Some Iraq network TV logos
2,519 words
It is instructive to look at what Jewish-Leftist forces do when they overthrow nations. In particular, how do they use the media, especially television, in conquered countries to mold elites and masses to their will?
The American invasion and occupation of Iraq furnishes an example.
In 2012 Iraq’s population was 27.5 million, roughly equal to Texas’s 26.1 million, but less than California’s 38 million. Its 437,072 sq. km. size makes it bigger than Texas but smaller than Alaska, 0.8 x the area of France or 1.2 x the area of Germany.
Economically and socially, Iraq in 2003 was a Third World country weakened by 8 years of war with Iran in the 1980s, the Persian Gulf War of 1990–91, and years of Jewish and “Western” economic, political, and intelligence agency sabotage, subversion, assassinations, and infiltration.
The US invaded the country on March 20, 2003. Having been meticulously isolated beforehand, Iraq had no allies.
Pretexts for the invasion included charges that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, harbored or supported al-Qaeda, possessed “weapons of mass destruction” (a propaganda term for nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons possessed by the aggressors and Israel), abused “human rights,” or that the invaders sought to impose “democracy.”
None of this was true. Quite simply, Jews wanted Iraq destroyed, so the US and the rest of the world destroyed it.
Rule #1: Destroy What They Have
Shutting down Iraq’s television system was a top priority of the invasion forces.
In the 1990 Persian Gulf War the US destroyed Iraq’s main telecommunications building on the second day of the attack.
In 2003 the US Air Force struck Iraqi television with an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) device, or “E-Bomb,” to destroy what the US called Saddam Hussein’s “propaganda machine.” (See here for a sketchy report about the use of the highly secret weapon, the existence of which the Pentagon refused even to acknowledge. Note that the 2009 date on the CBS site makes no sense; the correct date of the report is March 25, 2003. To verify this, see footnote 296 of a 2010 law review article, “Requirement of Military Necessity in International Humanitarian Law and International Criminal Law.”)
“Television,” according to a contemporaneous ABC News report, “is one of the biggest propaganda tools Saddam Hussein has as he completely controls the airwaves.” ABC, however, omitted any mention of the EMP device.
Hussein called for mass uprisings against the invaders. In a televised broadcast he said to the Iraqi people:
The enemy has violated your lands and now they are violating your tribes and families. If you cause them any damage, no matter how small, they will flee. Don’t wait for our orders. Just fight them. Every one of you is a military leader. Fight them in small groups, hit their frontlines and their rear units so the whole advance will stop. And when it stops, attack them. If they deploy [prepare to fight], leave them alone, don’t fight them, but if they rest somewhere, attack.
To illustrate academia’s hand in all this, the 2003 ABC report quoted Sarah Sewall, then program director (later Director) of the Carr Center of Human Rights Policy (“human rights”—I like that), part of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. “Unless you cut off Saddam’s ability to portray an image of being in control, you have given him a huge military advantage,” she said.
Savvy readers will not be surprised at the Carr Center’s upscale digs.
Sewall, who is currently a Lecturer at Harvard University’s Kennedy School and a member of the US Defense Policy Board, has longstanding ties to senior levels of the Democratic Party, the Clinton and Obama Administrations, and the American military. She is married to Massachusetts State Representative Tom Conroy (D.), presumably Irish American, by whom she has four children.
“Sarah Sewall.” Such a New England-y, WASP-sounding name. So why are her looks a little off? Perhaps her Old Testament first name is a better guide to her identity than her last name.
If the good guys of the world ever gain any traction again, it will behoove them to think seriously about destroying the bad guys’ broadcasting facilities and establishing an alternative broadcast infrastructure. Of course, they will need the personnel, expertise, and resources required to do so, just as they will need the personnel, expertise, and resources required to set up a government and run a country.
Rule #2: Give Them What You Want Them to Have
Before the invasion, the Pentagon’s office of psychological operations and its Zionist Office of Special Plans division run by Jews Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith drafted a white paper outlining the establishment of a “Rapid Reaction Media Team” to serve as a bridge between Iraq’s former state-run media and what was to become the Occupation’s Iraqi Media Network (IMN).
