the face, even if the New York Times insists on calling them conservatives.
|February 28th, 2008||#10|
[Sobran shows that William F. Buckley feared jews and let them dictate the content of his magazine.]
How I Was Fired By Bill Buckley
by Joseph Sobran
In October 1993 I was fired by National Review, the magazine I'd written for since 1972. It wasn't unexpected. Bill Buckley had threatened to fire me a couple of years earlier, and he writes in his book In Search of Anti-Semitism that he'd nearly fired me on yet another occasion, of which I'd had no inkling. So this time, when I wrote a column critical of him and disputing his account, it was a near certainty that the axe would fall.
Since my firing, Bill has privately circulated a selection of our private correspondence -- some of it deeply affectionate on my part -- and my columns about him. I have only one real quarrel with it: it's not in chronological order. This has the effect of making me look like a hypocrite for professing affection privately while publicly attacking him.
The critical fact is that my letters and columns praising him were written before (in one case, years before) I saw his book, or had any clear idea of its contents. Any reader who notices the dates on the various pieces can see this for himself. At the time I praised him I assumed he was incapable of anything treacherous. It's disingenuous of him to use what I wrote before this book was published as evidence of my inconsistency, let alone hypocrisy, when the book itself changed my view of him so radically.
To put it bluntly, if you betray a man, you have no right to complain that he isn't as nice to you as he used to be. That's the special nature of betrayal: it cancels everything in a friendship. It doesn't mean that you aren't still the same man you were before; but you certainly aren't the same friend you were before. Bill is probably smart enough to figure this out.
In his book, Bill wrote a number of things about me that were shaded in a way that made him look better, and me worse, than the way I recalled it. I wrote at the time that I'd be giving my version soon, but I put it off a while, knowing my version would probably mean the end of my many years at National Review, and I had to think hard before precipitating that.
Bill and I had been good friends for most of the 21 years I'd worked for him. But the friendship was strained in 1986, when he took the side of my attackers in a row over Israel. When Norman Podhoretz and his wife Midge Decter accused me of "anti-Semitism," Bill wrote a weird public disavowal of my columns on Israel, saying in effect that I wasn't anti-Semitic, but deserved to be called anti-Semitic. What made it so bad was that I knew he didn't even believe what he was saying. It was a failure of nerve. That was clear even from the disavowal itself, which included a sweaty digression on Jewish retaliatory power.
Earlier that year, he'd taken me to dinner to warn me of the dangers of being "perceived," as they say, as an anti-Semite. His book makes it sound like a long campaign to set me straight, but it wasn't like that at all. Bill didn't suggest I'd done anything wrong or that he disagreed with anything I'd written. But Norman Podhoretz was mad at me. That was enough. Later that evening when I told Bill about some Irish Catholic fans of mine who told me they prayed for me, he sneered, "You don't need those people." Bill denies having said this (I was fired for quoting it), but he said it, all right. In itself it would be a small thing, but it describes his own policy: ignore the Catholics, cultivate the powerful. (Try to imagine him writing a book against abortion.)
I continued in my wicked ways, criticizing Israel as an albatross for the U.S. In May the Zionist apparat went public in its smear against me, throwing the National Review into a total panic. There was hysteria in Bill's apartment the night he and the other senior editors discussed it: the disavowal had been prepared behind my back. This was the first I'd heard of it. Bill's statement didn't even mention the Podhoretzes by name, as if he was protecting their anonymity. Every other published account of the incident, on both sides, spoke freely of the Podhoretzes' role; but for some reason, National Review tried to pretend they had nothing to do with it. Furthermore, all responses from the magazine's readers -- who were overwhelmingly on my side -- were suppressed. (A couple of years later, when the Podhoretzes accused Russell Kirk of anti-Semitism, National Review was the only conservative publication that didn't even report it.)
I couldn't understand what the fuss was about. I'd merely applied conservative principles -- the things National Review stood for -- to Israel: it was a socialist country with no conception of limited, constitutional government, which discriminated against Christians, while betraying its benefactor, the United States, and turning the Muslim world against us. It seemed pretty clear-cut to me, and none of the reasons conservatives gave for supporting Israel made much sense.
Nobody really disagreed with me. That, in fact, was the problem. Nothing creates more awkwardness than saying things people can't afford to admit they agree with. Disagreement is manageable. It's agreement that wreaks havoc. If people disagree, they'll debate you. If they secretly agree with something, but are furious with you for saying it, then they'll try to shut you up by any means necessary. As Tom Stoppard puts it, "I agree with every word you say, but I will fight to the death against your right to say it."
Everything about the uproar puzzled me. After all, I was and am a columnist, not a political leader. I sit alone in a room and write things I hope will make sense to someone out there. I don't ask readers to accept things on my authority; I appeal to what is already publicly known. So what difference did it make what my motives were (supposing the Podhoretzes could know what they were)? Either my 700-word arguments made sense, or they didn't. Why should anyone get that excited? Why go to such lengths to prevent the relatively few people who like to read arguments from reading mine? But Bill acted as if it were a life-and-death matter.
With Bill's statement, National Review became, by default, a neoconservative magazine. It had virtually announced that its avowed principles didn't apply to Israel, and that its conservatism had no real separate existence from that of Commentary or The Public Interest -- both of which, in fact, were scooping National Review with feisty anti-liberal journalism. It was so eager to agree with, and especially to get along with, the power Zionists of Manhattan, that it wouldn't even defend its own from smears.
The most telling issue, in a way, was the Pollard case. Conceived in preoccupation with the Hiss-Chambers case, the magazine couldn't bring itself to condemn Israel for Jonathan Pollard's espionage. It demanded the death penalty for Pollard, but amnesty for those who had recruited him and paid him! Moreover, it showed no interest in whether the military secrets Pollard sent to Israel had been passed on to the Soviet Union, as some reports had it.
Here was the Hiss case of the Right. And some conservatives were evading the critical questions just as the Soviets' liberal partisans in this country had done a generation earlier. What the silence of most conservatives exposed was not disloyalty or treason, but insincerity. All their patriotic words were empty. It was all a game, or a way of making a living.
Looking back, I think I felt a strange subterranean anger from Bill dating from about that time. He didn't want to tell me how angry he was, because I was in the right. I was saying things -- obvious things -- he didn't have the courage to say. It was extremely frustrating to try to argue with him, because he would neither disagree nor concede anything. He would nit-pick, change the subject, accuse me of bad manners -- anything but say whether Israel was a worthy ally of the U.S. Once he wrote that I was "prayed over" at National Review, implying that my differences with the other editors were not merely intellectual, but spiritual; I could just picture editorial meetings in my absence, with those present kneeling to beseech the Almighty to guide this straying sheep back to the editorial consensus on Israel. Bill must be among Penthouse's most prayerful contributors.
When I wrote columns on Israel, Bill would write me peevish notes saying I was "obsessed." I had my own view on which of us was obsessed. Once, as I say, he said he would fire me unless I retracted a column on the Gulf War he took as implying that he was in effect working for Israel. I not only hadn't implied such a thing, I hadn't mentioned him, and hadn't even been thinking of him when I wrote the column in question; in fact the idea was so bizarre it had never occurred to me, and I was baffled that he inferred it. Now I think he was just looking for an excuse to get rid of me. I saved my bacon by writing a "retraction" whose irony escaped him. But I realized my days at the magazine were numbered. I came close to quitting several times. John O'Sullivan talked me out of it once; and once Bill and I had sharp words, and I told him he needed to learn the difference between an employee and a serf. He backed off for a while, but pretty soon he resumed dropping me ominous notes about columns he didn't like.
Once I wrote a column about the strange fear of Jews I found among people who were publicly friendly to them. Bill wrote me an angry note about that one too, thinking I had him in mind. That time he was partly correct. He was afraid people would know I was alluding to him. Well, at least I didn't use his name, which was more consideration than he showed me.
And again I thought, Gee, why all the fuss? I was just a writer. All I asked was to be let alone to write for my little public. Nobody was forced to read me, and my views didn't seem to be swaying public policy. Yet here was Bill, trying to put pressure on me behind the scenes. And he wasn't the only one. The Washington Times came under intense Zionist pressure to drop my column; so did my syndicate. They both held firm, showing more spine than Bill did. So I was able to ignore him and write.
In early 1990, as I recall, Bill told me he was writing an "essay on anti-Semitism" and asked for my views on the subject. Thinking he wanted to know what I thought, I wrote him a long memo. He neglected to tell me that I was one of his targets, and that he wanted my views for the purpose of quoting them against me in what became his most talked-about piece of writing in years. What he quoted didn't do me any harm, but I'd have appreciated at least a Miranda warning before going to all that trouble for him.
Bill's essay (it later became the first chapter of his book) consumed the entire Christmas issue of National Review. His attack on Pat Buchanan, naturally, got far more attention than his milder remarks about me; coming during Pat's presidential campaign, it did terrific damage and created lasting bitterness among conservatives. The whole essay (and book) defies paraphrase; Bill never defines "anti-Semitism," and he compounds the confusion by writing a prose refined of such coarse elements as nouns and verbs.
But most readers thought Bill's dragging his father's anti-Semitism into the piece plumbed new depths, even for the era of the Mommie Dearest genre. After all, nobody is easier to expose to public obloquy than your parents; unless they desert you, you are likely to know a lot about them, some of it unflattering. Most of the human race considers it ungracious to take advantage of them. (One of Bill's recent books was titled Gratitude.)
I think it tells you something about Bill's real attitude toward Jews that he thinks the way to propitiate them is by offering up a member of your own family -- Isaac sacrificing Abraham, so to speak. Actually, it smacks of the Soviet era, when children were urged to inform on their parents; nothing was private. Bill's own attitude reminds me of the way Stalin was regarded: public fawning, private dread.
Now Bill didn't really say anything very bad about either Pat or his father, because he didn't really say anything, period. His late style has declined into something approaching pure gesture, and meaning tends to get lost in it. All he really did -- to Pat, Will Buckley, and me -- was to juxtapose us with the word "anti-Semitism," which is in itself enough to create a foul impression, no matter what the logical and syntactical ligaments may be.
Bill himself used to be accused of anti-Semitism and even Nazism, which ought to have taught him something about loose charges. But he learned the wrong lesson: he learned that the best way to be safe from them is to make them yourself. When he caught on to that, he was like a kid with a very annoying new toy -- a noisy gun that he points at everyone.
In his essay-book, he continues to avoid mentioning the Podhoretzes' role, and he refrains from judging their conduct toward his fellow conservatives. In fact, it transpires in the responses to his first essay that he'd made a backstage deal with Norman Podhoretz to prevent me from writing about Israel and related Jewish topics. Imagine an editor giving another editor that kind of control over his magazine! And imagine letting such an arrangement become public knowledge! Why not just put Norman at the top of the masthead?
The finished book turned out to be as turgid as the first essay, except for the parts where others' replies were printed. I wrote a reply myself, and much of the rest of the book was Bill's attempt to belittle my arguments without meeting them. He didn't have the honesty to concede that I'd made any valid points about our "alliance" with Israel. It was one long act of appeasement, aimed only at getting back on the good side of the Zionist apparat.
The book may have done Bill some good, but it didn't do the Jews any good. Treating fanatical Zionists like the Podhoretzes as normative Jews is no favor to Jews. (You could even argue that it's an insidious form of anti-Semitism.) The book was written in a sort of nervously meandering prose that sounded as if the author had a gun at his head. It should have come with a ransom note.
In other words, the book is written in fear. Nothing in it suggests any appreciation of Jews, any savoring of distinctive Jewish qualities. Its real message is not that we should like or respect Jews; only that we should try not to hate them. But this implies that anti-Semitism is the natural reaction to them: if it's a universal sin, after all, it must be a universal temptation. If people are taught that the Jews are hated everywhere, they are not going to draw the conclusion that it's always the gentiles' fault. But this doesn't occur to Bill When he defends Jews, I sometimes feel like saying: "Bill! Bill! It's all right! They're not that bad!"
Though Bill professed concern for the survival of the Jews, it was his own survival he was worried about. What he'd told me on the disputed winter night back in 1986 was not that my columns on Israel threatened the Jews, but that they threatened my own future -- and thanks to him, that turned out to be partly true. But the Podhoretzes could never have hurt me the way he did.
I felt betrayed by that book, and by Bill's general conduct on the Jewish issue. But there was more to it than that. His mind had lost its edge. I kept waiting for him to come to his senses, not only on Israel but on other things too. I'd thought the whole conservative mission was to reduce government to "rational limits," as he once finely put it. But he was getting further and further from the great old state-haters of his youth -- Mencken, Albert Jay Nock, Frank Chodorow, John T. Flynn -- and going off on benders like writing a book in favor of national service.
Finally it became obvious that he wasn't going to change. He's old and set in his ways, and his mind isn't going to come up with anything new. His preoccupation seems to be protecting his celebrity. That was what I'd threatened: he was afraid that charges of anti-Semitism against me, no matter how unfair, would hurt him, and it was his duty to avoid being accused. In his mind, the accusation itself constituted guilt.
Early in 1993 I heard that he'd spoken on anti-Semitism to a Jewish group and had mentioned me. The next time I saw him I told him to leave my name out of these affairs. "You started it," he said. I can only guess that he meant I "started it" by getting myself accused of anti-Semitism. I'd certainly given him nothing but loyalty for twenty years. Now he thought he owned the right to abuse my name. He was telling me he had no intention of stopping.
At about the same time, he sent me another note about my column. I'd twitted George Will, one of his pals, and Bill wrote that I shouldn't do this because Will was on "our side." I had to stop and reflect on how Bill defines "our side." His "our side" seems to include a Podhoretz but not a Buchanan. Like most of Bill's communications, this had a wry interest as self-revelation. He still thought, in spite of everything, that he was my respected mentor.
This summer he wrote an especially contemptible essay on Muslims, arguing crudely that terrorism is encouraged by the Koran itself. I knew where he got that stuff. It was right out of the Zionist agitprop manual. I was reading the same sort of thing in the New York Post, The New Republic, and suchlike rags. I wondered who'd clipped the Koran for him; I doubt he's ever opened it in his life. Citing the injunction that wives obey their husbands, and apparently unaware that St. Paul says the same thing, Bill suggested that this explains the miserable plight of women in the Islamic world; adding humorously, "To all appearances, the only time men and women get together in Islamic society is when they copulate."
The clear purpose of that column was to suck up to his buddies. Nothing else. Bill doesn't even hate Muslims enough to wish to offend them. He was doing it only to curry favor with the neocon crowd, with a touch of gutter humor showing how far he was willing to go. An abject performance. So much for his pose as the Right's scrupulous foe of bigotry. He was telling Norman Podhoretz, in effect, "Whom thou smearest, him also will I smear."
"Israel," he wrote defensively later, "didn't cross my mind when I wrote that column." Then why did the column mention Israel? It dragged in the assertion that Anwar Sadat had been murdered by Muslim fanatics for his "civilized attitude toward Israel." That kind of pandering reference has become so routine in Bill's writing that I can well believe he didn't remember having thought about Israel afterward; the gesture has become almost automatic.
