From lawrence.auster at att.net  Sun Jan  4 01:26:26 2009
From: lawrence.auster at att.net (Lawrence Auster)
Date: Thu Jan 29 10:59:50 2009
Subject: [Kol-kor-l] Who Runs the Media?
Message-ID: <20090104002514.LUDS2036.cdptpa-omta06.mail.rr.com@2ao1z>

Who Runs the Media?
- David Duke

Such as it is, the press has become the greatest power within the Western World, more powerful than the
legislature, the executive and judiciary. One would like to ask; by whom has it been elected and to whom is
it responsible?
— Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

In the Oscar-winning 1976 movie Network,1 Howard Beale, the “mad prophet of the airwaves,” becomes
consumed with the idea of exposing an insidious danger facing America: the takeover of American
television by Arabs through their petro-dollars.

The film was based on an Oscar-winning screenplay by Paddy Chayefsky, who depicts a dark plot by
Arabs to buy and control the TV networks. Howard Beale, played by Peter Finch, is a deranged news
anchorman who speaks his mind about any subject, resulting in skyrocketing ratings. Raving about the
inequities and corruption in American life, Beale would cry out: “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it
anymore!”

Imagine if Iraqi-American supporters of Saddam Hussein had control of the American media. Suppose
they controlled the national television networks and were a majority of the owners, producers, and writers of
television entertainment and news. TV is an irresistible power that reaches into every American home — the
primary source by which most Americans learn about the world. Consider the dangers of that enormous
power dominated by a tightly knit, Iraqi Muslim minority that supported the Hussein regime.

If the non-television media were still free, they undoubtedly would treat Iraqi media domination as a great
danger to America. Every non-Iraqi source of media would proclaim that such control threatens our
freedoms. Congress would likely draft legislation to break up the Iraqi stranglehold on television. Patriots
would remind Americans that if we were not free to obtain unbiased news, documentaries, and
programming, democracy could not work. The power of TV controlled by one point of view would erode
the foundation of all our freedoms: the freedom of speech. Pundits would be outraged that non-Americans,
people with allegiance to a foreign power, had control over the American mind.

Taking the analogy further, imagine if the rest of the media were also in Iraqi hands. Suppose that the three
major news magazines, Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News and World Report were run by Iraqis, that the
three most influential American newspapers, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The
Washington Post — as well as a majority of the remaining major newspapers and magazines — were
controlled by Iraqis. Imagine that Muslim Iraqis dominated the Hollywood movie industry as well as book
publishing and even book distribution. Picture the Iraqis as also holding immense wealth in business and
banking, as thoroughly entrenched in entertainment and Hollywood, academia, the judiciary, and the
government. On top of all this, suppose that supporters of Saddam Hussein had the most powerful lobby in
Washington and were responsible for the bulk of the fundraising of both the Democratic and Republican
parties. Suppose a dedicated Iraqi were head of the National Security Council at the White House. Would
such a situation be dangerous for America?

If Americans awoke one morning and found Arabic names scrawled all over their TV and movie credits, on
their magazine and newspaper mastheads and in the pages of their books, millions would say, “We’ve
been taken over!” Viewers would suspect the motives of everything they see on television and read in
newspapers, magazines, and books. They would be especially wary of information about issues related
to Iraqis, Saddam Hussein, Islam, and the Middle East conflict. In very short order, many Americans would
cry out in the fashion of Howard Beale: “I am mad as hell, and I am not going to take it anymore!”

When I came to the realization that the original Russian Revolution was not Russian, that it was financed,
organized, and led mostly by Jews who were driven by a centuries-old conflict between themselves and
the Russian people, I wondered how such an important fact of history had been so effectively covered up.
Upon learning fully about the Communist murder of millions of Christians in Russia and Eastern Europe, I
asked myself why there were so few movies, dramatic television series or documentaries, novels, books,
or magazine articles about it, but endless coverage of the Holocaust.

Then I read a copy of the Thunderbolt newspaper, published by Dr. Edward Fields of Marietta, Georgia.1
Dr. Fields carefully documented Jewish control of America’s three major television networks, NBC, CBS,
and ABC. I carefully checked Dr. Fields’ sources, which included biographies published by Jews.

At the time of my first inquiry, Richard Sarnoff was the head of NBC, William Paley was the head of CBS,
and Leonard Goldenson ran ABC. I was amazed to learn that all three were Jews, all were active in Zionist
organizations, and all had been honored by awards of numerous Jewish, Zionist, and pro-Israeli groups.
Then I discovered that the leading newspaper in America, The New York Times, was Jewish-owned and
-edited. So was the newspaper that has more influence on the federal government than any other, The
Washington Post. Jews also owned the largest circulation daily paper in America, The Wall Street Journal.
They even owned my hometown newspaper, the New Orleans Times-Picayune.

I learned that Jews had dominated Hollywood for years. It was interesting to find out that of the “Hollywood
Ten,” who took the Fifth Amendment when asked before Congress whether they were Communists, 9 were
Jewish. As I looked into magazine and book publishing, again I discovered a striking preponderance of
Jews — most of them dedicated to Jewish interests, much like today’s Steven Spielberg, director of
Schindler’s List,2 who is an outspoken supporter of Zionist causes. In fact, the most-watched movie ever
made about the Holocaust, viewed as history by millions, was entirely a Jewish production.

Jerry Molen — producer; Gerald R. Molen — producer; Steven Spielberg — director, producer; Kurt Luedtke —
screenwriter; Steve Zaillian — screenwriter; Janusz Kaminski — cinematographer; Michael Kahn — editor; Ewa
Braun- set decoration/design, production designer; Branko Lustig — producer, production designer; Allan
Starski — production designer; Lew Rywin co-producer.