As envisioned, the rapid reaction media team would create narratives designed to make Iraqis feel like they were North Koreans who turned off state television one night and in the morning turned on “the rich fare of South Korean TV.”
The US government would substitute new media to serve “as a model for free [sic] media in the Arab world,” including regulations against “hate media.”
“Hand-picked” Iraqis would provide “the face” for the media campaign. Plans for “Entertainment and News Magazine programming” ranked “Hollywood” above news shows in conveying US policy, though both would be used.
Important themes of the new media would include the “crimes” of the old regime, “Saddam’s palaces and opulence,” and “a bright new day.”
“Anti-terrorism” messages have also been important. Online you can watch 5 US-made commercials [4:30 mins., Arabic only] broadcast on Iraqi television that, in terms of style and psychology, look much like what we see every day: the brave, suffering “people” united against malign insurgents, all of whom are “terrorists.”
There is no reason to believe that Iraqi audiences don’t respond to controlled news, entertainment, and propaganda the same way other audiences worldwide do.
Though U.S. policy formally opposed Iraq’s geographical disintegration, the media would in fact emphasize internal divisions between Shi’a, Sunni, and Kurds.
An academic named Eric Davis, director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Rutgers University, is involved in reshaping Iraqi society through management of government, media, and academia there.
Part of his work focuses on rewriting Iraqi history to furnish a totalitarian, globalist narrative designed to fit Iraqi elites and masses. I don’t know whether Davis is Jewish (he doesn’t look it), part-Jewish, or married to a Jew, but he speaks perfect Newspeak.
Davis’s work is funded by the United States Institute of Peace (“Institute of Peace,” hah), a furtive federal neoconservative/neoliberal agency housed near the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC in an aesthetically ugly structure designed by Moshe Safdie, an Israeli architect in Canada who designed Jerusalem’s Yad Vashem Holocaust museum.
The “Institute of Peace” has been heavily involved in the Jewish-Allied conquest and subjugation of the Middle East.
In a publication of the Carnegie Council (President: Joel H. Rosenthal)—note the network of interlocking Establishment institutions—summarizing Davis’s federally-funded Iraq work, we read:
Iraq’s mass media and appropriate government ministries can be used in the effort to disseminate a better societal understanding of [pre-Ba’athist 1921–1963] developments. Because historical memory needs to be syncretic, they can choose forms of memory that resonate with the populace’s needs. This can be done, for example, through television programs, new educational curricula at the secondary school and university levels based not on imported norms but on [selective use of] Iraqi history, and through soliciting opinions from an array of [ideologically compatible] social groups, such as professional, labor and women’s groups, on how best to discuss the past in order to construct fora in which to launch the rebuilding [alteration] of Iraqi civil society. (Emphases added.)
Following the conquest, the US-Jewish network imposed a de-Ba’athification policy modeled partly after the de-Nazification of Germany after WWII and what was done to white South Africa after its takeover.
Since such policies are quite intentional, detailed examination of these massive, top-down political and cultural transformations should furnish a better understanding of exactly how Jews and Leftists control whites and others, as well as provide valuable insights into how positive revolutionary change might occur.
Since entire societies have deliberately been turned, politically, ideologically, and morally in very short periods of time in directions diametrically opposite to what they had been, the same process should work in reverse.
Another shadowy group with its finger in the Iraqi pie is the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs chaired by former Jewish Secretary of State Madeline Albright (D.).
The NDI was created by the US government through the National Endowment for Democracy and is affiliated with the Democratic Party, the Socialist International, the Liberal International, and the Centrist Democrat International (Christian Democrats). Among its projects is a “Diversity in Iraq” TV program [30 mins.].
The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) led by American proconsul L. Paul Bremer quickly developed a national FM-radio and TV channel allotment plan for all major Iraqi cities and towns. It began issuing radio and TV licenses to approved broadcasters in June 2003.