That column enraged me. It showed how insincere Bill had been all along. I should have seen it long before, but I'd assumed there had been some conviction, however misguided, behind all the trouble he'd caused me, as well as other conservatives. Now it really sank in: he'd never meant a word of it. Everything was for public and social effect. If the positions of Jews and Muslims were reversed, he would have written the same column about the Jews.
Bill is always on stage: always acting, posing, making empty gestures. He isn't concerned about their truth or coherence. That's why he can talk facilely about prayer while he's writing for Playboy and Penthouse. And that's why it's frustrating to read most of what he has written over the past decade or so.
I wrote a column slamming him for his ugly cracks about Muslims. Then I decided the time had come to tell my side of the story about his sycophancy to the Zionist apparat.
When he fired me, Bill replied publicly to my account by ascribing it to "an incapacitation moral and perhaps medical." That was the typical Buckley touch. He has broken with many people over the years, and his standard response is to insinuate that they have become a little, you know, unbalanced. He himself, of course, represents the golden mean.
But another way to interpret this recurrent situation, with its attendant rhetoric, is that the people Bill has broken with have consistently been more principled than he is -- Randians, Birchers, Murray Rothbard, Willmoore Kendall, Brent Bozell, Garry Wills, and others of less renown. His only recourse is to imply that they are fanatical, extreme, obsessive -- from causes that are "perhaps medical." Bill is an overrated debater, but he's peerless at making others look bad.
I thought I'd miss National Review as an institution, but I don't. After two decades there I had dear friends, but the place itself was a facade. When I signed on at the age of 26, I thought everyone there would be philosophizing and discussing first principles. There was some of that, but basically it was just a business. Nice, decent, ordinary, though intelligent people. A million laughs, and some terrifically funny guys, from Jeff Hart to Ed Capano to Jim McFadden. Bill could be very funny too, of course, but even he didn't stand out in that company. What I really miss, as anyone who knows her will understand, is Dorothy McCartney.
But how strangely different it all became from what I'd expected. In the Sixties, when most of the world was going madly leftward, in the insane pursuit of "progress," Bill Buckley's conservatism seemed to many of us to be a politics appropriate to the tradition of Aquinas, Dante, Shakespeare, and Dr. Johnson. That tradition seemed implicit in Bill himself, in his refusal to join the flow of what he mockingly called the Zeitgeist. You could see in him the reflection of your own yearnings: for Christianity, for constitutional government, for the free market, for the Old South, for almost every other fugitive "reactionary" principle; and also for the courage to stand in opposition.
Now all that seems only distantly related to Bill's actual life, like the boyhood memory of a pious old aunt when you are a middle-aged man. Not that his life is discreditable, apart from the things I've mentioned; but somehow he belongs more to the world of Phil Donahue than to the world of Dr. Johnson. His conservatism is a conservatism of image, show business, public relations, stock mannerisms; big words, anfractuous grammar, repetitious Latinisms, implying a depth that isn't there.
What happened to him? Conservatives everywhere speculate on this. I don't fully know the answer, because it's partly the mystery of a soul. All I can say is that New York, a Babylon of dizzying distractions, has absorbed him, as it is likely to absorb anyone who stays there too long, and Bill, bored with his early role, forgot what he started out to do. Gravitas was finally swallowed up in celebritas. And by now it may be necessary to stand athwart National Review yelling "Stop!"
|February 28th, 2008||#11|
Jewish Media Control in Sweden and Finland
The logic is that all Gentiles criticizing Jews do so, always, without any real reason except for an irrational, pathologic hatred. These anti-Semitic Gentiles further blame Jews for all the bad things happening to them in the world. Well, what if we apply that logic to Jews, what do we have? Jews are constantly blaming Gentiles for being anti-Semitic whenever they are having any problems.
Jewish Media Influence in Sweden and Finland
Every now and then we get some really interesting evidence from readers of this web site. This was just emailed to us from a reader originally from Sweden. We hope the enlightened in other nations will find their way to us and research their own country's media apparatus, and who controls it.
This paradigm of Jewish dominance of mass media information sources is evidenced throughout the world, from the U.S. to Great Britain, from Brazil to Australia, from Poland to Peru.
First of all I would like to laud you for an exhaustive and well-prepared site. You have certainly gone through the Jewish question thoroughly before compiling your observations and analysis. Reading your This week's Jewish News as usual today there was one piece of news that made my face wreathed in smiles. The piece of news concerned how the Jewish community of Lithuania accused LNK television for anti-Semitism.
Well, the far too familiar irony is that the LNK, as stated in the article is owned by the Bonnier family, based in my country of origin, Sweden. Worth mentioning then is that the Bonniers are Jewish themselves. Bonnier is a taken name; originally the family was named Hirschel. Not only is the Bonnier family Jewish and not only do they own LNK, but they are the far most influential media group in Sweden and in Finland.
Of the seven largest daily newspapers in Sweden, the seven with a daily circulation of over 100,000, the Bonnier family owns four, Dagens Nyheter (the Daily News), Expressen (the Express), Sydsvenska Dagbladet (the Southern Swedish Daily News) and Dagens Industri (the Industry of Today). The largest of the private channels in Sweden is TV4. The Bonnier family directly holds 21,6% of TV4 and through their ownership of the Finnish based Alma media company they hold an additionally 23,4%, totalling up 45% and a virtual control. As head of TV4 we find the Jew Jan Scherman. Through Alma Media, Bonnier also controls MTV3, the most popular channel in Finland with 39,1% of the total viewing time (in 2001) and Subtv, the third largest commercial television channel in Finland, aiming mainly at young adults.
Apropos Finland, Bonnier also owns 23% of MTV in that country. In Finland, Bonnier also controls the leading daily Iltalehti and Kauppalehti, Finland's largest business media with a circulation of 85.000 per day. Bonnier also control the printing house Lehdentekijät, that produces 40 regularly published magazines in Finland. In addition to that they own five regional papers, 15 local papers and nine free-distribution papers in Finland alone. They further control the Baltic News Service, the leading news bureau in the Baltic region, providing the world with news about the Baltic with a Bonnier touch.
Beside the Bonnier family in Sweden there is the Jew Peter Hjörne (Kaplan), owner and chief editor of Göteborgs-Posten (the Gothenburg Post; GP), the fourth largest newspaper in Sweden with a circulation of 253,700, reaching 600,000 readers daily. GP is furthermore the only newspaper in Sweden's second city, Gothenburg. Hjörne is also the owner of two local newspapers, Bohuslänningen (32.400) and Strömstads tidning (5,200); both distributed in the Swedish north-west coast area. In addition he controls 22% of Liberala tidningars konsortium (the consortium of liberal newspapers) and thereby Nerike Allehanda (The eighth largest newspaper in Sweden with a circulation of 66,300), Motala tidning/Vadstena tidning (12,800), Bergslagsposten (10,600) and Nya Ludvika tidning (9,500). Finally he also holds 9% of Hallandsposten (31,000).
Hjörne is a part of the old Jewish establishment in Gothenburg and has his way to influence the Gentiles of that city. For instance, when the Jew Steven Spielberg¹s movie Schindler¹s List reached the screens Hjörne personally paid so all senior high school students would see it. The Bonnier family owns 30% and Hjörne owns 10% of The Swedish News-agency Tidningarnas Telegrambyrå (the Swedish Central News Agency), the mainly news source for the none-local news stories in most minor papers in Sweden.
The largest newspaper in Sweden is Aftonbladet (the Evening Post), jointly owned by the Swedish Labour Union and the Norwegian Schibstedt company. The chief editor, however, is the Jewess Helle Klein, great granddaughter of the former grand rabbi of Stockholm, Rabbi Gottlieb Klein. Her father, Ernst Klein, is influential in Swedish media as well. 1990-1999 he was the chief editor of Östgöta Correspondenten, the ninth largest newspaper in Sweden, and now he sits on its board. He furthermore is president of Svensk Presshistorisk Förening (Swedish association of press history).
Beside Klein there are several Jewish staffers working at Aftonbladet.
In other words, of the seven largest news papers in Sweden, six are either owned by or edited by Jews. And please note, there are fewer than 20,000 Jews in Sweden making up roughly 0.2% of the total population. Actually, I could go on and on describing the Jewish media influence in Sweden but I guess you see where I am heading. That LNK or Bonnier would be anti-Semitic is about the most ridiculous I have heard. Keep up the good work!
Lithuanian Jewish community blames LNK television for anti-Semitism
Interfax, October 23, 2003
"The Jewish Community of Lithuania (JCL) has demanded that the private TV channel LNK stop the "anti- Semitic propaganda" in its programs, JCL Chairman Simonas Alperavicius told Interfax on Wednesday. JCL has sent LNK's managers, Swedish media group Bonnier, which owns the station, and the Swedish media community an open letter saying that "the authors of the humorous program Dviracio Zynios (Bicycle News), pretending to engage in parodies, incites spectators against the Jewish people," Alperavicius said. This was especially clear in the program dealing with the September visit of Israeli Knesset Chairman Reuven Rivlin to Vilnius. "When the humorous issues of this TV channel concern the Jewish theme, a character parodying a Jew is always presented as a swindler or thief trying to get rich in a dishonest way - how long are we going to tolerate this?" Alperavicius said. Rivlin's statements in Lithuania "have evoked a tide of intolerance and anti-Semitism, and websites have seen over four thousand anti-Semitic remarks that were beyond any standards of civilized dialogue," he said. "In this situation, the escalation of negative stereotypes on a TV channel's programs could influence the state of mind in unhealthy people and encourage some politicians to make irresponsible statements or even verbal attacks against Lithuanian citizens of Jewish origin," the letter says. Israeli Knesset speaker Reuven Rivlin, during his September visit, was categorical about the responsibility of Lithuanians for slaughtering Jews during the Nazi occupation, which caused a controversial response. In particular, Seimas Chairman Arturas Paulauskas told Lithuanian radio that Rivlin's visit "was not something that could serve the improvement of our relations or better understanding of our positions."
... [T]here is a Jew named Robert Aschberg in Sweden who wields a great lot of power in our media. He owns the largest production company in Sweden called Strix Television and produces programs for every major channel, especially TV3 where almost all programs that aren’t Hollywood produced sitcoms, talk shows (Ricky Lake and Jerry Springer) or bad movies comes from Strix. It was Strix by the way that first came up with the idea of the show Survivor, now broadcasted also in the USA. Aschberg himself is the head of several of these usually noisy and chaotic shows and has thus been called Sweden’s Michel Friedman. His maternal grandfather is the banker Olof Aschberg who helped finance the Russian revolution and his brother, Richard Aschberg, works at Aftonbladet (the Evening Post). Robert Aschberg is further an important financer of eXpo, a Swedish version of the ADL, while it however is not an exclusively Jewish organization.
To analyze the Jewish influence in Sweden is a delicate matter, much due to the fact that the influence in many regards is indirect ...
|February 28th, 2008||#12|
[Jews control media serving Britain]
A power greater than government?
"Today the film makers are the people who control the most powerful medium in the world, and art that can create ideals, change language or topple governments."
John Baxter in the Daily Mail (28th December 1995)
According to the theory of democracy, "the people" rule. They elect politicians by their own choice, and if and when those politicians fail to act according to their wishes they can be dismissed by the vote of the people. The pluralism of different political parties provides the people with "alternatives"; if one loses their confidence, they can support another. Thus is realised the democratic principle of: government of the people, by the people and for the people.
It would be nice if it were all so simple. But in a medium-to-large modern state things are not quite like that. How do "the people" acquire the information and knowledge necessary for them to use their votes other than by blind guesswork? They cannot possibly witness everything that is happening on the national scene, still less at the level of world events. Only a tiny few of them ever see their political leaders close up and are able to watch and assess their performance of their duties. The vast majority are not students of politics. They don't really know what is happening, and even if they did they would need guidance as to how to interpret what they knew.
"The people" are doctors, lawyers, engineers, clerks, shopkeepers, factory workers, farmworkers, small tradesmen, nurses, secretaries, schoolteachers and a thousand or more other things. They know, or ought to know, something about the occupations in which they are engaged. But only the minutest number can be expected to know the business of politics - one of the most complex of subjects, with its vast range of issues and the many points of view that will be brought to bear on each of these issues. To know what the issues are, and to examine and evaluate these points of view, the people need to have these issues presented to them and the points of view expounded in a form that they can understand.
This is where the "mass media" come in: newspapers; television; radio. And for those with a more studious and enquiring bent there are other media: books; magazines; the Internet. The list is growing as information technology advances.
But there is a problem here. "The people" cannot own, control and regulate the media. That can only be done by a small minority - a mere fraction of the population, in fact much fewer than one per cent. And it is this minority which is able to determine which facts the people will be allowed to know about, which events will be reported to them, which points of view they will be able to examine and evaluate, which political parties it is good to vote for and which not, which politicians are decent, upright, honourable and capable citizens and which are disreputable, incompetent, "dangerous" and "extreme".
This invests that minority who control the mass media with enormous power - perhaps even greater power than a prime minister or cabinet. It is this minority which determines the climate of "public opinion" in which politicians have to operate, the "public opinion" to which they have to defer and which they dare not offend if they are to get elected and stay elected.
Even when the mass media consisted mainly of newspapers, and only a small minority read those newspapers, this power was considerable. Today, when it embraces mass-circulation newspapers and television, it is colossal beyond imagination.
And we must not forget another fact about the media. Their political influence extends far beyond newspaper reports and articles, and television programmes, of a direct political nature - connected, that is, with current affairs that bear upon politics. In a much more subtle way, they can influence people's thought patterns by other means: newspaper stories, pages dealing with entertainment and popular culture, movies, TV "soaps", "educational" programmes: all these types of fare help form human values, concepts of good and evil, right and wrong, sense and nonsense and what is "fashionable" and "unfashionable". These human value systems, in turn, shape people's attitude to political issues, influence how they vote and therefore determine who holds political power.
Yet for some strange reason there is very little public discussion in Britain today, as an example, of who actually exercises media control. The people are encouraged to get tremendously excited about the outcome of a general election, even of local government elections, yet these contests probably have far less a bearing on the question of who wields power over us than the much more crucial one of who regulates "public opinion" and therefore determines the agenda both for the contesting of elections and for what is done in government by whoever wins.
Any study of what is happening on the national scene must therefore today include a study of the workings of the mass media: who the people are who own, control and operate those media, and to what purposes their immense power is being put.
The current affairs "discussion"
Discussion programmes on TV and radio dealing with current affairs and topical public issues are presented so as to convey the impression that they are conducted in accordance with the letter and spirit of "democracy", with various viewpoints given a hearing. However, where the discussion threatens to touch upon issues considered "sensitive" to the judaized establishment which controls TV and radio, it is carefully stage-managed so that "dangerous" viewpoints are excluded. This is particularly noticeable where discussion concerns matters of the Jewish State of Israel and its not so very glorious aspects, when relating to doubts concerning the alleged mass-slaughter of Jews during WW II and when some one tries to discuss the power wielded by the Jewish minority.