Years later I read Jewish publications that boasted about Jewish domination of American media. I also
read An Empire of Their Own3 by Neal Gabler, a book that details the Jewish takeover of the film industry.

Ben Stein, a Jewish screenwriter (and son of Herbert Stein, an economic advisor to President Richard
Nixon), wrote the book The View from Sunset Boulevard. In it he candidly remarks that a great majority of
Hollywood’s television writers and executives are Jewish and that they are adamantly opposed to
Christian values and the conservatism of traditional, small-town America.4 He wrote an article for E!-online
in 1997 entitled: “Do Jews Run the Media” accompanied by a subtitle that read, “You bet they do — And
What of it.”5

In the ’70s Dr. William L. Pierce, chairman of the National Alliance and editor of National Vanguard
magazine, along with his staff, researched the question and documented the Jewish dominance in his
essay “Who Rules America?”1

What I discovered was that the worst nightmare of Paddy Chayefsky and his Network character, Howard
Beale, has been realized. A small but cohesive minority, with a 3,000-year loyalty to their own people and a
fanatical dedication to their newly formed nation, dominates America’s media. But it is not the Arabs who
have this power; nor is it the Irish, Germans, French, English, Russians, Swedes, Danes, or Italians. It’s not
Muslims, Christians, Mormons, or Catholics. Ironically, it is the group made up of the Paddy Chayefskys of
the world. Chayefsky — an enthusiastic supporter of Jewish causes and the state of Israel — cleverly attempts
to influence viewers against Arabs by fictionally accusing them of attempting the same thing that Jews
have already accomplished. The rest of the Network staff included director Sidney Lumet, producer
Howard Gottfried, and editor Alan Heim. The same tribe that financed, produced, wrote and distributed the
film Network, dominates the American media, and truly the media of the entire Western world.

Jewish media power is so extensive that one can scarcely exaggerate it. It is not simply a question of their
power being disproportionate to their percentage of population — their power is breathtaking.

If you live in a major city, the daily newspaper you read will more than likely be Jewish-owned or -edited.
So will the national newsmagazine you buy at the news counter. More than likely, the national cable or
regular TV network you watch will be Jewish-owned, and if not, Jews will be preponderant in the executive
and decision-making departments. The movie you see in the theater or watch on television will very likely
have been produced, directed, or written by Jews — and often all three. The publishers of the hardbacks or
paperbacks you read, even the record companies that produce the music you buy, will probably be
Jewish-owned, and if not, they will very likely have Jews in key executive positions. Bookstores and
libraries often select their new book purchases based on reviews by Jewish critics and publications such
as The New York Times Book Review, another part of the Jewish-run NY Times.

It is certainly true that many people in media are not Jews. Nor do I allege that every Jew in media is part of
some fantastic and intricate conspiracy or that every Jew is ardently Zionist. But the overwhelming
domination and thrust of American media is Jewish, and no group is more ethnocentric and more
organized for their perceived interests than are Jews. With these facts in mind, can any reasonable person
believe that Jews present news and entertainment without a slant for their own purposes in what Gabler
calls “An Empire of their Own”?

I grew up reading the New Orleans Times-Picayune, and from third grade on, I would read it every morning
with my father. By the time breakfast ended, Father had decorated it with toast crumbs and coffee stains,
and I had garnished it with oatmeal and milk. My father would take the news section first, and I would take
the sports and the comics pages, and then it would be my turn to get into the headlines while he read the
other parts of the paper. Up until the late ’50s, the Times-Picayune was truly a Southern newspaper. It
reflected the values, standards, political viewpoints, and heritage of the South. We considered the paper
our lifeblood of information about the simple goings-on around town and about the major events in the
world at large. It was our paper — and not only because it was printed in our city; it represented something of
our thinking, our culture, and our values.

When integration of schools began, the Times-Picayune railed against the federal intrusion into our way of
life. Many articles talked about the amicable relationship between Blacks and Whites in New Orleans,
about the excellent quality of life for Whites and Blacks, and about how the city included one of the largest
Black entrepreneurial classes of any in America. It wrote about how, under White direction, Black
educational and living standards had progressed over the last few decades. The editorial writers of the
Times-Picayune predicted dourly that forced integration and the stirring up of Blacks by Yankees and
liberal agitators would ruin one of the most beautiful and culturally rich and charming cities in the world.
Integration, they maintained, would retard the progress of the Black community and threaten White
standards.

After the purchase of the Times-Picayune by S.I. Newhouse, the paper gradually began to shift to the left.
Integration was eventually depicted as “progress” and something that would increase “love” and
“brotherhood.” Editorials chastised those who opposed integration, referring to them as bigoted, hateful,
and shortsighted. Integration, the paper claimed, would promote racial goodwill and lessen poverty and
crime (which was then manageable). “What is the harm,” the paper moralized, “with two little Negro girls
going to a White school?”

As the city’s schools and government services began to disintegrate under integration and the
Times-Picayune became increasingly liberal, my father — who was mildly conservative — came to dislike it. I
still enjoyed the paper, and as I got older, I found myself agreeing with its racial viewpoints. I didn’t know
that the Picayune was no longer a Southern newspaper, and that the owner, a Jewish refugee of Czarist
Russia, resided in the New York city area.