The Occupation forces also funded the Iraq Media Network, a government television outfit. The IMN evolved into today’s state-owned Al Iraqiya television network, one of the most-watched in Iraq together with privately-held Al-Sharqiya TV, mentioned below. The Al-Baghdadia network is also popular.
During the 9-year Occupation from 2003–2011, several state-run and nominally “private” TV networks were established, providing Iraqis with the kind of “57 channels with nothing on” entertainment Westerners are used to.
TV’s dominance in urban Iraq (7-city survey). Note a universal pattern in modern states: “discussions,” 1%
Entertainment Programming
According to the New York Times’ enthusiastic Baghdad bureau chief, There Is Someone‘s creators “wanted to see how far they could push the limits of what is acceptable on television here. So they settled on sex.” Five or six men sit in front of a studio audience and joke about “sexual satisfaction, adultery, drunkenness and women’s menstrual cycles.”
One of the show’s producers “wore black wraparound sunglasses and a gold chain” and greeted the Times‘ representative with “an elaborate handshake in the style used by rappers.”
The show, the Times enthused, is “subversive,” “challenges orthodoxies, social ideas, and traditions,” “pushes boundaries,” and introduces “Western-style notions of free speech.”
It has “become a national sensation. Bootleg DVDs of previous episodes are brisk sellers in the city’s markets.”
There Is Someone is broadcast over the Al Sumaria television network established in 2004 by a Lebanese businessman.
Salam Shabab recruits 14 to 18-year-olds (much of Iraq’s population is under age 35—click on “Iraq” for 2010 to see a graph of its population pyramid) from different races, religions and geographical backgrounds, most of whom have not previously interacted with people from different regions or left their hometowns, to compete in teams. The objective is to “promote diversity” in viewers’ minds.
Al-Sharqiya, “The Eastern One,” a private satellite TV network owned by Iraqi Saad al-Bazzaz, ranks with government-run Al Iraqiya (see above) and Saudi-owned news channel Al-Arabiya as the nation’s most popular.
Since its founding in 2004, Al-Sharqiya has offered a lineup laden with reality TV shows.
Labor and Materials (a local version of ABC’s Extreme Makeover: Home Edition) stars a home improvement crew that surprises a family each week by rebuilding its war-damaged home.
On Ration Card, $1,000 is given to a lucky family whose ration card number is drawn from a bin.
Blessed Wedding pays $6,000 of a poor couple’s wedding expenses in exchange for letting TV cameras film them from engagement to married life.
The Gentlemen profiles Iraqis who became wealthy from the booming Occupation economy.
Ramadan’s Riches sponsors needy children and families.
Your Meal On Us offers needy Iraqis food, a gift of $2,000, electrical appliances, and a luxury edition of the Koran.
On Free Cash (Al Rasheed TV) people are asked simple questions and receive the equivalent of $30 for each correct answer.
Al-Hawasin is a crime show about gangs and thieves.
Familiar formula: pretty, Westernized girls. Arab Iraqi TV Presenter Rosil Al Azawi.
A popular variety show is Caricateera (Caricatures), which “coincidentally” stars three Sunni Muslims, three Shiites, and one Kurd.
One year after the invasion, USA Today was as thrilled by Caricateera as the New York Times is with There Is Someone. The paper gushed, “It’s must-see TV for millions of Iraqis every Friday. Thousands more catch the show on bootleg videodiscs, which sell for less than $1.”
In one scene, a “6-foot-tall drag queen is trying to kiss a 4-foot-tall man [a dwarf]. Their antics are interrupted when they are caught by a woman who claims to be the drag queen’s mother.”
In another skit parodying telenovelas, Latin American soap operas that are popular in the Middle East, the drag queen, now wearing a dress with balled-up newspapers for breasts, plays a young woman in love with the dwarf’s character.
Al-Sharqiya owner Al-Bazzaz was formerly head of radio and television under Saddam Hussein until defecting in 1992. His current network was launched in March 2004. Al-Bazzaz is today a full-fledged media mogul, the so-called “Rupert Murdoch of Iraq.”