One TV programme on British TV a short time ago was devoted to the subject of "anti-semitism", which was presented as being on the increase throughout Europe, including Britain. Various spokesmen, some Jewish and some non-Jewish, appeared on the programme to give their views. After the programme had proceded a little while, it became quite clear that the only differences between the participants lay in their attitudes as to how "anti-semitism" should be treated. Some maintained that it should be rigorously suppressed by the introduction of tighter laws against it; others said that this practice would play into the hands of the "anti-semites" by making them martyrs and that, however much "anti-semitism" was to be deplored, suppressing it by law was not the way to fight it. One member of the discussion panel launched into a lengthy analysis of the mental state of "anti-semites", implying them to be suffering from a certain kind of insanity.
What was entirely absent from the discussion was any contribution offering an explanation of the viewpoint of the so-called "antisemites". Of course, "anti-semitism" itself is a misleading term deliberately adopted by our media-controllers so as to suggest that those thus labelled want to ill-treat Jews, even kill them, for no reason than that they are Jews, whereas the vast majority of people described as "anti-semites" simply oppose what they see as excessive Jewish power. Whether or not they are correct in their assessment of this power is beside the point; if "democracy" is to be more than just an empty phrase, they should be allowed to state their case in public then have that case seriously examined and debated. This, however, is the very last thing our media-controllers want. Therefore, when any programme discussing anti-semitism (i.e. criticism of Jewish power) is broadcast on TV or radio, "anti-semites" (i.e. critics of Jewish power) are deliberately excluded, so that the "discussion" is not really a discussion at all, merely an imitation of one.
Who are the manipulators?
But who is behind it all? Who are the people who determine what is watched on television and printed in the newspapers? This is not so easy a study because a great many of the people concerned operate in the shadows. And even in the case of those whose names are known, what is known about their backgrounds and their connections? Very little.
For this reason, very few people in Britain are aware of the huge influence over the mass media exercised by a certain ethnic minority, namely the Jews.
Straightaway, we can expect that mention of this minority will put many readers on the defensive. Is this "anti-semitism"?, some will ask. That, you see, is the first example of the hypnotic effect of media power. The mass media in Britain today have managed to implant into many people's minds the idea that it is "anti-semitic" even to acknowledge that members of the Jewish community play a large part in controlling our news and opinion and to question whether this is a good thing for Britain. In the uncomfortable feeling provoked in a number of readers of this text by the very mention of the word "Jews", there is provided the first lesson in media indoctrination and brainwashing!
This text is simply a study of who controls public opinion in Great Britain.
We believe that in this study there should be no "no-go" areas, no forbidden avenues of enquiry. We are concerned here with facts. What deductions people make from those facts is their decision. Our intention is that they should be roused from their former ignorance and apathy and persuaded to join our political struggle to achieve, through peaceable and legal means a more just, non-racist society. A society not dominated by a racist minority believing to be "Gods Chosen People".
It is the contention of this study that members of the Jewish community (whether practising or not) exercise a power and influence in Britain's mass media that are out of all proportion to their numbers in the population. We believe that this is a fact that should not be hidden but should be known - and discussed. No great issue of concern can be properly examined unless all the facts pertaining it are known and are faced - fairly and squarely, with nothing swept under the carpet for fear that some noisy element may object.
Some people may accept the findings of this study as authentic and accurate but then say: "So what?" Isn't it quite common for certain groups to be found in profusion in certain occupations whether for reasons of natural talent and aptitude, accidents of history, or whatever? Are there not a lot of Irish building workers and writers, Scottish doctors and engineers, Welsh singers, Black sportsmen, French and Italian restauranteurs and Indian and Pakistani textile merchants? Given that Jews are to be found in large numbers in the mass media, is this to be regarded as particularly sinister or dangerous? In other words, what's the big deal?"
We hope that we have answered these questions in the foregoing part of this introduction. None of the other occupational fields mentioned have anything like the scope for the wielding of real power - political power, power over who governs us and to what purpose power to shape our society and its values, to determine our destiny and future.
We cannot therefore say of Jews in the media as some might say of other groups in their respective occupations and lines of business: "Oh well, they're good at it - let them get on doing it." What is at stake in respect of control of an institution with such massive power as the media places that institution in a special category of its own, which justifies a very high degree of concern over the matter.
Would we, for instance, feel happy and secure in the knowledge (should such be the case) that a particular interest-group exercised control over our armed forces? We might wonder, in that case, where the loyalty of such a group would lie in the event of a war.
And if we bear in mind that power over the mass media is today as potent in the possibilities it offers as command of a hundred armoured divisions on the battlefield, that mass media power should be a matter of tremendous concern, and we would be foolish to the point of insanity to dismiss as of little importance a situation in which it lays in the hands of people who themselves proclaim to be "Jewish" in the first hand and who themselves openly proclaim loyality to the Jewish state of Israel in the first hand.
And this is not all. As has been said, there is today a very broad consensus view, transcending parties and classes, that much of the influence of the mass media is malignant and socially destructive in its effects.
We simply take the question further: if so many believe the influence of the media to be malignant and destructive, we should be examining the nature of the media - not the least important question in which examination is: Who controls the media?
In a way, the study serves a purpose that is supposed to be served by the mass media in any democracy: The purpose of free and unfettered enquiry and of absolutely free expression of facts and opinion. Unfortunately, there is neither free enquiry nor free expression of either facts or opinion in the mass media in Britain today - and least of all on the subject of this study. Just when did you last see an article in a major newspaper examining, in proper depth, Jewish influence and control in Britain's news and information industry? Just when did you last see a programme on TV dealing with the same topic? The answer to this question proves our point.
One phrase beloved of those who exercise influence in the media is "investigative journalism". The "investigative journalist" is depicted as the crusading hero whose quest for the truth and whose dedication to the public interest leads him or her to take up the cudgels against all the forces of would-be suppression and censorship - even when, as is sometimes the case, this leads to a particularly loathsome form of intrusion into people's private lives. But one form of investigative journalism which the media are most certainly not anxious to encourage is that which enquires into the identity of their own controllers and the underlying agenda to which they operate. In these pages we hope to remedy this glaring omission.
Naturally, we do not expect the facts which we unearth here to be taken up by the media and examined in the light of day. If there is any comment in the mass media on this study - which we think doubtful - it will that of condemnation, of dismissal out of hand, vith liberal use of the term "anti-semitism". But it will not extend to any analysis of what we say or any attempt, by presentation of facts, to prove us wrong.
From this, dear reader, we leave you to draw your own conclusions.
Need for perspective
As we have prepared the material for this study it has been brought home to us that media influence and control in the modern world of communications is an immensely complex subject, in which the dangers of over-simplification are always present. The mere presence of members of a certain group working in a section of the media does not itself prove that that group has the ultimate "say" in the section in question. In addition to this, there is the fact that "control" of an institution like the mass media can operate in more than one way. Direct control through ownership is a relatively simple thing to understand, but this understanding does not provide for indirect forms by which the media can be, if not literally "controlled", then at least massively influenced. In this study we will be examining the power of particular lobbies to regulate the content of the press, TV, books and other means of communication by various pressures, such as the picketing of studios and bookshops (in which the implicit threat of violence is always present) and, perhaps more potent still, the method of advertising boycott (in which again the implicit threat of such an action can often suffice to achieve the lobby's objective without the threat necessarily having to be put into practice).
Another factor must be borne in mind when the source of media control is being assessed. The communists in the heyday of their power were known to say: "Give us just a third ot the places on any committee and we will guarantee to control that committee." This was simply a statement of the fact that a minority in any body, public or private, which knows exactly what it wants and acts together as a co-ordinated group, bound by a single loyalty and a single objective can quite easily get its way over a larger, but uncoordinated, mass of people with no such bonds, acting individually and in pursuit of no definite or conscious objective. It is not our claim in this booklet that Jews necessarily outnumber non-Jews in all sections of the media (though in certain important ones this is indeed the case) but only that the former's solidarity and oneness of loyalty, interest and purpose gives them an immense advantage over others in any bid for power and influence.
Students of Jewish influence in the mass media will notice a paradox: while that influence is used, in a hundred or more different ways, to weaken the national spirit and consiousness of the British people, Jews themselves, in their attitude to their Jewish state of Israel and to questions of Zionism generally, are to be found amongst the world's most militant nationalists!
There is one final consideration of which we ask you, the reader, to take account. Jewish power in the mass media is a phenomenon acknowledged in political quarters widely different from our own and sometimes even by Jews themselves - as we shall show in one or two examples. In other words, as the saying goes, "Don't just take our word for it!"
In the following text, we have highlighted individuals of Jewish origin by setting their names in bold type. Not all of the names in question will seem obviously Jewish; it has been the habit of Jews over the centuries to change their names, adopting those which best blend with the populations of the countries in which they have settled. Where persons with non-Jewish names are designated as Jewish, the reader can rest assured that extensive research has established them.
Who controls the broadcasting?
There can be little doubt that television is the most powerful force for the presentation of the news and the formation of attitudes. Go into any workplace, pub, school, shop, or other institution and the chances are that the conversation will get around to the previous night's "soap" or something of particular note on the evening's news. And what was shown - and not shown - on the TV screen will in all probability have affected the way in which the viewers see the world.
By using such techniques, the controllers of the TV stations have enormous power to shape popular opinion. And a glance through any TV guide will reveal that, by providing us with an endless diet of pro-Zionist pro-Jewish propaganda, the masters of the TV stations are not shy of using that power. So just who are these people? Just who is responsible for the poison peddled by "our" television networks?
BBC boss Alan Yentob.
The most powerful man at the "British" Broadcasting Corporation is Alan Yentob, Director of BBC programmes. According to Broadcast magazine (14.6.96) this "gives him control over all non-news BBC programmes including those for satellite channels and those in English for the World Service." Yentob is a close personal friend of the immensely powerful independent TV bosses Michael Grade and Michael Green. The three have shared holidays in the Caribbean and, together with Charles Saatchi, are referred to by coy insiders as the "St. John's Wood Mafia". The Saatchi and Yentob families have been closely connected since before they moved to Britain from Iraq.
Behind the scenes, Jews are well represented among the Governors of the BBC, who include former president of the merchant bank S.G. Warburg Sir David Scholey, Sir Kenneth Bloomfield and Janet Cohen. Holders of important BBC managerial posts include Sarah Frank, Chief Executive of BBC Worldwide Americas; Controller of Publicity and Public Relations, Keith Samuel, and David Aaronovitch, who is Managing Editor of the BBC's weekly programmes. Anne Sloman is Deputy Head of BBC News Programmes; Ruth Caleb is the Head of Drama, and Louis Marks has been Producer of Drama since 1976. Another key figure in terms of the BBC 's relationship with the rest of the world, Commercial Director at BBC Worldwide TV Tony Kay, is responsible for deals with American networks such as NBC. International Director of US cable operator TCI, Adam Singer - son of former BBC Director-General Aubrey Singer - has also been responsible for a number of recent big deals between the BBC and TCI's British subsidiary Flextech.
Head of BBC Comedy Entertainment is Jon Plowman. He is responsible for "alternative comedian" Ben Elton's Thin Blue Line, a person who likes being interviewed in th "respectable" Jewish Chronicle.
Jews in prominent positions in BBC regional TV include Rod Natkiel, Head of Network TV at BBC Midlands and East, and Roy Saatchi, Head of Local Programmes at BBC North.
The host of lower level functionaries who implement the wishes of the media masters in such stations also includes a vastly disproportionate number of Jews, such as Geoffrey Goodman, who broadcasts on BBC Current Affairs and LBC/IRN- BBC TV's legal correspondent Joshua Rosenberg. Naomi Goldman is not only a Producer on Newsnight, but is also a member of the Jewish Socialist Group. Another militant Zionist in BBC is writer and broadcaster Lisa Jardine.
Britain's "pornographer-in-chief", Channel 4 boss Michael Grade with his TV mogul uncle Lew.
The Chief Executive of Channel 4 is Michael Grade, who succeeded its creator Jeremy Isaacs. Grade previously controlled LWT and BBC l and 2. He has been a director of First Leisure Entertainment since 1991. This massive company was formerly headed by Grade's uncle, the late Lord Bernard Delfont and includes 300 cinemas, eight theatres, hotels, restaurants and record divisions. Grade's father, semi-retired TV magnate Lew Grade is still Chairman of The Grade Co. and a director of Euro-Disney.
The endless diet of filth and perversion which Channel 4 feeds to the public has earned Michael Grade the sobriquet Britain's "pornographer-in-chief". In March, 1996, he was also widely criticised after his brainchild The Girlie Show ran an episode which clearly encouraged shoplifting. "Why do we allow this millionaire to incite theft?" asked veteran columnist Paul Johnson.
Managing Director of Channel Four International Ltd and Director of Acquisitions at C 4 is Colin Leventhal. This busy man's acquisitions for the channel have included such American shows as Roseanne and The Cosby Show which are produced by Caryn Mandabach's Carsey Werner company. Leventhal has also developed a close relationship with Nickelodeon, the subsidiary of Sumner Redstone's Viacom Inc.
The next time you have the misfortune to see the disgusting pieces of decadence which so often pass as "plays" on Channel 4, you should direct your complaint to the channel's Head of Drama, David Aukin, or the Senior Commissioning Editor for Drama, Peter Ansorge, although the latter spoke out strongly in favour of the sympathetic depiction of incest on the soap Brookside at peak family viewing time. Ansorge said that he expected to be attacked for the storyline and condemned the "right-wing lobbies" which express widespread public disquiet about the way in which all the soaps in British broadcasting - with the exception as we go to press of Coronation Street - have been turned into promotional vehicles for sexual deviancy.
If, on the other hand, you are offended by the extreme "liberal" tone and content of Channel Four News, reflect on the fact that the News Editor since March 1996 has been Sara Nathan, supported by Elinar Goodman. While Jon Snow, the extremist liberal Channel Four newscaster is not Jewish, he has made his sympathies clear by joining Jewish journalists in addressing a Jewish Chronicle sponsored meeting on ethics in journalism.
Channel 4's youth programme production company, Planet 24, has, according to the Jewish Chronicle "an uncanny knack of fronting its popular Channel 4 programmes with blondish Jewish women." These include Dani Behr playing a leading role on The Word and Surf Polatoes and Gabi Roslin of the Big Breakfast and the Gabi Roslin Show.
Among the many lesser players involved in the never-ending stream of productions from Channel 4 are Michael and Martin Myers, the distributors who run the First Independent company; Stephanie Calman, who is the scriptwriter for the sitcom Dressing for Breakfast; the viciously anti-British comedian Mark Thomas, and Alexi Sayle, who says that since he is Jewish, so are all his characters .
A number of Channel 4 programmes are produced by Philip Clarke's Diverse Production company. These include Diverse Reports, The Hello Girls and Dual Balls, a "comedy" by Dan Zeff.