When Newhouse died, he left a media colossus worth about $10 billion to his two sons, Samuel and
Donald. Among their newspaper holdings were the Times-Picayune; the Syracuse, New York, morning
Post-Standard and the afternoon Herald-Journal; the Mobile, Alabama, Morning Register and Afternoon
Press; the Huntsville, Alabama, morning News and afternoon Times; the Birmingham, Alabama, morning
Post Herald and afternoon News; the Springfield, Massachusetts, morning Union, afternoon News, and
Sunday-only Republican.

The Newhouse empire today owns 12 television stations, 87 cable-TV systems, two dozen national
magazines, 26 daily newspapers, and the Parade Sunday supplement that has a staggering circulation of
more than 22 million.

When Newhouse bought the Times-Picayune, it was reported by Time magazine that he commented, “I
just bought New Orleans.”1 In some ways, his statement is accurate. Newhouse and his employees could
say anything they liked about any person or any issue with little fear of contradiction. Newhouse, secure in
his monopoly, was free to push whatever social and political agenda he wished.

Even today, more than 25 years after Newhouse’s purchase of the Times-Picayune, many in New Orleans
are unaware that a Jewish New York family owns the paper. The editorial page gives a local address and
says the publisher is Ashton Phelps, a descendent of the family that once owned the paper.

When I was a teenager, just learning of the Jewish control of media, I noticed that many of the Picayune’s
advertisers were Jewish-owned businesses, including Goldrings, Levitts, Mintz, Godchauxs (a French
adapted Jewish name), Kirshmans, Rosenberg’s, Rubinstein Bros., Gus Mayer’s, Adler’s, and Maison
Blanche. One of the biggest advertisers in New Orleans was Sears & Robuck, and Edith Stern, a New
Orleans activist in Jewish and liberal causes, was Sears’ largest stockholder. I soon learned that many of
the largest advertising agencies, both local and national, were under Jewish ownership and direction.
These agencies could steer advertising to whatever newspaper or media outlet they desired.

Jewish advertising power not only has increased the Jewish monopolization and consolidation of
American newspapers, it also greatly affects publications with Gentile management or ownership. All major
publications are dependent on Jewish advertising revenue, so their features, reporting, and editorial
policies must be carefully attuned to Jewish attitudes and interests. Ultimately, the free press is not free. It
runs on money. The old axiom certainly holds true in the media: “He who pays the piper calls the tune.”

At the beginning of this century, most major cities had two or three daily newspapers, and many had even
more. There has been an alarming trend toward monopolization of daily newspapers. There are only
about 50 cities in America with more than one daily newspaper, and many of those have the same parent
company. The Newhouse-owned Times-Picayune and the afternoon States-Item aptly illustrate the trend;
they merged into the Times-Picayune early and late editions.

As a result, of the 1,600 daily newspapers in America, only 25 percent are independently owned rather than
part of a newspaper chain. And only a tiny number are large enough to have even a skeleton reporting
staff based outside their own communities. They are dependent on newsgathering conglomerates such as
The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Newhouse chain for their national and world news.

The Jewish domination of American media is long-standing. Even as far back as the 1920s, Jews had
influence far disproportionate to their percentage of the population. And even though media operations
frequently change hands and the CEOs, chairmen, administrators, and top editors change, Jewish
domination is stronger than ever — and the power brokers continue to increase and consolidate their power.

Three Powerful Newspapers

The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post are positioned at the heart of
American business, culture, and government. Their influence reaches out across the nation. They originate
news, focus on issues of their liking, elevate public figures they approve of and denigrate those they do
not. They tell us what movies to see, what books and magazines to read, what records to buy and what art
to admire. They influence how we think on a thousand different subjects — and, in fact, they frequently
choose what subjects we think about at all.

The New York Times is read all over America — in academia, business, politics, the arts and literary world.
It sets our political, social, entertainment, literary, artistic, and fashion standards. The New York Times
Company owns 33 newspapers as well as three book-publishing companies, 12 magazines, seven radio
and broadcasting stations, and a cable-TV system. The New York Times News Service serves more than
506 newspapers across America.

Like so many other newspapers, it began under Gentile ownership and ended up Jewish. George Jones
and Henry Raymond founded the great paper in 1851. Near the turn of the century, Jewish activist Adolph
Ochs bought the paper, and now his great-grandson, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., is CEO and publisher.
Executive and managing editors are Max Frankel and Joseph Lelyveld.

Because it is so widely read by Washington’s elected and appointed federal officials and bureaucrats,
The Washington Post has a huge impact on our government. It can influence appointments, firings,
legislation, and foreign and domestic affairs of all kinds. It can even be instrumental in bringing down a
president, as it did Richard Nixon. The bosses of The Washington Post can choose to give publicity to an
issue or choose to ignore it, choose to be outraged about an event or bellow in approval. The Post has
numerous holdings in newspapers, television, and magazines — most notably, Newsweek.

Like The New York Times, The Washington Post started out in Gentile hands. It was founded in 1877 by
Stilson Hutchins and was later run by the McLean family. Due to the McLeans’ conservative policies,
Jewish advertising shifted to the other Washington papers, driving the Post into bankruptcy. A Jewish
financier, Eugene Meyer, stepped in to buy it for a trifling sum at the bankruptcy auction. As soon as it
passed into Jewish hands, advertising from Jewish businesses and advertising agencies returned, and
the newspaper returned to profitability.

In an effort at further consolidation of the media in our nation’s capital, the Jews ran an advertising boycott
of Colonel Robert McCormick’s Times-Herald, which they detested because of its support for
anti-Communist Sen. Joseph McCarthy. Unable to sell retail-advertising space, the newspaper shrunk
dramatically and began losing about a million dollars a year and was finally sold to Meyer in 1954 at a
bargain price. The Washington Post is now run by Meyer’s daughter, Katherine Meyer Graham, the
principal stockholder and chairman of the board. Her son Donald is president and CEO.