Al-Sharqiya may be a Zionist enterprise operated by an Iraqi front man. Its wealthy, high-status owner has long been associated with neoconservative Jews such as Daniel Pipes (1995 interview) and Michael Rubin, and was issued his broadcast license by Occupation authorities.
Iraqis receive Establishment satellite broadcasts from outside Iraq as well. I read that possession of satellite dishes was forbidden under the Ba’athist regime—presumably to forestall Zionist/Hollywood undermining of the nation. But I do not know whether it is true.
Resistance
Some broadcasters tried to resist, but were quickly quelled.
Notable in this regard was Al-Zawraa TV, an Iraqi satellite television channel known for airing video footage of insurgent attacks against US-led coalition forces.
The network featured the Global Islamic Media Front (GIMF)-produced show Hidden Camera Jihad, a video compilation of insurgents attacking US forces with slapstick-style soundtrack and video effects.
The station was owned by Mish’an al-Juburi, leader of the Sunni Arab Front for Reconciliation and Liberation, who was stripped of his parliamentary immunity in October 2006 after being accused of embezzlement.
He started his Al-Zawraa network the following month, but was immediately blocked from satellites. He switched to others, but they too dropped him. His network offices in Iraq were closed by Occupation forces, so he moved to Syria, but ultimately his broadcasts were jammed completely. The network lasted 7 or 8 months before disappearing in July 2007.
Unimpeded access to satellite television is probably a necessity for successful resistance movements today, so the mechanisms by which authorities or ethnic groups legally and illegally block dissident satellite broadcasts needs to be thoroughly understood. If you legally gain access, the odds are great that illegitimate means will be employed against you, as in every other venue.
Even in the absence of overt oppression, I suspect that Al-Zawraa’s combination of religious programming, encouragement of Jihad, and videos depicting violent action against US troops would have fallen flat in competition with talk shows featuring jokes about women’s menstrual cycles and comedy sketches in which drag queens smooch male dwarves.
“Quality” Hollywood-style entertainment wins out every time.
Ask any red-blooded American.
23 comments
Seems to be SOP:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jd9mNrnTwms
(…)
” In 2002 the Israeli military force marched into Ramallah and after they did that they took over the TV stations which is pretty much standard procedure but after they did that then something unusual happened. They started broadcasting pornography over the TV stations. This leads you to the question of why were they doing that.”
“I think anybody in his right mind knows that the Israeli’s are not interested in liberating the Palestinians unless we take liberation and a contemporary cultural sense and so you have to look some place else for the explanation… Everyone is supposed to be distracted from the fact that the Israeli’s have just taken over your town because all you are going to do is watch pornography, and that’s pretty much what the Shin-Bet’s and the CIA had in mind when this thing was proposed in the first place. So I think that that is pretty clear that that is the military application of pornography… its a weapon in cultural warfare and the group that controls the pornography ultimately ends up controlling the mind of the country where they have settled in.”
(…)
The Jews of Prime Time
http://www.amazon.com/Jews-Prime-Time-David-Zurawik/dp/1584652349
How did it happen that in a time when networks were run by Jewish men, and many television shows were written by Jewish writers, there were so few identifiably Jewish characters on television? In his provocative book, David Zurawik marshalls compelling evidence to suggest that, during television’s first thirty-five years, its primarily Jewish power brokers actively suppressed Jewish characters and Jewish themes from appearing on the small screen.