Clarke has now received funding from the BBC for a new talent project and is currently scouring the UK's universities for new pundits who could appear in a planned BBC 2 heavyweight discussion programme.
The Independent Television Commission is the regulatory body which overseas the whole of the ITV network. Its Director is Jude Goffee and its senior sponsorship and advertising officer is Eve Salomon. The Network Director of ITV is Marcus Plantin, who was instrumental in appointing Claudia Rosencrantz as ITV ' s Controller of Entertainment.
Lord Hollick - plays a big role in ITV.
Media group MAI owns two ITV franchises (Anglia and Meridian); a 5 per cent stake in ITN and a 29 per cent stake in Channel Five. A driving force in the newly formed MAI/ United News and Media giant is Lord Hollick, a Labour peer with close links with Hambros Bank, of which he is a long-standing Director. Hollick has orchestrated MAI ' s rapid growth in media interests since 1990. He is a great admirer of Michael Eisner's Disney empire and wants to be one of the new breed of "lifestyle suppliers" - an all-encompassing media brand which gives you your TV, radio, newspapers, house, books, music, holidays, theme park thrills and films (and, as a consequence, shapes your political opinions).
To this end, MAI has established close links with the second largest "American" megamedia corporation, Time Warner Inc., whose Chairman is Gerald Levin, and its subsidiary HBO, whose Vice President is Charles Schreger. One of the first deals on the agenda is a plan to build a movie theme park on the outskirts of London. A senior director of MAI's Anglia TV subsidiary is film executive David Puttnam, best known for his Chariots of Fire, which dwelt at length on the "anti-Semitism" encountered by a Cambridge athlete early this century. Such problems certainly do not seem to have held back Mr. Puttnam, whose many interests include being a director of the Australian feature producer Village Roadshow Pictures, which is partly owned by MAI. Anglia's Director of Programmes is Graham Creelman. MAI's United News section is headed by Chief Executive Stephen Grabiner.
The pivotal position in ITN's influential news coverage is held by Robert Elias, Programme Editor of News at Ten, while the power to decide what gets airtime at LBC rests with its Controller of Programmes, Charles Golding.
Carlton TV´s Michael Green.
Carlton is a major force in the ITN network with assets including Carlton TV and Central TV; a 20 per cent stake in ITN; Meridian TV and GMTV, and a 50 per cent stake in London News Network. It has a £ 1.6 billion turnover, recording pre-tax profits of almost £ 250 million in 1995, and has significant assets in the Asian sub-continent.
Carlton's Chairman is Michael Green, who is also Director of Independent Television News, Central Independent Television and GMTV. It was Green who, with the Saatchi brothers, masterminded the fierce lobbying campaign which persuaded the Government to sacrifice the independence of ITV's 14 regional stations in 1993. Green, who is related by marriage to Lords Wolfson and Young, was quoted in the Jewish Chronicle of 17.11.95 as declaring that: "I am very aware of being Jewish."
Although his current affairs programmes enjoy prying into the lives of others, Green himself is very publicity-shy; when a girlfriend left him, his reported warning was: "If you ever write a word about me, 1'11 break every bone in your body." During Green's negotiations to buy Technicolor (UK), he was helped by Jarvis Astaire, who lives with Green's ex-mother-in-law, Lady Wolfson. Astaire himself is a former associate of Ladbroke pools magnate Cyril Stein.
Carlton's head of sponsorship is David Prosser, who is the co-ordinator of the ITV lobby pressing for the abolition of laws which effectively outlaw sponsors which are closely related to the editorial content of programmes. Richard Simons is the company's Head of Features, while the Managing Director of Carlton Select, the former Selec cable TV channel recently bought up by Carlton, is Janet Goldsmith. The political agenda of Carlton was summed up by the company´s decision to send its documentary on one of Oskar Schindler's 'survivors' to 1,000 London secondary schools. The pro-Zionist bias of children's and youth programmes at Carlton is the responsibility of this sector's Controller Michael Forte.
The latest acquisition in Carlton's drive for ever-greater influence is Westcountry Television, one of the last privately owned ITV franchises. Another strong bidder for the company was David Asper's CanWest broadcasting group, so it seems the vendors, which included South West Water and Brittany Ferries, had a choice of "any new owner you like, as long as he's one of us."
Carlton's power in "independent" television is rivalled only by the Granada Group, which is worth around £ 6.2 billion and owns two ITV franchises: Granada TV and London Weekend Television. It also has a 20 per cent stake in ITN and Yorkshire Tyne Tees TV (with Lazards merchantbank); a half-share in London News Network, and an 11 per cent stake in BSkyB, in partnership with which it has set up Granada Sky Broadcasting (GSkyB), a joint cable and satellite venture which launched seven new channels on 1st October 1996. BSkyB in turn has stakes in the "adults-only" Playboy Channel. Among Granada's satellite channels is Granada Talk TV, which includes an afternoon teen show, F2F, which is presented by Sacha Baron Cohen.
Granada was founded by Sidney and Cecil Bernstein. Alexander Bernstein was the long-standing Chairman until he went into semi-retirement in March 1996 while retaining his interest and influence. The newly created Granada Media Group (GMG) is controlled by three men. The Chairman, Granada's Chief Executive, Charles Allen, is not thought to be a Jew, but his two colleagues at the top most definitely are.
Chief Executive of the Granada Group, Duncan Lewis.
Duncan Lewis is the Chief Executive of the Granada Media Group; Chief Executive of Granada TV, and Chief Executive of London Weekend Television. Lewis was formerly marketing director at BT, where he initiated the nauseating Jewish grandmother adverts starring actress and sponsor of the Zionist-controlled front organisation, the Anti-Nazi League, Maureen Lipman. Until April 1996 Lewis was head of Mercury Communications and, according to the Evening Standard of 22.5.96, he is now heading a group of finance houses seeking to take over Mercury. He is backed by Warburg Pincus, the "American" firm which is already a key investor in the British cable and television industry (including Channel Five). City sources say that Granada's keeness to link up with Mercury is based on the conviction that the communications and entertainment businesses are set for further convergence.
The third key figure at Granada is Steve Morrison. He is the chief Operating Officer of GMG; Deputy Chief Executive of Granada TV, Managing Director of LWT and head of Granada's sales operation Laser. On his way to the top, according to the Jewish Chronicle of 1.9.95, Morrison was Director of Programmes and Managing Director of Granada TV. His replacements in these last two jobs are Peter Salmon and Andrea Wonfor respectively. Commercial Director at LWT and GMTV is Kate Stross, and Controller of regional programmes at LWT is Simon Shaps.
In October 1995 Granada launched British Independent Television Enterprises (BRITE), which involved the merger of the sales arms of Granada TV, LWT and Yorkshire Tyne Tees TV. The Managing Director of this sales giant is Nadine Nohr.
One of Granada's leading functionaries is the scriptwriter and producer Kay Mellor, a self-confessed feminist responsbile for the "acclaimed" ITV series Band of Gold. Another Granada regular is Paul Marcus, owner of Marlow Films and producer of Granada's Prime Suspect.
Controller of Arts at LWT is Melvyn Bragg.
Although he describes himself as a "Christian", Bragg is extremely pro-Jewish and told the Jewish Chronicle of 5.4.96 that he views Israel as his "spiritual home". Since this interview came after extensive coverage of the brutal Israeli supression of the Palestinian Intifada, with soldiers dynamiting Arab homes if one member of the family is caught throwing stones, shooting dead unarmed schoolchildren and burying teenagers alive with bulldozers, this comment tells us a great deal about the mentality of this sickening "liberal" and the chattering classes who regard him as their arbiter of artistic good taste.
Pearson TV is another significant part of the ITV network, owning as it does Thames Television. Pearson TV Chairman Greg Dyke is a Gentile, but he is another TV mogul who looks to Disney Chairman Michael Eisner as a role model. Pearson TV is partly-owned by Lazards Bank and has a long-term production relationship with the third largest "American" megamedia group, Sumner Redstone's Viacom Inc.
In any case, the day-to-day running of Pearson Broadcasting is more the preserve of its Managing Director, Tony Cohen, who has been tipped as a future successor to Dyke as Chairman. His fellow directors include Sir Paul Fox, a past controller of BBC 1 and Chairman of ITN from 1986 to 1988, who is also a director of Satellite Information Services. With Scimitar Films Ltd.´s Chairman, Michael Winner, and Jeremy Isaacs, Fox was part of the 1988 Committee which was formed to fight proposals included in the Obscene Publications Bill in response to public concern over the ever-declining standards on display in the mass media. Other directors at Thames include Harold Mourgue and Sir Claus Moser, who is also a former Vice Chairman of N. M. Rothschild merchant bank.
Pearson TV has a quarter-share in Channel Five and a 15 per cent stake in UK Gold, whose Chief Executive is Bruce Steinberg. The global reach of the Pearson operation extends as far as TV India, in which the company has a joint share in partnership with its superficial rivals Carlton Communications and the investment bank Schroders.
It is only fair to point out that the parent Pearson conglomerate is owned mainly by the aristocratic Cowdray family. Chairman Lord Blakenham is seen in the City as having a board dominated by Old Etonians, although Reuben Mark is not a member of that particular minority group. Since their interest in broadcasting is in the money rather than the message, Pearson has recently sold off stakes in BSSkyB and Yorkshire Tyne Tees.
Financial journalists are speculating that the company may sell off its TV division altogether, in which case it wouldn't require a crystal ball to predict the kind of people who would be favourites to take it over!
The winning syndicate for the licence for this new channel includes several of the supposed "rivals" whose Jewish links have already been noted. These include MAI, Pearson and the US-based Warburg Pincus. Their successful application promised "presenters whose faces, voices, ages and regional and ethnic backgrounds reflect the diversity of Britain in 1996." We won't be able to say we weren't warned! Former BBC 1 Scheduler David Berg is now Controller of Planning and Organisation at C 5, while the Controller of news, current affairs and documentaries is Tim Gardam.
David Elstein, Chief Executive of Channel 5.
The real power at Channel 5, in any case, is its Chief Executive, David Elstein. According to the Jewish Chronicle of January 3rd, 1997, Elstein has a "vast executive and programme-making background with most of Britain's major networks."
Discussing the kind of programmes which the new channel would carry, Elstein told the Jewish Chronicle that:
"There are a lot of very vocal Jewish thinkers and writers around, not necessarily representing Jewish religious belief.
"You don't expect an awful lot of Yom Kippur services to turn up in the work of people like Howard Jacobson and Harold Pinter. But you are aware that they are coming from a background which is influenced by Jewish life."
Cable and Satellite Channels
In addition to the Jewish presence in the rapidly expanding fields of cable and satellite TV already notead, James Ackerman works as the newly appointed Director of multichannel covetures. As well as his already noted position as head of Britain's second biggest satellite channel UK Gold, former MTV high-flier Bruce Steinberg is also Chief Executive of the women's channel UK Living, with an audience fast approaching three million every week.
Julian Aston is Managing Director of Channel One, which at present supplies cable TV to around 300,000 homes in London. He is assisted by his friend Michael Rosenblum, who has been described by the Jewish Chronicle as "the American video journalism guru".
The General Manager of Flextech TV's The Children's Channel (TCC) cable/satellite operation is Franklin Getchell. TCC's Chief Executive is Richard Wolfe and its Senior Series Producer is leading US teenshow producer Mitchell Kriegman, whose work includes the programme Sesame Street. Flextech owns the satellite channel Bravo, whose General Manager Yonni Cohen moved to Polygram last year, with Broadcast magazine suggesting that his temporarily vacant post would be filled by Getchell. The new Head of Programming at Bravo is Mark Deitch, formerly BBC 1's Editor of Acquired Output. Flextech TV also owns the Family Channel and manages TLC and the Discovery Channel .
Of all the new channels aimed at children and young people, the most subversive has to be MTV Europe. This is a subsidiary of Sumner Redstone's Viacom UK, as are VH-I; the Paramount Channel; the Sci-Fi Channel; the Blockbuster video chain and, as we have already seen, Nickleodeon TV. Paramount Pictures UK is headed by Danton Rissner, while the Managing Director of the Sci-Fi Channel is David Woodman. The President and Business Director of MTV Europe is Peter Einstein, backed up by Senior Vice Presidents Gil Aronow and Boris Katz. Through his MTV empire, Redstone and his Chief Operating Officer Mark Rosenthal offer Beavis and Butthead as teenage role models and pump their narrow views and music-clad propaganda into 210 million homes in 71 countries. MTV has been accurately described as the dominant cultural (sic!) influence on teenagers around the world.
In September 1995 MTV Europe was fined a total of £ 60,000 for two programmes dealing with under-age sex which even the ITC described as "smutty". Einstein protested that he had not seen any difference in the levels of taste and decency in the eight years that the channel had been on the air. Indeed!
Another satellite and cable channel aimed at youngsters is The Box-Music TV, whose Programme Director is Liz Laskowski. The UK satellite Warner Channel is the work of Jeffrey Schlesinger, President of Warner Bros International Television. Raymond Jaffe is the Director of Publicity and Promotion at Sky TV.
The satellite news services are also firmly in the usual hands. Reuters TV Executive Editor is David Feingold and its Managing Director is David Kogan (who also oversees London Radio), while head of its newsgathering operation at Sky News is Malcolm Switzer. Meanwhile David Feingold is chief of the London bureau of Cable News International (CNN)-now part of Gerald Levin's Time Warner Corporation-and as such is answerable only to the Managing Director of CNN International, Randy Freedman.
UKTV was one of the companies which submitted unsuccessful bids for Channel 5. In spite of this rebuff its owner, Canadian Jewish media mogul David Asper is still very keen to increase his control within the British media. His stated aim is to see the UK move towards Canada and the US in terms of an increase in commercial TV stations and cable TV penetration. UKTV is at present just a small part of the Asper family's Can West Global Communications, which also has interests in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Chile. While his father sits on the governing board of Jerusalem's Hebrew University, Asper describes himself as a "cultural rather than religious Jew".
Another big company seeking to extend its grip to this side of the Atlantic is Polygram Filmed Entertainment. Yoni Cohen was appointed Vice President of Television and Broadcasting at PFI in July 1996 to oversee the launch of Polygram's new international TV network.
|February 28th, 2008||#13|
The single most powerful man in British radio is acting Manager of BBC Network Radio, Michael (John) Green. His permanent replacement is tipped to be Jenny Abramsky, the former editor of The World at One and Today, who is at present Controller not only of Radio Five Live, but also 24-hour UK news, BBC World, Ceefax, and Multimedia Services. As head of Drama at BBC Network Radio is Caroline Raphael. She was also editor of Drama, Features and Youth Programmes on Radio 5. According to the Jewish Chronicle, Miss Raphael admits to having a strong Jewish identity.