The third leading influential newspaper in America, especially in the business realm, is The Wall Street
Journal, published — along with Barron’s and 24 other daily newspapers — by Dow Jones & Company. The
Wall Street Journal has a circulation of more than two million, making it America’s largest business daily
and a tremendous influence on business, banking, trade, and economic issues. The CEO of Dow Jones
and chairman and publisher of The Wall Street Journal is Peter R. Kann, a Jew.

The Three Most-Read Newsmagazines

Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News and World Report are the three major weekly newsmagazines
published in the United States. The largest and most respected of these is Time, which has a circulation of
more than four million. The CEO of Time-Warner is Gerald Levin, a Jewish benefactor of many Jewish and
Israeli causes.

Newsweek is the second most widely read weekly, with a circulation of more than three million. It is under
the control of the Washington Post’s Katherine Meyer Graham, another avid supporter of numerous Jewish
causes.

The third-ranking newsmagazine is U.S. News and World Report, whose owner, publisher, and editor in
chief is Mortimer B. Zuckerman, a proud Zionist who also owns the Atlantic Monthly and the New York Daily
News.

The Giants of Book Publishing

Book publishing is perhaps the part of American media least controlled by Jews. Yet they still dominate
the most important parts of that industry. All one needs is a printer and some cash to publish a book, and
tens of thousands of printers do business in America along with hundreds of small book publishers. Yet
here too the Jewish influence is powerful, for writing a book, no matter how intelligent and provocative,
offers no guarantee of it being published, and being published offers no guarantee of being professionally
promoted, distributed, or even reviewed. The half dozen or so of the largest publishers and distributors
handle 95 percent of the biggest-selling books in America. And in those areas of book publishing and
distribution, Jewish appraisal is inevitable and Jewish approval is crucial.

According to Publisher’s Weekly, the three largest American publishers are Random House (and its
subsidiaries, including the Crown Publishing Group), Simon & Schuster, and Time Warner Trade Group
(including Warner Books; Little, Brown; and Book of the Month Club). Jews control two out of three and the
third (Random House, has many Jews in important positions throughout its division of the conglomerate it
has joined).

Gerald Levin is CEO of Time-Warner Communications, which owns Time Warner Trade Group. The other
major media, Simon and Schuster, is a subsidiary of Viacom Inc. Viacom’s CEO and chairman is Sumner
Redstone (born Murray Rothstein). Additionally, it should be noted that the largest publisher of children’s
books, with more than 50 percent of the market, is Western Publishing, whose chairman and CEO is
Richard Snyder, who just replaced another Jew, Richard Bernstein.

The Major Book Publishers and Reviewers

One of the most brilliant books of this century dealing with the weakening of the American majority is The
Dispossessed Majority by Wilmot Robertson.1 This book is rich in research and ideas, and it is written with
a command of the English language rarely seen today. But Robertson was unable to find a major
publisher because he dared to write about the unmentionable subjects of race and Jewish ethnocentrism.
No national or major publications would review his work, and no national distributors would handle it. Many
national publications would not permit Robertson to buy advertisements for his book because it contained
information unacceptable to the self-ordained Jewish censors. Despite its ban from the mainstream
bookstores and not being reviewed by the major media critics, Robertson has sold well over 150,000
copies through the mail and by word of mouth.

Television

When I read the article by Edward Fields documenting the Jewish control of the three major TV networks, I
was fascinated. ABC, CBS, and NBC produce the overwhelming majority of entertainment television
broadcasts in America, and for most Americans they are the primary sources of news. Leonard Goldenson
of ABC, William S. Paley of CBS, and David Sarnoff of NBC ran their respective networks for decades,
setting the tone and breadth of the modern Jewish domination of broadcasting. Here is a condensation of
Dr. William L. Pierce’s “Who Runs the Media” on the current state of American broadcasting.

Who Runs the Media?

by Dr. William L. Pierce

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 of concentrated Jewish power.
The largest media conglomerate today is Walt Disney Company, whose chairman and CEO, Michael
Eisner, is a Jew. The Disney empire owns 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.
In addition to TV and movies, the corporation owns Disneyland, Disney World, Epcot Center, Tokyo
Disneyland, and Euro Disney.
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), 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, TimeWarner 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 Magazine, Fortune).
Levin will again be the number-one media magnate when 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. 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.
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 Video 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 that 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 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 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).
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).
Westinghouse Electric Corporation recently purchased CBS. 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).1
The overwhelming Jewish control that Dr. Pierce writes about in television and movies is not a new
phenomenon. It is not a short-term aberration in the entertainment and news industry. It has been prevalent
for decades. Over time the names may change, but the heritage usually remains the same. If anything, the
Jewish power in media continues to consolidate and grow. Jewish publications themselves often boast
about their power for their own readers.

“An Empire of Their Own”

Even though it is hard to imagine now, Gentiles originated America’s film industry. Thomas Edison
patented many of the early cameras and projection techniques and launched the first major studio. The
man who pioneered the modern movie was D. W. Griffith, a brilliant director whose techniques and films are
still studied by film classes around the world. His silent classic Birth of a Nation1 held the title of
most-watched movie in the world until Gone with the Wind.2

Birth of a Nation is a film version of The Clansman, a novel by Southern writer Thomas Dixon.3 The film
depicted the fratricidal conflict of the War Between the States and the oppression of the White people
during the “Reconstruction” era. It portrays the Klan as a heroic organization that freed the South from the
violence and tyranny of Black and carpetbagger rule and paved the way for reuniting the American nation.