Beginning his investigation in the early days of television with Gertrude Berg and The Goldbergs, Zurawik, an award-winning journalist, shows how the Jewish founders of the three major networks–William S. Paley (CBS), David Sarnoff (NBC), and Leonard Goldenson (ABC)–dictated the kinds of shows Americans would watch from the late 1940s until they sold their broadcast empires in the mid-1980s. Under the auspices of these incredibly powerful men, the television industry either distorted or eliminated entirely images of Jews from prime time at the very moment when television came to hold center stage in mainstream American life. In fact, creating a cookie-cutter image of American life was so important to the top Jewish executives that they fabricated a brief, which circulated among the networks and became legendary in the industry. It claimed that CBS had “research” that indicated Americans were not interested in seeing Jews (or divorced people, people from New York, and men with mustaches) on the small screen. Zurawik convincingly argues that Paley and the others were ambivalent about their own Jewishness, and fearful, in the post-Holocaust, pro-assimilation, red-baiting 1950s, that their shows not appear “too Jewish.” The ironic result: with few exceptions, shows like Father Knows Best and Leave It to Beaver came to represent American family life, while Jewish identity was presented as something that had to be obscured or hidden away.
Only when the moguls sold their interest in the networks and moved on did things begin to change in a sustained way. Serious shows with leading Jewish characters began to appear in series like thirtysomething and Northern Exposure, which dealt with issues of tolerance, intermarriage, and assimilation. But in many of the programs that followed, particularly the sitcoms of the 1990s, Jewish men and especially Jewish women fell into stereotypical roles that Zurawik describes as “nebbishy boyfriends lusting after non-Jewish women” or “Jewish-American princesses and smothering mothers.” And, although Jewish characters are now plentiful on television, many are very nominally Jewish, or Jewish in name only. Despite the best efforts of the successors of Paley, Sarnoff, and Goldenson, the culture of Jewish self-consciousness and censorship lives on in network television today.
Based on more than one hundred interviews gathered over ten years with network executives, producers, and actors, Zurawik’s book gives voice to these insiders–who reveal, for the first time, how and why the depiction of Jews on television has followed such a strange, unpredictable course.
Great observations and discussion. Among your many talents is zeroing in on original and important topics.
I have liked Hussein ever since he dropped SCUD missles on Israel. I’m sure he was responsible for many horrible deeds, but certainly nothing on the scale or in the ballpark of the entities in DC and Tel Aviv.
“Unimpeded access to satellite television is probably a necessity for successful resistance movements today, so the mechanisms by which authorities or ethnic groups legally and illegally block dissident satellite broadcasts needs to be thoroughly understood. If you legally gain access, the odds are great that illegitimate means will be employed against you, as in every other venue.”
If you are talking about fully legal resistance movements that is a definite problem.
If it’s a situation of an IRA type organization in operation, you could have portable radio broadcast stations that roamed around. They could easily over power an official channel over a ten-block area if it’s more than 10 miles distance from an official air broadcast station.
I think most lower middle class and working class people still depend on talk radio reception from over air broadcast that are free.
Still and all if it ever got to the point that white dissident news was banned from public access TV or local newspapers and leaflet distribution were banned we’d have a tough problem.
“Even in the absence of overt oppression, I suspect that Al-Zawraa’s combination of religious programming, encouragement of Jihad, and videos depicting violent action against US troops would have fallen flat in competition with talk shows featuring jokes about women’s menstrual cycles and comedy sketches in which drag queens smooch male dwarves.”
Even if it didn’t inspire the 90% who are sheeple the 10% from whom actual commitment could be expected may well tune in.
Interesting…but it seems to this observer that every NeoCon plan for Iraq fell flat-crummy TV programming or no.
One thing, Iraqi refugees in the US that watched Al-Zawraa should be immediately deported, heck if they only heard of Al-Zawraa they should be deported.
The neo-cons failed?
Over a million dead Iraqis, complete access to the land’s natural resources, total neutering of its weak military power, and their hands firmly on the country’s levers of power.
This is sweet victory for the Neocons.
Yes, 4,500 Americans died. over the 9 years. Most of them died in accidents or by shooting each other. This is less than 10% as many Americans who die in car accidents annually.
And the young white men who might become productive doctors, engineers, laborers, or artists? With the military boom, they’re all instead useless dolts in the military sucking the teat of the taxpayers. (Or only slightly better, working for military contractors.) Now, whitey must run to Jews and Asians for his heart surgery, and Indians for his engineering – the stuff truly needed in civilization. These aliens are making six or seven figures, all the whites who pranced off to the military to murder Arabs are making 30k in some useless private security firm.