The millions of listeners who are now resigned to hearing ludicrous outbursts of "political correctness" every time they tune in to a BBC radio station should listen carefully to the names of producers and similar highlevel functionaries listed at the end of such offerings. It cannot be denied that a disproportionate number are Jews. These include senior BBC producers Daniel Snowman and Suzanne Levy, who was, for example, responsible for Radio 4's hysterical "Holocaust" propaganda piece 20/20-a view of the century.
46 per cent of Talk Radio UK is controlled by Peter Clark, owner of Media Ventures International. Clark, who has strong links with the Labour Party, was until recently acting Head of Talk Radio, whose other shareholders are Hambros Bank, Luxembourg-based media group CLT and Can West boss David Asper, who owns 24.5 per cent of the company. Many of this cheap, tacky and sleazy station's presenters are Jewish, including Nancy Roberts, Garry Jacobs, Jonny Gould, Janet Gershlick and Vanessa Feltz. Clark's other interests include a 10 per cent stake in Teletext, ownership of Circle Communications and a 40 per cent stake in Brian Eastman's drama production operation Carnival Films.
The strongly pro-Jewish Associated Newspapers group owns large chunks of the "independent" radio group GWR and Classic FM, where it has installed John Spearman as Chief Executive. Noteworthy in independent radio are such luminaries as the Chief Executive of EMAO Radio Tim Schoonmaker, who controls commercial radio in the North-east, and Roberta Aarons, who is Head of Production at SSVC, which provides TV and radio services for the MOD.
Lynne Franks is the founder of Radio Viva, the UK' s first "wimmin's" radio station. She told the Jewish Chronicle: "I enjoy being Jewish in a cultural sense and love being with other Jewish women."
As is the case with TV and films, Jews are in prominent and powerful positions in the regulatory institutions of independent radio. Tony Stoller is Chief Executive of the Radio Authority, while Yvonne Kintoff is Managing Director of the Radio Advertising Clearing Centre.
Who controls the entertainment?
While TV and radio dominate our perception of current affairs, the cinema and pop music also play a very strong role in changing cultural values. A film in which a heart-throb actor portrays a character with a traditionally frowned upon behavioural or character defect - will help to persuade large numbers of viewers that such behaviour is, after all, acceptable, even fashionable.
Such a message put out in a political debate or by a campaigning group, would be rejected by all normal people; but conveyed as a subtle message in a host of films or pop songs, it is accepted at a subliminal level by many viewers.
Cinema, Music & Entertainment
As with the broadcasting media, the "British" film industry includes a vastly disproportionate number of Jews, both among the major producers and in its regulatory bodies. The creator and head of the British Film Commission is Sidney Samuelson, who is also a trustee of BAFTA (British Film and Television Arts) and Chairman of its management committee. Knighted by John Major in June 1995, he is a great admirer of Steven Spielberg and his mendacious propaganda film Schindler's List. Sir Sidney is also the President of the Samuelson Group plc, which, according to the Jewish Chronicle of 23.6.95, is the world's largest film, TV and audio-visual equipment organisation.
As Chief Executive and Director of the British Board of Film Classification, James Ferman holds the key regulatory position in the British film industry . As such he has been widely criticised for the board' s ultra-liberal judgements. In 1995, for example, only two of the 364 films considered by the BBFC were cut to reduce sexual violence. Elected local councillors and members of the public, who accused Ferman and his board of being irresponsible, were attacked as culturally illiterate and "provincial".
Meanwhile, former Channel Four boss Jeremy Isaacs has been very influential as a Governor of the British Film Institute since 1979. Keeping an eye out for rising stars and potential dissidents in the next generation of production staff is the Chairman of the National Film and TV School, David Puttnam.
Also in a position to give a helping hand to deserving would-be movie moguls is Baron Joel Barnett, the former Labour Cabinet minister who has been the Chairman of British Screen Finance Ltd since 1980, as well as having served as Vice Chairman of the BBC Board of Governors from 1986 to 1993.
The Chief Executive of Crysalis Visual Entertainment is Michael Pilsworth. CVE' s portfolio of "independent" film producers includes Red Rooster Film & TV, and Watchmaker Productions. Chrysalis is close to overtaking Thames TV as the top UK independent producer.
In addition to his other powerful positions noted earlier, David Puttnam is a Chrysalis director. He is also Chairman of the Enigma film company, which has close ties with Gerald Levin's Time Warner conglomorate and BSkyB. Puttnam is a close friend of Edgar Bronfman Jr. - owner of the massive MCA entertainment group and Universal Studios - and spent three years as Chairman and Chief Executive at Columbia Pictures. In addition to all this, Puttnam is Chairman of International Television Enterprises Ltd. He produced the Labour Party's 1992 election broadcast and is a regular at Labour fundraising events, as well as being at the forefront of Labour's thinking on the information superhighway.
Alain Levy: Polygram boss.
The President and Chief Executive of the £ 5.5 billion Polygram global entertainment group is Alain Levy, former head of CBS France.
In January 1995, Polygram paid 100 million pounds for Lord Grade's old company ITC Entertainment. The expanded Polygram Films entertainment subsidiary is headed by Michael Kuhn under whose guidance it produced the highly successful but Four Weddings and a Funeral and Priscilla - Queen of the Desert.
Polygram International Music is also expanding, with its boss David Hockman recently snapping up leading rap label Def Jam.
Rank Organisation plc.
Chairman of the Rank Organisation, with major worldwide interests in leisure and entertainment and UK assets including the Odeon cinema chain, Mecca Leisure, the Hard Rock Cafe chain and Pinewood Studios, is Sir Leslie Fletcher. Managing Director of Rank Amusements Ltd. is J. Cohen.
Rank has close ties with MCA, with which it jointly owns Universal Studios. MCA is in turn part of Edgar J. Bronfman Jr's Seagram empire. Bronfman, President of the World Jewish Congress, is one of the world's most powerful Zionists and backs a number of shadowy, but influential, organisations which are constantly on the lookout for possible threats to Jewish identity and cohesion.
The London-based MCA Records is managed by Steve Wolfe and MCA Music Entertainment International has Meir Malinsky as Senior Executive.
The same phenomenon may be seen at RCA Records, whose artists include the muchhyped "supergroup" Take That. RCA's Managing Director is Hugh Goldsmith; the company's Head of Artistic Development is David Joseph, and the International Director is Nancy Farbman.
While Sony would no doubt be regarded by most people as a Japanese company, the truth is that the decisions - which acts it signs or doesn't sign, who is to be hyped to the top of the charts and what messages they should put across to the owners of their Japanese-made electrical goods - are made by Jews. Paul Burger is the Chairman and Chief Executive of Sony Entertainment (UK), which includes the Sony record label. Burger, whose major artists include Michael Jackson, is also Chairman of "The Brit Awards" which is produced by Michael Gerrie. Senior Vice Presidents and Executives at Sony UK include Jonathan Sternberg, Gerhard Blum and Sara Silver.
This is another one of the interlocked global media corporations with heavy Jewish involvement. Its Directors include Sir Graham Day and H. Einsmann. The Senior Vice President of EMI Music Worldwide is Charles Diamont and the Managing Director is Michelle Burger. Vice President of EMl's International Media Division is Jeremy Silver.
Warner Chappel Music Ltd.
The London-based music subsidiary of the Time-Warner Corporation, this operation too has a Jewish Managing Director - R. Godfrey-Kess.
Less well-known companies
Many smaller companies with less well-known names also play an important part in determining the flavour of popular music and film entertainment. The Managing Directors of the One World Entertainment music company, of Vision Music Entertainment and of record distributor Entertainment UK are, respectively, Alan Bellman, Dan Reedman and Richard Cowan.
Robert Earl - junk food, junk films.
Robert Earl is founder of President Entertainments and owner of the movie-theme restaurant Planet Hollywood. For five years, Earl was President of Hard Rock Cafe International, and he also helped produce the semi-pornographic fim Dirty Weekend with his close friend film producer Michael Winner and authoress Helen Zahavi.
Marshall's Communications Group is chaired by Mike Isaacson, who is also Executive Producer of its subsidiary company, Film Crest. Mentorn Films is run by Tom Gutteridge; Blue Heaven Productions is headed by Neil Zeiger, and the very English sounding Stonehenge Productions is in fact controlled by Peter Kosminsky, who has close ties with MAI Productions.
Media Productions was launched in 1993 as the first film and television financing and sales outfit to be created under the Business Expansion Scheme, and quickly achieved success with its low-budget hit, Leon the Pig Farmer - Leon being an orthodox Jew. Its Directors are Stephen Margolis and David Altschuler, who is also Director of feature film production company Cavalier Features, and co-founder of National Leasing and Finance, a company which arranges finance for deals involving past film titles.
The power to decide which films are bought or put back into circulation has a very significant behind-the-scenes influence on the kind of films which get made in the first place. The UK's largest privately-owned media buying concern, TMB, is headed by Chairman and Chief Executive Alan Rich, and has four Jewish directors.
James Palumbo - junk music, junk politics.
M&G Records boss, Michael Levy. Tony Blair's chief fundraiser.
The Ministry of Sound "rave" nightclub empire is run by James Palumbo. His Managing Director is Mark Rodol. In the months before the 1997 general election, James Palumbo helped to organise the Labour Party's appeal to young people, and ran a well-financed campaign. He also gave the unlimited free use of a chaffeur-driven silver Rover to Labour's media staff at Millbank Tower. It was promptly commandeered by Peter Mandelson, the party's chief election planner and Tony Blair's eminence grise, although the disco-dancing bachelor's "aide", Benjamin Wegg-Prosser, maintained that "Peter is not the only person who uses it".
Who controls the advertising?
The power of the purse is nowhere more apparent than in the field of advertising, whose magnates not only decide what images are used to promote particular products and ideas, but also have a great deal of influence over where vast corporate advertising budgets are spent. Their ability to determine which channels, magazines and newspapers are used - or not used - for major advertising campaigns gives such individuals an immense amount of influence over the producers and editors of supposedly independent media operations.
Companies placing advertisements also have a great deal of "clout" over the media. There have been a number of instances when the big High Street retail chains - another area dominated by Jews, but outside the scope of this survey - has been used to persuade Gentile newspaper owners and editors to toe the line. As far back as the 1930s, for example, the threat of a Jewish advertising boycott forced Lord Rothermere to stop articles in support of Sir Oswald Mosley appearing in his Daily Mail. More recently, similar threats have been brought to bear against a medical magazine for carrying articles critical of Israeli treatment of Palestinians, and against the Sunday Times, which was persuaded to break its contract with historian David Irving to translate its Goebbels Diaries extracts.
And one shouldn´t forget that in Japan the popular Japanese magazine Marco Polo was forced to close down by an international advertising boycott organised by Zionists, after carrying an article pointing out many of the glaring flaws in the "Six Million Gassed Jews" propaganda story.
Charles and Maurice Saatchi.
The world's largest advertising and marketing group, WPP, is based in London and headed by its multi-millionaire Chief Executive Martin Sorell, formerly Advertising Director with 1980s advertising giant Saatchi and Saatchi. Maurice Saatchi now runs the Megalomedia Group, whose non-advertising interests include a 10 per cent stake in The Multimedia Corporation, the producer of CD Roms such as 3d Atlas, cybercafes and computer software. Other shareholders include the boss's wife, novelist Josephine Hart, his brother Charles Saatchi and Lord (Jacob) Rothschild's RIT Capital Partners. Megalomedia owns the digital film and television studio FrameStore, which produces film titles and special effects. Says Chairman Saatchi: "We believe that digitalisation and computer technology will continue to play an increasingly fundamental role in media. We are now well placed to capitalise on the commercial potential offered by such a dynamic sector."
A bizaare feature in the Evening Standard early in January 1995 describes Tony Kaye as "one of Britain's, and America's, leading directors of television adverts and a man whose eye-catchingly unorthodox style has made him a legend in his business". The story arose from a classified advertisement which Kaye had placed in the Cars for Sale section of the paper two days before Christmas. The full text of the advert read: "JEWISH CAR FOR SALE. Four telephones and one fax machine. £ 1.3 Million. Ring Tony Kaye on 0101-310-720-3613." He also placed the advert in the Sunday Times, but within a few days was shocked to be on the receiving end of a "deluge" of abusive and threatening telephone calls from Jews who thought it was anti-Semitic. "There were some horrible messages on my answering machine", including death threats, he told the Standard. As a matter of fact he did have a nearly new Lincoln executive-series limousine for sale at the price mentioned, and it did come complete with four phone lines and a fax, and its American registration plate did read "Jewish" because, as Mr. Kaye was at pains to point out, he is Jewish "and very proud of it".
Tony Kaye got his first big break working with Saatchi & Saatchi and went on to win 13 "Pencils" (the ad world's equivalent of Oscars) in six years. His television adverts included British Rail's chess-playing rabbi and the penguin, the children dancing around Lionel Bart for Abbey National and the sado-masochistic and nightmarish images used in Dunlop commercials.
Who controls what we read?
Although the printed word is no longer as powerful as it once was, and although the broadcasting media are now the most important factor in shaping general popular attitudes, the owners, editors and journalists of national newspapers still have immense power. In particular, it is the national newspapers which decide the issues on which elections will, and will not, be fought. Press coverage is still the key factor which makes or breaks politicians, and which sets the parameters of "acceptable" political thought. The national newspapers have long been termed the "Fourth Estate", but this even this phrase under-estimates their power. It is in truth no exagerration to say that whoever controls the press controls the political direction of the nation.
The Jewish presence in the press is not as all-pervading as it is in the broadcast media. But such is the cowardice of the vast majority of the intellectual prostitutes known as journalists, that it seems that Organised Jewry is able to impose its line on the British press by rather more remote control than in the case of television. Having said which, the number of Jews in key positions in the tangled web of newspaper ownership and production is still out of all proportion to their numbers in the British population as a whole.
The same can be said of publishing generally, with the additional factor that many publishing houses are owned by Jewish-owned companies based in the USA.
As well as owning the Daily Mail and London Evening Standard, Associated Newspapers has a one-fifth stake in the TV news company ITN, owns 20 per cent of the ITV company Westcountry TV, 14 per cent of Selec TV and nearly half of Teletext.
Stewart Steven of Associated Newspapers.
One of Associated Newspapers´ major players is Stewart Steven - real name Stefan Gustaf Cohen. Having come to Britain in 1941 as a six-year-old refugee, Steven was appointed Assistant Editor of the Daily Mail in 1972, going on to edit the Mail on Sunday in 1981, before becoming editor of the Evening Standard. He is a Director of Associated Newspapers Holdings Ltd, Mail Newspapers plc., and The Mail on Sunday. Steven boasts of his influence on the British Government that "every member of the Government knows me by my Christian (sic) name".
The Managing Director and Managing Editor of the Daily Mail are Guy Zitter and Lawrence Sear, while the editor of the Mail on Sunday is Jonathan Holborrow. A study of a randomly chosen day's issue of the Mail suggests that Jews make up nearly a third of its journalists (excluding writers for the politically irrelevant sports pages, who are invariably Gentiles) - including Middle East specialist Paul Harris, Geoffrey Levy, Richard Kay, Jonathan Margolis, Sam Harris, Sarah Ebner and Gaby Hinsiff.