When Birth of a Nation appeared, Jewish organizations actually went into the courts attempting to ban the
film in a number of major cities, and they applied financial pressure on theaters to keep it from playing. A
special showing of the film in the White House garnered an enthusiastic review by President Woodrow
Wilson and initiated an irrepressible groundswell of support. The Jewish forces in the fledgling film industry
realized that it was far more effective to control the film industry from the inside than to have to fight
rearguard actions to suppress films that they did not want the American people to see.

The attempted Jewish banning of Birth of a Nation was not the first or the last attempt at Jewish censorship
in America. Many people are surprised when they learn that Jewish groups actually were able to ban a
play by the greatest writer of English literature: William Shakespeare. Performing Shakespeare’s Merchant
of Venice4 became forbidden in New York City in the early years of the 20th century at the behest of the
Jewish community, which claimed that it was anti-Semitic.

In the 1990s, the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) did a running series of all Shakespeare’s plays that
included Merchant of Venice. A long editorial introduction attempted to condition the audience into
interpreting the play as sympathetic to Shylock, the central Jewish character who demanded the Gentile’s
“pound of flesh.” The lines in which Shylock defends himself in court, pleading “If you prick a Jew doth he
not bleed,” were emphasized to encourage the viewer to interpret the play as favorable to Jews.
Interestingly, the Jews made no such interpretation of the play when they intolerantly argued for making
performance of the play illegal. Recently, the Canadian Jewish News reported an attempt by Jews to
suppress the play in a Canadian school district.5

As they have gone from outsiders to now thoroughly dominating the Western governmental and media
establishment, many Jews have shifted from strong defenders of free speech to some of its most willful
suppressers.

The Jewish students who dominated the “free-speech” movement at Berkeley in the mid-’60s sang the
praises of free speech for the purpose of inviting to campus the likes of the filthy-mouthed and repugnant
Allen Ginsberg and the violent, openly Communist, black revolutionary Angela Davis. Today they attempt
to silence anyone who dares to speak before a student audience on the issues raised in this book.

In some cases they have reverted to similar tactics to their campaign against Merchant of Venice. In 1976 a
national Black talk show broadcast on PBS, Black Perspectives on the News, invited me to Philadelphia
for an appearance. After the taping, but before the show aired, the Anti-Defamation League and other
Jewish organizations discovered that I mentioned the historically well-documented Jewish role in the
Colonial slave trade. Jewish activists Sol Rosen, Harry Bass, and Peter Minchuck sought an injunction in
the Common Pleas Court in Philadelphia, asking the judge to censor the program. The Jewish judge,
Stanley Greenberg, issued an order demanding that the program not be aired until the tape was delivered
to him and “approved.” Luckily, the First Amendment Coalition and attorney David Marion appealed the
decision to the State Supreme Court and won. However, the Jewish methods of censorship were by no
means exhausted.

Jewish organizations then went nationwide in an attempt to suppress the show in each individual PBS
affiliate in each city the program was to be broadcast. In a massive campaign of intimidation, Jews wrote
and called local PBS stations, threatening a cutoff of donations and public support if they aired the show. If
that did not work, opponents promised, picketing, harassment, and even violence against the stations. By
the time they finished their dirty work, the original program aired on only a small percentage of the local
PBS stations. Furthermore, the stations that did have the temerity to air the original hour show — immediately
followed it with a special program attacking my positions and my character without allowing me to respond.

An example of quiet suppression, from among many I could cite, was my experience with the Tomorrow
Show with Tom Snyder in 1974. The Tomorrow Show was a late-night talkshow that went into serious topics
rather than vapid celebrity banter. I did not fit the stereotypical image of the racist that host Tom Snyder had
expected, and during the program he surprised me when, on camera, he referred to me as “intelligent,
articulate, and charming.” Snyder laughed heartily at my witticisms and repeatedly stated on air that I would
soon be back on the show. His last words on the program were “David Duke will be back here.”

Three days later Snyder’s staff called to set up the follow-up show. They said that I would appear along
with a Black civil-rights leader, a Jewish rabbi, a liberal Catholic, and a Protestant clergyman. Flight and
hotel reservations were made, and I received a confirmation letter from the show. Only three days before
the planned taping of the program, a staff member called and told me that she was sorry, but the program
had been forced to cancel my appearance. I asked her why, and she confided in me that the Jewish
executives at NBC had sternly informed the program that “David Duke will never again appear on the
Tomorrow Show.”

The program went on as scheduled, but my detractors were the only guests. They denigrated me for the
entire hour with cheap insults. The rabbi, evidently well versed in Freudian psychology, attributed my racial
beliefs to “sexual frustration.” And so it went. The media masters had presented four high priests of
egalitarianism and silenced the opposition.

The masters of the media are also adept in the dishonest remaking of classic works. Louis Mayer and
David O. Selznick’s film classic Gone with the Wind provides an excellent example of story-manipulation. I
read Margaret Mitchell’s novel while still in junior high school. But when I first saw the film version during
high school, I noticed important differences. In the novel a Black man assaults the heroine, Scarlett O’Hara,
arousing the Ku Klux Klan — which Mitchell portrays heroically — to ride for justice. In the Mayer-Selznick
movie version, it is a White man who tries to rape Scarlett and a Black man who rushes to her rescue!
There is no heroic ride of the KKK. In fact, the Klan disappears from the story altogether. Later I read how
the producers purposefully made the change for political reasons.