Again, sweet victory for the Neocons.
Very interesting essay. Considering how much further along in the process America is at this point, we have become inured to what is happening – it’s much easier to see it for what it is, where the process is just beginning. Although from what I’ve heard and read, Iraqi TV was not exactly “traditional” even before the 2003 invasion. Contrary to the image in the popular media, Saddam wanted a secular, modern state based on nationalist principles. He was no Islamist. But certainly they wouldn’t have had the sort of degeneracy you described.
This is a remarkable essay. The ptb are destroying Iraq the same way they are destroying the West by undermining the foundations and replacing it with a perverted narrative that excites the sexual appetites.
When I watched ‘shock and awe’ in 2003, I remember bursting into tears when I realized that they were allowing the destruction and looting of the museums of Baghdad where relics of Babylon were stored. They were trying to destroy its history and hence world history. (I guess it is cold and callous to cry over that. Oh well.)
Later, I remember seeing a news story about this very beautiful Iraqi woman who was a newscaster praising the Americans as liberators and for democracy. I found it odd. Then about a month later she was found with her arms cut off, obviously tortured and her throat slit. Collaborator?
Saddam Hussein’s Ba’athism was essentially Arab National Socialism. Tel Aviv and DC probably targeted Iraq for this reason among many others. They probably didn’t want to take any chances these ideas might spread through the Arab world.
Lew: Thanks. Sometimes I feel you’re one of the few . . . Oh, well, forget it. Suffice it to say the thought was highly complimentary.
Phil White wrote:
Even if it didn’t inspire the 90% who are sheeple the 10% from whom actual commitment could be expected may well tune in.
I think this is a valid point.
John: I did not have a chance to study the nature of the media under Saddam Hussein, which was outside the scope of the piece, but I strongly suspect your impression is correct.
My experience suggests that “Western” representations of Gentile Middle Eastern cultures are uniformly ludicrous caricatures having little to do with reality.
For example, have you ever watched Press TV (Iranian) programming available online in English? Not just the occasional YouTube clip, but programs from their website? The impression you get isn’t radically different from that of any other country.
Andrew Hamilton, I think your articles are invaluable, even if I rarely compliment them (or anyone else’s articles, for that matter). Their frequency, range of subjects, thorough research, and intellectual quality is remarkable. Your work is a major tributary of Counter-Currents.
Robert Baer’s book The Devil We Know might be worth reading with regard to Iran.
WR,
Thank you for your generous comment.
Needless to say, I highly value your own posts and other contributions to Counter-Currents.
Names
In last week’s article about Obama’s nominee for Treasury Secretary, Jacob “Jack” Lew, I briefly discussed Jewish first names.
Sometimes last names, like Lew’s, provide no clue, but “Old Testament” first names do. I forgot to mention that the common contraction for Jacob is usually “Jake.” This is the first example I’m aware of where the more misleading “Jack” was used instead. (Well, I just looked up actor Jack Klugman, and he was Jacob, too.)
In this article I mentioned Sarah Sewall, suggesting that her first name may be a better guide to her ethnicity than her last name, as sometimes happens. I don’t know that she actually is Jewish, although the facts and circumstances don’t rule it out. In fact, the weight of the sketchy available evidence makes it seem more likely than not to me.
I said that her name sounds WASP and New England-y, and her association with Harvard reinforces that impression from a purely stereotypical point of view. In actuality, Harvard is a Jewish not a WASP institution today.
“Sewall” and “Sewell” are English surnames. English-born Samuel Sewall was a judge in the Salem witchcraft trials.
One thing Jews sometimes do is change the spelling of a name so that it looks “white” in print but, if listened to phonetically with due care, could be Jewish.
I have seen this often, but the classic example is actor Lee J. Cobb, who played the Columbo-style detective in the movie The Exorcist. His real name was Lee Jacob.