Anne Applebaum is Associate Editor of the London Evening Standard, as well as writing regularly for the Daily Mail and Sunday Telegraph. When Evening Standard columnist Matthew Norman criticised Tory Home Secretary Michael Howard for agreeing to legislation "that would have deprived his father of sanctuary in Britain", he did so in such extreme terms that Gerald Jacobs was moved to write a piece in the Jewish Chronicle criticising Jewish hypersensitivity and the "psychological condition" which "sees any public criticism of Jews by Jews as fuel for gentile scorn and anti-Semitism. That way real madness lies".
Another Evening Standard reporter, Mark Honigsbaum, penned a remarkably indiscreet article for the paper's "London Life" feature on 21st January, 1992. Headlined "The TV Clique", its sub-heading told readers that:
"David was at school with Michael who plays snooker with Charles who knows Alan who is a friend of Michael. Together these five men form a powerful group who have a massive influence on what you will be watching on television today."
The five referred to are, of course, David Elstein, Michael Grade, Charles Saatchi, Alan Yentob and Michael Green.
Clive Wolman. Former City Editor of the Mail on Sunday, now runs the London Financial News.
Another Associated bigwig is Clive Wolman, founder and editor-in-chief of the weekly magazine London Financial News and formerly editor of the Mail on Sunday City edition. Wolman cut his journalistic teeth editing the Oxford University magazine Isis, before spending two years in Israel working on the Jerusalem Post. Among the backers of Wolman's venture are his longstanding friend Anthony Julius - the Princess of Wales's lawyer and author of a vicious attack on the great poet T.S. Eliot, whom he regards as "anti-Semitic"- and Lawrence Lever, financial columnist at the Mail on Sunday. At a Jewish Chronicle-sponsored meeting in March 1996, Lever spoke of the personal unease with which he sometimes approached reporting on Jewish businessmen who had acted illegally or unethically.
The new magazine - aimed at stockbrokers, fundmanagers, corporate financiers and traders - is distributed on the Internet by the on-line business information company, MAID, whose Chief Executive is Dan Wagner. A £ 500,000 launch campaign was conducted by publishing director Gary Stern - a Young Jewish Care leader - who also invested his own capital in the venture.
News Group International
NGI's assets include the lion's share of BSkyB; Twentieth Century Fox, and major British newspapers such as The Sun, News of the World; The Times; The Sunday Times, and the Times Literary and Educational Supplements. Its Chief Executive, Rupert Murdoch, is usually regarded as a "Gentile", although he has been described as a "mamzer Jew". His father, Keith, although only a lowpaid reporter, made a fortuitous marriage to the daughter of a wealthy Jewish family, Elisabeth Joy Greene. The family fortune enabled Murdoch Senior to buy himself a knighthood, a radio station and two Adelaide newspapers, as well as to educate his son at the fashionable Geelong private school and then to send him to Oxford.
When his father died and the young Murdoch returned to Australia to take over the two newspapers. Over the next three years Murdoch plonked down millions to buy newpapers and radio and TV stations all over Australia. By 1968 Murdoch's media empire was worth £ 46 million. His buying spree continued throughout the 1970s, as he set up in Britain and then the United States. With his move into satellite TV and film studios, the last few years have seen Murdoch establish his influence on a truly global scale, with assets of £ 14.3 billion.
One of Murdoch's fantastically rich financial backers.
This remorseless rise owes something to Murdoch's undoubted knack of identifying and pandering to the lowest tastes of the public, but far more important has been the backing of four multi-national mega-money moguls. Murdoch first started to move in these circles when his father asked Lord Beaverbrook to train young Rupert in the newspaperbusiness. Beaverbrookintroduced Murdoch to Harry Oppenheimer, head of the massive Anglo-American Corporation and the deBeers diamond and gold cartel, and Edgar Bronfman. Impressed by the young Murdoch, they told him to call on them if he ever needed help.
Within a few years Murdoch was acting as the front-man for media buy-ups financed by Oppenheimer and Bronfman, as well as being helped by the conman Armand Hammer and the Rothschild empire. This almost limitless financial backing is the real force behind Murdoch's mercurial rise to control, among his other media interests, a yearly newspaper circulation of 3.5 billion copies.
Nor is Murdoch shy of using this enormous power to further his, and his backers' own political agenda. As far back as 1972, after Australian Labour Party leader Whitlam had agreed to pursue a 100 per-cent pro-Israeli policy and to protect Murdoch's media monopoly, the power of that monopoly was used to run a block-busting campaign which steamrollered Whitlam into power. When Whitlam promptly reneged on the deal, making overtures to the Arabs and refusing to grant mining leases to Oppenheimer, Murdoch's media turned on him as part of the successful campaign to have Whitlam removed from office and replaced by the fervently pro-Zionist Bob Hawke.
More recently, American media mogul Ted Turner was forced to apologise to the Anti-Defamation League after likening his rival to the "late Fuehrer", alleging that, like Hitler, Murdoch uses the media outlets over which he has control to further his political agenda. Included on that agenda are attacks on Murdoch's enemies, among which he includes the Germans, the Irish, the Arabs and anti-Zionists, "the supreme traitors".
In addition to his shadowy backers, a number of the key positions around the "Dirty Digger" are held by Jews. These include Peter Chernin, who heads Murdoch's film studio and oversees his TV production, and David Elstein, Head of Programming at BSkyB until his recent promotion to the still more powerful post of Chief Executive of C 5. Chief Executive of BSkyB is Sam Chisholm, while Raymond Jaffe is the Director of Publicity and Promotion at Sky TV.
The Managing Director of The Sun and News of the World scandal sheets is A. A. Fischer, while their Managing Editors are William Newman and Stuart Kuttner respectively. Since becoming Editor of the News of the World, Wendy Henry has presided over a further degeneration of her paper, which has to be acknowledged as a remarkable achievement. Her boss Kuttner has spoken at meetings of the Board of Deputies of British Jews on the question of sensitisity in the portrayal of Jews and Israel in the media. The City Editor of the Times is Melvyn Marckus.
In October 1996 seventy Israeli tax inspectors raided the Jerusalem offices of Murdoch's News Datacom computer software subsidiary. The operation took place after the issue of a warrant alleging "tax transgressions, tax evasion and helping others to evade taxes between the years 1989 and 1996 of an amount of about $ 150 million." Also raided were a factory in Haifa and New Datacom's lawyers, the eminent firm of Herzog, Fox and Neeman, whose founder was the former Israeli president, Chaim Herzog. Murdoch's company protested its innocence and blamed "defamatory" comments in the Israeli media on "a continuing campaign against the company by former employees who have been sued in the UK... for defrauding (us) of millions of dollars." Whatever the truth of this affair, it provides a tantalising glimpse of the behind-the-scenes connections of the Murdoch empire.
The Telegraph Group
The Chairman of The Telegraph plc is Conrad Black. Although supposedly a Canadian Gentile, Black, who is a member of the steering committee of the Bilderberg Group, is also a Director of Jerusalem Post Publications Ltd. Furthermore, not only was his first wife Jewish, but so is his second, Barbara Amiel. She makes no attempt to hide her extreme pro-Zionist views, using the columns of the Daily Telegraph to berate other sections of the media and politicians for what she believes is hostility to Israel. A particularly outstanding example of Mrs. Black's paranoia is an article which appeared in the Daily Telegraph of 3.10.96 under the hysterical heading: "This hatred of Israel is close to fascism." Most absurdly of all, she referred bitterly to "some Guardian and Independent commentators who, to put it bluntly, come close to a genteel fascism akin to the Thirties." Presumably she wasn't thinking of the Independent 's main columnists Neal Ascherson or David Aaronovitch. Kindly souls of a more rational disposition can only hope that she doesn't ever see a copy of this publication!
The Telegraph plc is in turn 82 per cent owned by the Hollinger Group, on whose board sits international power-broker Henry Kissinger. Hollinger also own the Spectator and no fewer than 230 major magazines and newspapers in the United States.
Telegraph boss Stephen Grabiner.
Managing Director of Telegraph Newspapers is Stephen Grabiner, while Directors of the Telegraph include Rupert Hambro, Group Managing Director of J.O. Hambro Investment Management and a Director of Harry Oppenheimer's AngloAmerican Corporation; Sir Martin Jacomb, and Sir Evelyn de Rothschild.
The Sunday Telegraph is edited by Dominic Lawson. The Young Telegraph, the distinctly children's supplement, is edited by Damian Kelleher, whose deputy is Kitty Melrose.
Robert Maxwell - Jewish media mogul.
The Daily Mirror and Sunday Mirror were, of course, the mouth-pieces of the utterly corrupt "refugee" from Czechoslovakia, Bob Maxwell (real name, Hoch). Having looted his employees' pension fund in a failed effort to stave off the collapse of his house-of-cards financial empire, Maxwell finally met a well-deserved and watery end off the side of his personal yacht. This prominent Zionist activist was honoured with a burial ceremony in occupied Palestine, the so-called "Israel"- a ceremony attended by leading Israeli government officials.
The Mirror Group, which is also a major shareholder in the Independent, was sold off after his death, and is now in the hands of a shadowy business conglomerate.
A long-term key-player in the Observer Trust was the financial journalist, publisher, and investment wheeler-dealer Sir Stephen (Harry) Waley-Cohen, who was involved with the upper echelons of this heavyweight left-of-centre Sunday newspaper, between 1976 and 1981. Nowadays, however, Sir Stephen is only Chairman of the Jewish Chronicle Trust, and the Observer is in the more discreet hands of the Guardian Group. This holding company has directoral links with Hambros merchant bank, whose own Directors include Lord Hollick, whose United News and Media Group owns 30 regional newspapers in South East England alone, as well as periodicals such as Exchange & Mart. Hollick is reported as considering selling off his UPN South East operation in order to concentrate on his regional newspapers in Yorkshire and the North West.
The Observer´s Nick Cohen.
The Observer certainly presents no alternative to the prevailing bias of the rest of the media. Its "expert"' on "anti-Semitism" is Nick Cohen, who describes as "admirable" the work of the extreme Zionist-infiltrated magazine Searchlight, which specialises in encouraging violent mobs to attack the peaceful and legal meetings of its opponents. Searchlight, whose sloppy research cost the BBC huge libel action payouts, a few years ago, is edited by Gerry Gable.
1996 saw the launch of the UK's first all-financial Sunday paper, the Sunday Business. This was backed by American-based newswire owner Michael Bloomberg, with Tony Rubython as Editor.
Anita Roddick: founded the Big Issue.
At the opposite end of the social scale of special interest groups is the Big Issue, founded on the initiative of Bodyshop owner Anita Roddick. Speaking to the Jewish Chronicle at the start of 1996, the Big Issue's Director Lucie Russell, confided that at least ten of its staff are Jews:
"Jews are attracted to this sort of work - they like to be active in changing the world."
Many of the glossy magazines which adorn our newsstands do not reveal the identities of their staff, and detailed research into which holding companies and publishers own which publications is beyond the scope of this study. Even a cursory glance, however, reveals a vastly disproportionate number of Jews involved.
Alexandra Shulman. Vogue Editor and Daily Telegraph columnist.
Opinion-makers on The Spectator include Milton Shulman and Mark Steyn. Samantha Weinberg is Features Editor at Harpers & Queen. Vogue Editor Alexandra Shulman also writes a column in the Daily Telegraph, which she has used to promote clothes designers such as Tommy Hilfilger. Also busy at Vogue are Picture Editor Isabella Kullman, Account Manager Rachel Raelevy, Assistant to the Publishing Director Emma Halpin, and Chairman Daniel Salem. Contributors include Rhoda Koenig and Nigella Lawson. Deirdre Vine is Editor of Woman's Journal, Sarah Bravo is Managing Editor of Ideal Home. Just 17 and More - both widely criticised for publishing explicit and liberal sex advice for their young readers - have on their respective staff lists Jews like Piers Wenger and Deborah Selner, and Tony Cross and Trish Halpin. Deborah Selner is Promotion Arts Editor on both magazines.
Felix Dennis - one of the three defendants in the infamous 1971 Oz obscenity trial - now publishes many magazines, including the world's most successful CD-ROM magazine, Blender.
The "up-market" men's G.Q. has among its Contributing Editors James Bloom, Peter Koenig, David Cohen, Chris Peachment and Christopher Silvester, while Jo Levin is Fashion Director. A glance at virtually any newsstand magazine will reveal a similar situation, with significant Jewish input on publications ranging from Empire movie magazine to New Woman, Cosmopolilan to Vanity Fair.
A detailed examination of the question of who controls the book publishing houses is another area beyond the scope of this slim study, but a brief overview reveals much the same situation as with the rest of the mass media. In addition to its interests noted above, the Pearson Group owns not only the Financial Times Group and, in partnership with N. M. Rothschild merchant bank, the rabidly internationalist prophet of the global economy The Economist magazine. Pearson also owns the major publishing companies Penguin and Longman. The editor of the Financial Times, Michael Lambert, addressed a Jewish Care business group meeting in November 1995. His Assistant Editor is Samuel Brittan.
The Chief Executive Chairman of the Longman Group is Paula Kahn. Simon & Schuster is only part of the publishing division of Sumner Redstone's Viacom empire, which also owns US publishers Prentice Hall and Pocket Books. Random House, the largest publisher in the USA and a major player in the UK industry, is owned by Samuel and Donald Newhouse. Their Advance Publications holding company is worth an estimated $ 8 billion, and includes 26 daily newspapers, 87 cable TV stations and some two dozen major magazines, including up-market titles such as Vogue, Vanity Fair and Mademoiselle.
Bob Gavron - a "proud" but non-religious Jew, and bank-roller of Tony Blair.
Feminist Jenny Abramsky, Radio 5 supremo, also works with the British Journalism Review.
Hamlyns was founded by 1940s refugee Paul Hamlyn, who sold the company before setting up Octopus, which he in turn sold to Reed for £ 535 million and 22.1 million Reed shares. His close friend Bob Gavron is another publishing millionaire, having sold his St. Ives printing company in 1993. He then bought The Folio, the up-market book club which specialises in reprinting classics, and provided the money to set up the Virago press. Gavron is one of the small band of Jewish millionaires who have financed Tony Blair' s redesigning of the Labour Party. Apart from his own half-million pound donation, Gavron was also appointed as a member of the party's key fund-raising committee for the general election. Paul Hamlyn alone has kicked in £ 600,000.
The Managing Director of Andre Deutsch is T. G. Rosenthal, who is also prominent at The Bookseller. It is worth noting the familiar pattern of Jewish predominance in influential institutions at the top of the industry. Louis Baum is Editor of The Bookseller, and that British Journalism Review is edited by Geoffrey Goodman and has Jewish Care's 1990 Woman of Distinction Jenny Abramsky on its Editorial Board. Longman hotshot Paula Kahn is the President of the Publishers' Asssociation, and Chief Executive of the English Teaching Advisory Committee.
Who controls Hollywood?