Mitchell’s real feelings on the KKK were explicitly written in Gone with the Wind:

But these ignominies and dangers were as nothing compared with the peril of white women
 It was the
large number of outrages on women and the ever-present fear for the safety of their wives and daughters
that drove Southern men to cold and trembling fury and caused the Ku Klux Klan to spring up overnight. And
it was against this nocturnal organization that the newspapers of the North cried out most loudly, never
realizing the tragic necessity that brought it into being

Here was the astonishing spectacle of half a nation attempting, at the point of bayonet, to force upon the
other half the rule of Negroes, many of them scarcely one generation out of the African jungles
1

A film that angered me was Stanley Kramer’s Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner.1 A beautiful young daughter
of wealthy parents, portrayed by Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn, wants to marry a brilliant Black
doctor, played by Sidney Poitier. The film makes clear that such a marriage creates some problems but it
is the morally right thing to do. Of course, Mr. Kramer produced no films promoting Jewish intermarriage
with Gentiles. Many years later Newsweek magazine dubbed Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner an
“educational film for White Americans, who seeing their screen heroes surrender their daughter to a black
male, would feel less compunction in doing the same.”2

To catalogue the host of anti-White films produced by the Hollywood establishment would be a
monumental task, but I can offer some pertinent examples. David Wolper, an ardent supporter of Israel,
produced many anti-White programs, including the television miniseries Roots.3 Marvin Chomsky, John
Erman, David Greene, and Gilbert Moses directed the much-touted docudrama. Roots was perhaps the
second most promoted and watched miniseries ever aired on television (only the Holocaust4 miniseries
had a larger audience due to its incredible media promotion). Roots found its own roots in Alex Haley’s
book of the same title. Roots is a historically misleading book and film that produced widespread Black
hatred against Whites and self-hatred and guilt among many Whites.5

Interestingly, Jewish writer Harold Courlander sued Alex Haley for plagiarism. In writing a supposedly
historically accurate book dealing with the African roots of American Negroes, Haley had stolen whole
sections of Courlander’s fictional novel called The African.16 Haley affirmed his plagiarism in agreeing to
an out-of-court settlement with Courlander for $500,000. At the height of Roots’ popularity, most Americans
never became aware that Haley based part of Roots on a work of fiction.

Freedom Road was another fantasy palmed off to a trusting public as an accurate portrayal of Southern
Reconstruction.7 The All-Movie Guidebook, for instance, lists it as an “historical film.” When it came out in
1979, many public-school history and civic classes assigned it for homework. Muhammed Ali starred in the
film as Gideon Jackson, a former slave who enters politics and forms an unlikely Southern coalition of
freed Blacks and poor Whites. He is then elected to the U.S. Senate from South Carolina and finally leads
his poor White and Black followers in a struggle against their wealthy White oppressors until slain in a
shootout with the Ku Klux Klan.

History records that there has never been a Black senator from South Carolina. Only two Black senators
served during Reconstruction, both from Mississippi, and both died of natural causes. Freedom Road
takes on added perspective when one learns that the producer of this historical fantasy was Zev Braun,
and the director was J’an K’adir. “Chosenite” Howard Fast wrote the original fictional novel. Fast also
happened to be a longtime member of the American Communist Party, and his autobiography is titled
Being Red.8 Teachers, probably unaware of Fast’s ardent Communism, ordered millions of public-school
children to watch and do reports on this alleged “docudrama.” Is it any wonder that so many White
Americans have such a distorted view of their history and of the race issue? Could one expect less,
knowing that they are getting a Communist interpretation of American history?

An ad for a TV movie featuring OJ Simpson as a Black cop fighting White crime - the TV world as
compared to the real world.

Not surprisingly, the most slavishly promoted miniseries of all time was also the most important film of all to
the Jews: The Holocaust. The film was a thoroughly Jewish production. It was directed by Roots’ director
Marvin Chomsky. Gerald Green wrote the screenplay. Morton Gould composed the music. The producers
were Robert Berger and Herbert Brodkin. TV Guide remarked that during filming in Europe, the writer’s
father died. Rather than return home for his funeral, Green felt he was honoring his rabidly pro-Zionist father
by staying in Europe to work on The Holocaust. For a dozen hours, the film, a work of extreme ethnic
hatred, portrayed Germans and other Eastern Europeans as either bloodthirsty or spineless, and of
course, it portrayed every Jew as a paragon of virtue, love, and kindness. Never had a television
production received more advance coverage or more praise than The Holocaust. Jewish-run publications
and pundits acted as though it was the most important piece of drama in the history of cinema.

While I was still in college, I attended a so-called Black-exploitation film called Farewell Uncle Tom. I read
about the film before its showing in New Orleans, where it played in a mostly Black movie house downtown.
Expecting a difficult situation, I drove down from Baton Rouge with two of my bravest and most dedicated
LSU friends. In 90 minutes, at a matinee filled with Blacks, my friends and I received an emotional and
graphic education on the heinous impact of the Hollywood anti-White movies.

Set in the antebellum South, the film portrayed slave life as an orgy of White mutilation, starvation, murder,
and rape of Black men and women. A Black revolt occurs, and the screen erupts with revenge-minded
Blacks hacking to death White men, women, and children. With each bloody outrage, the audience howled
with approval. “Right on!” some screamed. “Rape the Bitch!. . . Kill ‘em!” The Black crowd laughed and
cheered during the goriest scenes of mutilation, rape, and murder.