I applied the technique to Sarah Sewall when I wrote but, as often happens in such cases, did not come up with anything.
After the piece was posted, however, I did remember a parallel: Irwin Suall, a malign former official of the ADL. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_Suall
This doesn’t mean Sarah Sewall is Jewish, but it is another check mark in the “Probably Yes” column.
In a section titled “Assimilation or Dissimulation?” in Comprendre le judaïsme, comprendre l’antisémitisme (Baskerville, 2012), Hervé Ryssen writes of Jewish names (pp. 6-7):
“Many Jews change their names or transform their original patronym in order to give it a local sound. Thus, Minkowski is transformed into Minc, Shapiro into Chapiraud or Chapier, etc. The fakery can be more or less elaborate. Aron will become Nora, Nussenbaum will give Dunnoyer, Bronstein can be translated as Rochebrune. But the actor Kirk Douglas (Demsky) preferred a Scottish name. President Sarkozy’s chief of diplomacy, Jean-David Lévitte, is obviously a ‘Levy.'”
Apparently names such as “Cohen,” “Cahn,” “Kagan,” and “Kaganovich” are derivatives of “Kohanim,” the Kohanim being a Jewish priestly caste.
The International Jew includes an article titled “The Gentle Art of Changing Jewish Names.” It includes the comment: “Baruch is touched up into Benedict, Beniton, Berthold.” This raises the question: is the Italian clothing firm Benetton Jewish? Their obscene advertisements would seem to proclaim it.
Speaking of Jewish names, perhaps one of the best examples of Freudian projection can be found in Karl Marx’s diatribe Herr Vogt. Marx insinuated that the editor of the Daily Telegraph, a certain Moses Joseph Levy, was trying to conceal his Jewish origins! Marx also made some colorful comments about Levy’s nose.
Ask any American, Hollywood style entertainment wins out everytime. That’s right. That is why the moralizing of the U.S., is such a freakin joke.
Great article Mr Hamilton!
I would like to rcommend you to write a article about Jewish power in the classical antiquity (Rome, Persia, Egypt,..)
I don’t think the current dynamic has any real comparable manifestation in history. For all their hidden wealth and networking, they never openly acted as a hostile ‘elite’. Perhaps the time of Akehnaten or Hyksos Kings was the closest (changing the Gods) but even then, there is a difference. The Jews who rule the USA today are not only in control of the cultural fabric, they are actually ADORED by most of their subjects!
This is very true – that most of the victims of Jews adore them, or at the least have been brainwashed so much that they can’t imagine what’s happening.
And for those large number of people who subconsciously feel something amiss with the Jewish ruling class, they’re too terrified to let themselves identify the culprit consciously. Hell, even the word “Jew” is being shoved out of the lexicon in favor of, “Jewish person” – people are THAT terrified of Jews.
I know of many good writers who’d shut their websites down before daring to identify Jews as the perpetrators in these mass crimes.
Hell….look at 9/11. They can murder 3,000 people in broad daylight and have the whole country lie for them. This is the most extreme and absolute power fathomable.
Some claim white people are uniquely susceptible to Jewish propaganda techniques. There is no question Whites are pathologically susceptible to them. But do the media and psyops methods they’re using in Iraq disprove the notion that whites are uniquely to them?
To oversimplify a bit, their basic formula seems to be:
1) Use violence and mass slaughter to destroy the population’s physical capacity to resist.
2) Establish total economic control over the population. Install a puppet government, seize resources either directly or on behalf of corporate interests, and integrate the nation into the debt-slavery global finance system.
3) Bombard the population with the standard Jewish formula:
– mock, ridicule, disparage traditional loyalties and customs
– saturate the population with violence, sexual images and America’s vomitous pop culture
– saturate with equality, mutil-racial, miscegenation and diversity images
It’s hard for any group of people to withstand that.
Very good article. There’s lots of information floating around that isn’t brought to light because no one bothers to research anything.
Shutting Down the television systems was not good.. by the way thnx for increasing my knowledge.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.