Since the vast majority of the films shown on British cinema and TV screens are imported from America, it is impossible to comment on the power of the mass media to mould and direct public opinion in Britain without looking at the ownership of the US movie industry, centred in Hollywood.
In his acclaimed book, An Empire of Their Own, How the Jews Invented Hollywood, Neal Gabler pointed to the Jewish origins of Hollywood, under movie pioneers such as Louis B. Mayer and Irving Thalberg. "Of 85 names engaged in production", a 1936 survey noted, "53 are Jews. And the Jewish advantage holds in prestige as well as numbers." Little has changed since then; in a recent Premiere magazine "Special Power Issue" - ranking the 100 most powerful people in the "Industry" - the top 12 were Jewish. No black or British industry executives were even ranked. Every so often, a Gentile journalist or actor comments on this, and is invariably forced to make a grovelling apology within a matter of hours.
Marlon Brando, for example, hit the headlines in April 1996, when he denounced the Jewish-run movie establishment for exploiting racial stereotypes, telling the Lany King Show that:
"We have seen the nigger, we have seen the greaseball, we have seen the chink, the slit-eyed dangerous Jap. ... but we never saw the kike because they know perfectly well that's where you draw the wagons around... Hollywood is run by Jews, owned by Jews and they should have greater sensitivity."
The largest media conglomerate is the Walt Disney Company, whose Chairman and CEO is Michael Eisner. 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 and Buena Vista Television), its own cable network, and two video production companies.
As for feature films, the Walt Disney Picture Group, headed by Joe Roth, includes Touchstone Pictures, Hollywood Pictures and Caravan Pictures. Disney also owns Miramax Films, run by the Weinstein brothers.
When the Disney Company was run by the Gentile Disney family prior to its takeover by Eisner in 1984, it epitomised wholesome family entertainment. While it still holds the rights to various classic children' s favourites, under Eisner - whose personal fortune is estimated at $ 405 million - the company has expanded into the production of graphic sex and gratuitous violence. And Disney' s recent productions aimed at children have developed an extremely unhealthy "politically correct" message. It is even rumoured that Eisner et al are planning to make a new production with a "Holocaust"- theme!
On the back of its film production, Disney has built a worldwide entertainment empire, owning Disneyland, Disney World, Epcot Center, Tokyo Disneyland and Euro Disney. The company sells well over a billion dollars worth of consumer products every year, principally books, toys and clothing. Some of the profits from this enormous operation funded Eisner's 1995 takeover of Capital Cities/ABC Inc., to create a media conglomerate with annual sales of $ 16.5 billion. Capital Cities/ABC not only controls 235 TV stations in the United States, but also has extensive interests in European TV companies.
Probably even more influential than Disney is the international media leviathan Times Warner, Inc. Chairman of the Board and CEO is Gerald Levin. Warner Music is by far the world's largest record company, with 50 labels, the biggest of which is Warner Brothers Records, headed by Danny Goldberg. Another Jew, Stuart Hersch, is the President of the company's video production operation, Warnervision.
In addition to music and huge interests in US cable TV, Time Warner is heavily involved in the production of feature films through Warner Brothers Studio. Its publishing division, dominated by Editor-in-Chief Norman Pearlstine, is the largest magazine publisher in the world.
Time Warner and Disney were among the most generous backers of Bill Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign, a victory which, according to the Jewish Chronicle of 1st November, 1996, took "Jewish influence in Washington" to "historic hights".
Time Warner's Gerald Levin gained an enormous amount of extra power with his takeover of Turner Broadcasting System in 1996. Founded by self-made media tycoon Ted Turner, TBS included the highly influential TV news network CNN, an operation which for a few years provided a potential alternative to the otherwise completely Jewish-controlled American news network. Although Turner is a Gentile, his career - and the reaction of the rival media bosses to it - provide an important insight into the monopolistic attitude of the people who have developed a stranglehold on the electronic news and entertainment industry.
Having made a fortune in advertising and cable TV, in 1985 Turner made a bid to buy CBS - an acquisition which would have given him control of an enormous slice of the influential news broadcasting industry. Although Turner had employed a number of Jews in key executive positions in CNN and had never taken a public position contrary to Jewish interests, he is a man with a large ego and a strong personality, and was regarded by CBS Chairman William Paley and his fellow executives as uncontrollable: a loose cannon who might at some stage in the future give them problems. Furthermore, 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 theatre, hotel, insurance and cigarette magnate Laurence Tisch to launch a "friendly" takeover of the company. This went ahead, with Tisch becoming the Chairman and CEO of CBS, removing any threat of non-Jewish influence there.
Turner now appears to have adopted the line "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." His sale of CNN to Time Warner means that the only rival to the network news operations is now also in the hands of the usual people.
Viacom, Inc, headed and 76 per cent owned by Sumner Redstone (born Murray Rothstein) is the third largest megamedia corporation in the US, with revenues of over $ 10 billion a year. As well as owning a major network of TV and radio stations, Viacom produces and distributes TV programmes, while feature films are handled by its subsidiary Paramount Pictures, headed by Sherry Lansing. Viacom is also involved in satellite broadcasting, theme parks and video games, and its 4,000-store Blockbuster video rental chain is now spreading rapidly through Britain.
Another major Hollywood power is MCA-Universal Pictures. For a while this was owned by the Japanese electronics firm Matsushita. Even though MCA's former owner Lew Wasserman and his sidekick Sidney Sheinberg were kept on as the top executives, there was clearly concern in certain circles at the risk involved in not having such a studio under complete control. This unsatisfactory situation was, however, resolved early in 1996 when Canadian-based alcohol giant Seagram brought a controlling interest in MCA.
Michael Ovitz: "The most powerful man in Hollywood".
The Seagram empire was founded by Samuel Bronfman, who made his fortune shipping liquor to bootleggers during Prohibition. The Chief Executive today is his grandson, president of the World Jewish Congress, Edgar Bronfman Jr. Seagram has long been a financial and organisational mainstay of the massively powerful Zionist lobby in North America, and its boss is wellknown for his belief in the financial and opinion-forming power of "multi-media" and related elements of the information superhighway. He is a close friend of Hollywood deal-broker Michael Ovitz. According to the Daily Telegraph of 6th January, 1997, Ovitz is often described as "Hollywood's most powerful man." On his recent resignation as president of Walt Disney, he received a severance package of $ 69.5 million.
Sony - Columbia
Another Japanese company which put some noses out of joint by buying a chunk of Hollywood was Sony, which took over Victor Kaufman's Columbia Pictures in 1989 for $ 3.4 billion and $ 1.2 billion in assumed debt. It is clear that the Japanese were only interested in the profits from successful movies and were quite happy to leave the everyday running to the "experts", but this did not stop a concerted media campaign against the perils of allowing the American entertainment industry to fall into the hands of outsiders! Headlines about "Pearl Harbor - the Sequel" were followed by the filming of Rising Sun, the thriller dealing with the relentless ambition of Japan and its threat to the US. Directed by Philip Kaufman - who managed to work into the script a scene of a Japanese playboy using a naked American girl as a dining table - this was the kind of crude incitement to racial hatred usually reserved for the wicked Germans.
Under attack from outside, Sony were also stung by the reckless and inexplicably incompetent management of Peter Guber, who had been recommended to run the show by Walter Yetkinoff, the Chairman of CBS Records. After a series of shattering flops, Sony were rumoured to be thinking of selling up. Discussing the fiasco, David Puttnam, who ran Columbia during the mid-eighties, gave an interesting insight into the mentality of their rivals: "The Japanese are probably congenitally incapable of managing a movie studio. That's not to insult them, it's simply a result of the very ordered way their minds work. I think the Germans are likely to also prove incapable of managing a movie studio."
Puttnam went on to suggest that since all Sony needed was access to Columbia's back catalogue and future best-sellers, the situation could be resolved by a clever lawyer who could "unbundle" the company: "The unbundling will involve Sony hanging on to the core rights they require, with future production and investment taken over by someone else, someone probably more competent or more naive."
In the meantime, things now seem to be pretty much in order, with Alan Levine heading the Sony Pictures Division, and the financial management of the Sony Corporation of America having been placed in the hands first of Michael Schulhof, and then of Sony's US Executive Vice President, Jeff Sagansky. Lucy Fisher recently took over as acting Chairman of Columbia TriStar itself, following the removal of Mark Canton after a further series of box-office flops.
Dreamworks and others
Most of the smaller film production companies are also controlled by Jews. For example, New World Entertainment, described as "the premier independent TV program producer in the United States," is owned by Ronald Perelman, and chaired by Brandon Tartikoff (formerly the Head of Entertainment Programming at NBC).
Dreamworks SKG was formed in 1994 by recording industry mogul David Geffen (who lists his interests as "AIDS, Israel and other causes"), former Disney Pictures Chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg, and film director Steven Spielberg. With the connections and wealth of these three, Dreamworks looks set to become a major force in the entertainment world.
A similar picture of massively disproportionate Jewish influence pertains throughout the US television, radio and newspaper industries, but these fall outside the scope of this study. An exception to this has to be the career of Aaron Spelling, since so many of his television programmes are shown on British TV - indeed all around the world. The Guinness Book of Records credits Spelling with having produced more hours of programming than anyone else on earth. The recipe for this remarkable success was described in the Sunday Telegraph magazine of 29th Septeber 1996 as "lush tales of sex, greed and venality, and thickened with handpicked casts of raffish swindlers and siliconeboosted ubervixens." Spelling is responsible for such cultural masterpieces as Charlie 's Angels, Fantasy Island, Beverly Hills 90210 and Dynasty.
In answer to criticism that such programmes are lightweight pap, Spelling draws attention to productions such as And The Band Played On, which dealt with AIDS and explains the rationale behind his "softly-softly" approach to social issues:
"Put out a documentary about teenage drug use and kids don't watch it. But if you introduce the same subject in one of our programmes they will be talking about it the next day at school. We can make these topics relevant and approachable, and that is one of the things we are simply never given credit for."
This is certainly true, but - with many of the subjects - what is deserved is not credit.
Spelling is known both as a compulsive liar and a recluse. His only party at his $ 45 million home in California was thrown in honour of the Prince of Wales as a personal favour for Spelling's old friend Lew Wasserman, head of the giant MCA entertainment combine.
|February 28th, 2008||#14|
Rupert Murdoch Praises His PR Exec Howard Rubenstein
HOWARD RUBENSTEIN, the quintessential PR professional, usually takes a back seat and lets his clients bask in the spotlight. But this was Howard's time to shine as the Museum of Jewish Heritage-A Living Memorial to the Holocaust. [... Rupert Murdoch] explained at a Museum of Jewish Heritage dinner at the Waldorf-Astoria that, "I have always believed in the future of Israel and the goals of the international Jewish community".
|March 14th, 2008||#15|
Yes, I'm afraid of offending Jews
by John Derbyshire, February 27, 2007
From: John Derbyshire
To: Joey Kurtzman
Subject: The Marx of the Anti-Semites
The title of my review, “The Marx of the Anti-Semites,” was thought up by one of the editors of The American Conservative, most probably Scott McConnell. My own suggested title for the piece was “The Jew Thing.” I don’t actually think that “The Marx of the Anti-Semites” is a very good title. Kevin MacDonald is a more conscientious social scientist than Marx was; and while dedicated antisemites use MacDonald for supporting evidence, they probably think him a bit of a milksop for not condemning the “Zionist Menace” more frankly and forcefully.
Working back through your questions: Yes, indeed I was, and am, “afraid of offending Jews.” Of course I am! For a person like myself, a Gentile who is a very minor name in American opinion journalism, desirous of ascending to some slightly less minor status, ticking off Jews is a very, very bad career strategy. I approached the MacDonald review with great trepidation. I gave my honest opinion, of course—the entire point of my line of work is to speak your mind and get paid for it—but I’ll admit I was nervous. Reading the review again, I think it shows.
I have somewhere formulated Derbyshire’s Law, which asserts that: “ANYTHING WHATSOEVER said by a Gentile about Jews will be perceived as antisemitic by someone, somewhere.” I have experienced the truth of this many times. Further, I have the awful example of William Cash before me. Cash wrote an article titled “Kings of the Deal” for The Spectator back in 1994, pointing out, in a perfectly inoffensive way (and, of course, quite truly) that lots of Hollywood movers and shakers are Jewish. You can google the consequences.
Why is Derbyshire’s Law true? I am not sure. It seems to me that Jews have a very strong preference that their Jewishness not be noticed. They want to “pass” as much as possible.
I remember thinking how strange it was, in that special issue of The New Republic devoted to The Bell Curve, that Leon Wieseltier should declare himself “repulsed” at the suggestion, by Charles Murray and Richard J. Herrnstein, that Jews have higher intelligence than Gentiles.
“What an odd thing to say!” I thought to myself. “Why, if someone were to say that my common-ancestry group was smarter than others, I’d be proud!” But that was a very Jewish reaction on Wieseltier’s part. It’s not hard to see why this should be so, historically. Remember all those Jewish jokes with the punch line: “How many times do I have to tell you, Sammy—don’t make trouble!” I am sure Kevin MacDonald has an explanation for it somewhere, though I can’t recall a specific passage.
Were Scott McConnell and Pat Buchanan similarly fearful of being thought to have gotten the Jew Thing? I don’t know. You had better ask them yourself. I don’t know Pat very well, so I can’t speak to his case. I do know Scott quite well, and I am quite sure he is not an antisemite in any sense in which I understand the word. He does believe that Israel, via her lobbies in the USA, has a distorting effect on U.S. Middle Eastern policy; but that is (at least in Scott’s case) a geostrategic judgment, and not antisemitic.
What are we to think of MacDonald and his books? My own opinion of MacDonald is that he is a plain reactionary, at least so far as the Jews in America are concerned. Someone described George Orwell as being in love with 1910. I think MacDonald is in love with 1950—with the old Gentile supremacy, when Jews were kept out of golf clubs and hotels advertised themselves on their stationery as “near churches” (translation: No Jews, please). He doesn’t wish any harm to Jews, but I do think he resents the disproportionate representation of Jews in the media, the academy, and other elites.
I’ll confess I can’t work up any indignation about this. It’s not an unreasonable point of view, though I don’t share it—I still haven’t got the Jew Thing.
I like my elites to be as smart as possible, and, yes (sorry, Mr. Wieseltier), Jews in general are much smarter than the rest of us. Who doesn’t know it? But there is nothing more normal in human beings than group partiality—a fondness for one’s own group, and some measure of negativity toward other groups. That’s just human nature, and I do think it’s silly and counterproductive to pretend human nature is other than what it is.
We are social animals, and we organize ourselves into groups, and develop group loyalties and hostilities, as naturally as we eat and love. Nasty things happen if our groupiness gets out of control, of course; but you could say the same of eating and loving, or any other aspect of human nature. Here comes the need for ethical and legal systems, also very human.