To make sure the film’s point was clear to its patrons, the film’s ending flashed to the present day, showing
afro-wearing Black men in leather jackets and sunglasses, sneaking into the bedroom of a White couple.
The camera depicts the couple’s horror as the attackers hack them to death with a hatchet. In slow motion,
the hatchet falls repeatedly, splattering blood and brains across the room. Even after 20 years, I vividly
recall the film and the raw hatred it engendered in the Black audience.

At the sight of the murders, the audience worked itself into frenzy. As soon as the credits appeared, my
friends and I, sitting in the rear of the theater, grabbed our coats and left quickly. We were somber as we
drove back to LSU because we knew that Farewell Uncle Tom was intended to incite Blacks to murder
and rape Whites across America.

In researching the film, I discovered that Cannon Releasing Corporation had released it and that Cannon’s
president was Dennis Friedland. His associates included Marvin Friedlander, Thomas Israel, James
Rubin, and Arthur Lipper. I found out later from a film review that most of the Jews involved with the
White-hating film actually had their names removed from the films credits.

The time I spent in that dark theater touched my emotions so powerfully that I swore to myself and to God
that I would make whatever sacrifices I must to someday stop the brutal attacks against our flesh and
blood as symbolized in that hateful film. I also resolved to stand up against filmmakers who create a
climate of anti-White hatred.

During my hundreds of interviews over the years, whenever I mentioned Jewish media domination, my
interrogators first would deny the Jewish preponderance of power. Then, when that defense sank beneath
a sea of facts, they acted shocked that anyone could even suggest that Jews might use their media power
for their own advantage.

Medved, M. (1996). Jews Run Hollywood, So What? Moment. August.
Priest. (1994). Miramax Films.
The Crying Game. (1992). Miramax Films.
Seven Years In Tibet. (1997). Sony Pictures Entertainment, TriStar Pictures, Mandalay Entertainment,
Reperage & Vanguard Films, Applecross.
Larry King Live. (1996). Guest: Marlon Brando. Friday, April 5.The domination of America’s news and
entertainment media is so obvious that some Jewish media have begun to acknowledge it, but they
suggest the Jewish domination makes no real impact on content. The cover of the August 1996 issue of
Moment magazine was blazoned with the headline, “Jews Run Hollywood, So What?” The article, written
by well-known Jewish film critic Michael Medved, includes the following comments: “It makes no sense at
all to try to deny the reality of Jewish power and prominence in popular culture. Any list of the most
influential production executives at each of the major movie studios will produce a heavy majority of
recognizably Jewish names.” Medved reports about how Walt Disney studios hires only “highly paid
Jewish moguls” such as Jeffery Katzenberg, Michael Ovitz, and Joe Roth as producers. He goes on to
state that:

The famous Disney organization, which was founded by Walt Disney, a gentile Midwesterner who
allegedly harboured anti-Semitic attitudes, now features Jewish personnel in nearly all its most powerful
positions.1

Interestingly, in spite of the attempts to besmirch the name of Walt Disney as an anti-Semite, his films were
the most morally spiritually uplifting and educational in the industry. All this while Michael Eisner’s new
Disney and its subsidiaries continue to make anti-Christian and sexually degenerate films such as The
Priest2 and The Crying Game.3

Not only do the Jewish producers create a plethora of pro-Israel and pro-Jewish propaganda along with
their anti-Christian, anti Gentile hate films and documentaries, they are careful to monitor films made by
both Jews and Gentiles. For example, Jewish censors of the fact-based film, Seven Years in Tibet, felt that
the main character, an ex-Nazi explorer from Austria, was not repentant enough about his past. They had
the filmmaker invent a repentance scene and insert it into the “true story.”4

Michael Medved writes in his article that “Jewish writers and directors employ unquestionably flattering
depictions of Jews for audiences that react with sympathy and affection.” It goes without saying that they
depict those who oppose Jewish supremacism as thoroughly evil.

A 1998 made-for-television film documentary aired on the Arts & Entertainment cable network boasted of
the preeminent Jewish role in media and the shaping of our society to their purposes. It was made by Elliot
Halpern & Simcha Jacobvici Productions, and written and directed by Simcha Jacobvici. The
documentary tells how Jews overcame the Gentile filmmakers such as Thomas Edison and D.W. Griffith,
and gradually replaced their traditional American themes. Movies such as Griffith’s Birth of a Nation which
honored our White heritage, became replaced with paeans to the immigrant and multiracialism. They
interview Jewish author Neil Gabler, who frankly tells how they replaced the “real” America.

They created their own America, an America which is not the real America
But ultimately this shadow
America becomes so popular and so widely disseminated that its images and its values come to devour
the real America. And so the grand irony of all of Hollywood — is that Americans come to define themselves
by the shadow of America that was created by the Eastern European Jewish immigrants who weren’t
permitted in the precincts of the real America.

The narrator goes on to say that the Hollywood Jews became almost godlike in their power and set up a
system to raise their prestige in the eyes of Americans.

Where there were new Gods there must be new idols. So, the studio heads began a movie guild with the
lofty title of The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. It was Mayer’s brilliant idea to create the
Oscars where the movie moguls’ guild honor themselves by giving each other awards. In this way, they
went from being a group of immigrant Jews to award-winning American producers.