I therefore approached MacDonald’s work dispassionately, interested to see what he has to say. I found his first two books tough-going, jargony, and not very well written. The Culture of Critique, though, is an interesting book, and I think he says things that are true, uncomfortably true—for example about the tendency, on the part of 20th-century Jewish-led intellectual movements like the Frankfurt School, to pathologize Gentile culture.
I was glad to see that someone had written about these things in a non-vituperative way. They are things that occur to any thoughtful American sooner or later, and it is satisfying to see someone who’s done a lot of reading on these topics, trying to fit them into some kind of coherent social-historical framework.
Is MacDonald’s analysis a correct one? Partly correct? Totally incorrect? Well, I guess we’ll get to that in our exchanges. I registered some of my doubts about The Culture of Critique in my review of it. I have since acquired some more. After reading Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century, for instance, I have a much clearer idea about the role of Jews in the Bolshevik revolution, a view at odds with much of what MacDonald says.
Before passing the ball back to you, though, Joey, I have a question. My eye was stopped dead by your use of the word Jewess. Is this word still current? I myself used it, in all innocence, about 10 years ago, and was sternly reprimanded by several people (this was on an email discussion group). Perhaps this is a word that Jews may use, but Gentiles may not? Give me a ruling, please.
|March 14th, 2008||#16|
[Indicates that Whites feel the need to produce their own media to get around the blockade imposed by the culture-distorting nation-wreckers known as jews.]
A New Webzine: Introducing The Occidental Observer
The Occidental Observer will present original content touching on the themes of white identity, white interests, and the culture of the West. Such a mission statement is sure to be dismissed as extremism of the worst sort in today’s intellectual climate—perhaps even as a sign of psychiatric disorder. Yet there is a compelling need for such a site. A great many other identifiable groups in the multicultural West have a strong sense of identity and interest, but overt expressions of white identity and white interests (or European-American identity and interests) are rarely found among the peoples who founded these societies and who continue to make up the majority.
This is a completely unnatural state of affairs—the result of a prolonged assault on the legitimacy of these concepts by cultural elites that have dominated public discourse on issues of race and ethnicity since before World War II. We reject labels such as “white supremacist” or “racist” that are routinely bestowed on assertions of white identity and interests as a means of muzzling their expression. All peoples have ethnic interests and all peoples have a legitimate right to assert their interests, to construct societies that reflect their culture, and to define the borders of their kinship group.
We are highly cognizant of the fact that many of the most strident critics of the legitimacy of white identity and interests have a strong sense of their own ethnic identity and interests. And they have a deep sense of the importance of preserving their people and culture. Non-Western peoples throughout the world continue to seek political power, and they attempt to control their borders, establish their own cultures, and defend their perceived interests.
Societies in Europe, North America, Australia, and New Zealand that have been controlled by whites for hundreds of years are the only ones to accept their own demise as a moral imperative. We view this outcome as the result of competition over the construction of culture in which the legitimate interests of whites have been compromised.
The Occidental Observer will attempt to rectify that. Major themes will be the bankruptcy of the current culture of the West, the powerful forces of political orthodoxy, and the debasement of the political process in the areas of both foreign and domestic policy.
The situation is particularly worrisome because present demographic trends, especially massive non-white immigration into Western countries, threaten to make whites a minority in these societies within the foreseeable future. Most whites have a gut feeling that the present trends do not bode well for their future and for the prospects of their descendants. We predict that whites will develop a stronger sense of their own identity and interests as a natural outcome of becoming a minority. We are simply ahead of the curve—an unsettling harbinger of things to come.
Whereas The Occidental Quarterly specializes in longer articles and reviews, The Occidental Observer will be more like a newspaper. We will feature op-ed-length articles and reviews, as well as shorter comments on news stories and current events. Every effort will be made to be topical, readable, and intellectually stimulating.
Our content will reflect a deep concern with intellectual honesty and with making claims that are consistent with scientific evidence. Our opponents have erected an intellectual milieu that is scientifically indefensible and that can only be supported by increasingly heavy-handed methods, such as ostracism, removal from employment, and vilification by the cultural and media establishment.
Such “speaking truth to power” is obviously fraught with danger—so much so, that the editorial collective and some of our writers must remain anonymous. We look forward to a future where such tactics will not be necessary. In the meantime, we will do all we can to provide a worldview that is simultaneously intellectually stimulating, scientifically defensible, and pregnant with implications for the future.
October 1, 2007
|March 14th, 2008||#17|
[It's not just the U.S. whose media are controlled by jews; it's Sweden, too.]
[A Swede writes us...]
Just wanted to say that the jews in sweden own the media to almost 100%. We have the Bonnier family ( http://www.bonnier.se/Default.aspx?epslanguage=SV ) that are very powerfull in the media. They have 150 companies and 12000 employes in 20 countrys.
Then we have Peter Hjörne another jew that owns Stampen AB ( http://www.stampen.com/ ). He own over 25 swedish newspapers and other companies linked to the media.
when Schildler's List came to Sweden the jew Peter Hjörne payed all 9th graders in gothenburg (2nd largest city in ) sweden to see that propaganda movie and yes I was one of them who was forced to see it.
And the biggest newspaper in Sweden Aftonbladet has a jewish Chefeditor in charge Helle Klein grandchild to Rabbi Gottlieb Klein.
Another jew in media is Robert Aschberg who owns Strix television that produces tvshow for big tvchannels in sweden. He is a big donar to Expo the swedish version of ADL.
There are only 20 000 jews in Sweden (0.2%) and still they controll almost all media. This pattern is the same all around white countrys.
The jews have started this mess in Sweden. They are only against muslims caus they fight back against them but dont care if savage african cristiams comes to Sweden. They controll every mind here we are far worse then any country in the world exept SA. White males have become girls and dress upp like faggots. Girls are like men and they love the niggers.
|March 15th, 2008||#18|
Join Date: Jul 2006
South Africa: Don't dare say the word black...
|March 24th, 2008||#19|
[Everyone but leftist jew media critics looks at MSM and sees the same thing: they are controlled by jews]
Nasrallah: Zionists control media
Hizbullah holds memorial service for assassinated top commander; Nasrallah tells crowd via satellite, 'we see unprecedented Zionist and American infiltration of the media;
Can Israel disappear? A thousand times, yes'
Hizbullah marks 40-day anniversary of Mugniyah killing: Thousands of Hizbullah supporters made their way to southern Beirut Monday in order to take part in a rally in the honor of Hizbullah's top commander, Imad Mugniyah, assassinated in Damascus in February.
Speaking via satellite, Hizbullah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah told the crowd "we found in our enemy nothing but concern and fear of Mugniyah's spirit, blood, revenge, way, and pledge.
"We are celebrating 40 days to the death of the martyr commander. These are festive days for Muslims and Christians," he said.
"Can Israel disappear? A thousand times, yes."
The Hizbullah leader charged that people should be free to question the Holocaust.
"Why is it that when it comes to the Zionists everyone is silent?" Nasrallah said. "When a great philosopher arrives and raises questions about the Holocaust, he is being judged. We condemn that."
"We see unprecedented Zionist and American infiltration of the media. They want to undermine our nation's consciousness. They want the end result to be our surrender," he said.
Prior to the event, held at a mosque in the Shiite Dahiya neighborhood, a Hizbullah stronghold, the terror group called on its followers to attend the "rally of loyalty to the blood of the fighter."
Earlier Monday, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said that Hizbullah's threats in the wake of Mugniyah's killing must not be taken lightly
Speaking during a visit to a West Bank crossing in southern Mount Hebron, Barak said Israel must "keep its eyes open." Following Mugniyah's assassination, Hizbullah leaders blamed Israel for the killing.
|November 25th, 2008||#20|
[story behind Free American, whose publisher is a motorcycle guy and ex-patriotard who woke up to the jew]
FREE AMERICAN MAGAZINE GONE?
NO, IT IS BIGGER AND BETTER NOW THAN IT WAS BEFORE BUT IT IS ALL ONLINE NOW!
Publisher Clay Douglas tells why he made this decision.
This is about the fourth rewrite of this column. What I wanted to do was explain how and why I have been unable to get back into the swing of things and get the Free American roaring again as I have in the past. But after reading my own account of the trouble I have had, I was going over 2 pages and had not even got to the announcements I needed to make concerning the Free American Magazine and website. And looking over it I decided what I had written was a “poor me, look what a loser I am, suicide note.” Or “Just another paranoid guy crying, “the government is out to get me!” While the thought of suicide has crossed my mind far too often in the last four years, I cannot do that because that means “They” whoever they are, would win.
So allow me to condense the last four years into one paragraph. I was hit while on my Harley. Spent 3 months drugged into unconscious, woke up to learn I had lost everything including my wife of 24 years and the magazine I had been publishing for 10. I put out a call for donations or investments and got in over 1 million dollars but it was all in forged checks. A new slander campaign forced me to close my motorcycle magazine in Phoenix. People who wanted to help were shot or jailed, evidently by people with the ability to tap my phones. An attempt was even made on my friend Ted Gunderson, former FBI Director of LA Branch. Money sent to me by Western Union was not delivered because I was suddenly on a “Government Watch List”. I lost four computers and all of my weapons, gold and silver in 2 break ins. Three computers and one truck were fried without any apparent cause. Either I have a bad luck streak that is a record setter or someone somewhere really hates me and what I do. Many of my contemporaries fared worse. Bill Cooper was killed outside his home by local cops who set him up. Casey Nethercott was shot coming out of Safeway with my breakfast. Mark Koernke did time in Prison for a bank robbery he had nothing to do with. Patriots All!
Between the rising cost of gas, printing and mailing and working alone, I was not able to do the layout, write the stories, run credit cards, keep the website updated, find a publisher for my novels, do my radio show every week day and sell enough advertising to be able to publish every month as I had for ten previous years. But the bills came in every month.
I was forced to sell my property in Bingham and managed to get out a few more powerful issues of the Free American but the candidates I supported for President, Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin, were never allowed to reach the American people with their sound policies. And I was never allowed to be in close contact with the candidates by their staffs to allow us to work closely together as I did when Charles Collins was a Presidential Candidate. Thus, the Republican Party and the Media did the same things to these candidates. Ignored them!
The pressure and the problems and the loneliness took its toll on my productivity. Each night I fell asleep staring at the one pistol I had left and wondering who I was doing this for and why I was doing it. Two little dogs and a picture of my Granddaughter keep me from taking an irreversible course.
I am sitting here reading what I wrote in the very first issue of the Free American in 1994. I said, “Whether you believe in conspiracies or not, the crisis’s we are facing is very real. Our government is taking our money and using it to prop itself up. It is borrowing today for luxuries like foreign aid when it already owes more than it can ever repay. It is opening our doors to immigrants when we cannot even feed our own poor, or provide housing for the homeless Americans. It is raising the price of doing business until our businessmen, farmers and ranchers can no longer cover their overhead. It hypnotizes you with pretty pictures on TV while it picks your pocket. You are being taught to fear your neighbors when you should be joining hands with them. Your ability and your will to protect yourself are being undermined to force you to accept the protection of a police state.”
Those words I wrote so many years ago were true then and they are true now! They have been backed up and confirmed in over one hundred plus issues that I have gotten out to an American public. They sounded radical and alarmist then, but the events today and in between have confirmed my words as prophetic, over and over again.
I made the decision to close down Thunder Riders because I felt that with the way current events were going, the American public needed a clear insight into the plan for one world government and what it meant to all Americans. The money power of the bankers made it possible for them to buy all of the Television stations and control most of the new outlets. That gives them almost unlimited control over what we know and what we think. It was called psychopolitics in the Soviet Union and it is being used on us now.
Our only defense is an informed enlightened populous. The Free American was read consistently by such men as Gen. Benjamin Partin and Congressman Dr. Ron Paul and helped shape the freedom movement that Ron Paul has put together. An MJTF officer made the statement after reading the Free American is that the only problem with the Free American is that I was not printing a million copies.
Printing ten thousand copies without advertising to back it up was difficult and almost broke me. I have never had much outside advertising in this magazine but I supported it with ten thousand loyal subscribers, listeners over the shortwave. After the accident much of that support went away.
I have allowed myself to become isolated. I moved back to Bingham but the lack of available help and resources made it problematic to remain there. I sold the home I had raised my sons in to be able to continue the Free American but the help and support I believed would materialize didn’t.
My subscribers did not come back in mass after over a year of non-publishing. Some died, some like John Trochmann, gave up the fight and tried to put together a normal life outside the spotlights. Many became frightened by the ongoing suppression of “tax Protester. Militia men, “Vigilantes” like the Minutemen. They were afraid to get their names on the “Lists”. They wanted to stay “below the radar”. Few in the Patriot Movement stepped up to the plate for me as they considered me competition. Too many talk show hosts try to frighten you. I want to make you stronger and fearless.
Whether it is fear or envy matters little. Whether my troubles stem from the government or private agencies like the ADL or AIPAC or just individuals with a grudge, matters even less. “In the beginning a Patriot is a scarce man!” Remember, it has NEVER been easy to be FREE!
By focusing my efforts on the website, and opening up your paid exposure to film and audio feeds carefully reviewed by me as all of my articles in the past have been, I think the Free American will become even more powerful and influence more men like Ron Paul who was a subscriber for years before running for President. I hope that I played a part in creating his love for Liberty and Freedom.
The attempts to demonize me by calling me Anti-Semitic and a racist is becoming less and less effective because of my willingness to allow Zionist supporting Jews on my radio show. My guests also include highly intelligent black men and all other races in my pages and on my show.
While I agree with some of the statements made by people in the Aryan Nations and KKK I have had on my show as far as the bias against white men, I have told them that every time they slander blacks, Chinese or Mexicans, they are shooting themselves in the foot. We are all Americans and should be working together with our own people to oppose the slavery trying to be foisted on us by the NWO Globalists. Diversity is not the answer, Unity is. The one phrase the Aryan Nations use that I agree with is, “Be proud of your race.” I would add to that, Be Proud of OUR country.
If you want to help please make a donation or subscribe to the New Internet Phenomena called the Free American. If nothing else, remember George Carlin’s words, “They do not want an informed, intelligent people.” While I supported Charles Collins, Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin, they did nothing to support me. In the end they were just politicians, better than most but incapable of making a change in a system rigged for the benefit of the elite. My publication, my words, my research can and have made a difference. I look at answers as well as problems. I speak for the common man, and as Brother Dave Gardner said, “God must have loved the common man ‘cause he made so many of them!
We have more power to change things than Obama. The Free American is about Americans helping Americans. We can choose NOT to be slaves if we all stand up together. Put behind you the loyalty to either party and become Free Americans.
So subscribe and donate to me, if for no other reason, after all of their failed attempts to kill, demonize and sideline me, it will just piss them off!
To help you make a decision that will determine if I can continue to do this see the next issue of the Free American. If I get some support it will not be the last edition. It has 300 years of factual history to help you understand what the bailouts, the elections and the planned new world order is going to be like if people like me are sidelined or ignored. Go to: http://freeamerican.com/index_bak.htm for a free peek at this issue.
Clayton R. Douglas