Jewish power is such that they can make craven even the greatest of Hollywood icons. During an
appearance on the Larry King television show, actor Marlon Brando said that “Hollywood is run by Jews. It
is owned by Jews.” Brando contended that Jews are always depicted as humorous, kind, loving, and
generous while they slander every other racial group, “but are ever so careful to ensure that there is never
any negative image of the Kike.”1

Jewish groups came down hard on Brando, stating in their press releases that they would see to it that he
“would never work again.” No one in the Jewish press seemed to notice that the threat simply validated
Brando’s observation of their unchallenged media power. Brando was so intimidated that he had to
arrange an audience with Wiesenthal himself. Brando cried and got on his knees and kissed Wiesenthal’s
hands, begging for forgiveness for his truth-telling. Wiesenthal absolved him for his sin, and Brando has
said nothing but positive things about Jews ever since.

There can be no renewal for our people until that kind of intimidating power is broken. No regeneration of
our society can occur until our people again have true freedom of speech and press.

Once I discovered the Jewish power over the American media, I resolved never to surrender my freedom
of speech in deference to it, no matter what it would cost me. I became determined to oppose the media
masters who seek to destroy our way of life and our very life form. I am confident that in time my kinsmen
will likewise rise up in defiance rather than kneeling in dishonor — like Marlon Brando — to our would be
masters.

A 1998 made-for-television film documentary aired on the Arts & Entertainment cable network boasted of
the preeminent Jewish role in media and the shaping of our society to their purposes. It was made by Elliot
Halpern & Simcha Jacobvici Productions, and written and directed by Simcha Jacobvici. The
documentary tells how Jews overcame the Gentile filmmakers such as Thomas Edison and D.W. Griffith,
and gradually replaced their traditional American themes. Movies such as Griffith’s Birth of a Nation which
honored our White heritage, became replaced with paeans to the immigrant and multiracialism. They
interview Jewish author Neil Gabler, who frankly tells how they replaced the “real” America.

They created their own America, an America which is not the real America
But ultimately this shadow
America becomes so popular and so widely disseminated that its images and its values come to devour
the real America. And so the grand irony of all of Hollywood — is that Americans come to define themselves
by the shadow of America that was created by the Eastern European Jewish immigrants who weren’t
permitted in the precincts of the real America.

The narrator goes on to say that the Hollywood Jews became almost godlike in their power and set up a
system to raise their prestige in the eyes of Americans.

Where there were new Gods there must be new idols. So, the studio heads began a movie guild with the
lofty title of The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. It was Mayer’s brilliant idea to create the
Oscars where the movie moguls’ guild honor themselves by giving each other awards. In this way, they
went from being a group of immigrant Jews to award-winning American producers.

Jewish power is such that they can make craven even the greatest of Hollywood icons. During an
appearance on the Larry King television show, actor Marlon Brando said that “Hollywood is run by Jews. It
is owned by Jews.” Brando contended that Jews are always depicted as humorous, kind, loving, and
generous while they slander every other racial group, “but are ever so careful to ensure that there is never
any negative image of the Kike.”1

Jewish groups came down hard on Brando, stating in their press releases that they would see to it that he
“would never work again.” No one in the Jewish press seemed to notice that the threat simply validated
Brando’s observation of their unchallenged media power. Brando was so intimidated that he had to
arrange an audience with Wiesenthal himself. Brando cried and got on his knees and kissed Wiesenthal’s
hands, begging for forgiveness for his truth-telling. Wiesenthal absolved him for his sin, and Brando has
said nothing but positive things about Jews ever since.

There can be no renewal for our people until that kind of intimidating power is broken. No regeneration of
our society can occur until our people again have true freedom of speech and press.

Once I discovered the Jewish power over the American media, I resolved never to surrender my freedom
of speech in deference to it, no matter what it would cost me. I became determined to oppose the media
masters who seek to destroy our way of life and our very life form. I am confident that in time my kinsmen
will likewise rise up in defiance rather than kneeling in dishonor — like Marlon Brando — to our would be
masters.

——————————————————————————-

Network. (1976). Director: Sidney Lumet. Producer: Howard Gottfried. Screenwriter: Paddy Chayevsky.
Editor: Alan Heim. United Artists-MGM.
Thunderbolt. P. O. Box 1211 Marietta, GA 30061.
Schindler’s List. (1993). Universal. Director: Steven Spielberg. Producers: Gerald R. Molen, Steven
Spielberg. Screenwriters: Kurt Luedtke, Steve Zaillian. Cinematographer: Janusz Kaminski. Editor: Ewa
Braun.
Gabler, N. (1988). An Empire of Their Own : How the Jews Invented Hollywood. New York: Crown
Publishers.
Stein, B. (1979.). The View From Sunset Boulevard. New York: Basic Books.
Stein, Ben. (1997). Do Jews Run the Media: You Bet they Do - And What of it? E! online Internet Magazine.
National Vanguard Books, P. O. Box 330 Hillsboro, WV 24946. Or http://www.natvan.com
Time. (1962). The Newspaper Collector. July 27. p.56.
Robertson, W. (1981). The Dispossessed Majority. Cape Canaveral, Florida. Howard Allen Enterprises,
Inc. (PO Box 76, Cape Canaveral, FL 32920).
Pierce, Dr. William. (1998). National Vanguard Books. P.O. Box 330, Hillsboro, WV. 24946. Or
www.natvan.com. Edited By Brett Anderson.
Birth Of A Nation. (1915). Director, Composer: D.W. Griffith. Screenwriter: Frank E. Woods, D.W. Griffith.
Producer: Frank E. Woods. Cinematographer: Billy Bitzer. Editor: James Smith.
Gone with the Wind. (1939). Editor: Hal Kern. Producer, Screenwriter: David O. Selznick
Dixon, T. (1905). The Clansman: An Historical Romance Of The Ku Klux Klan. New York: Grosset & Dunlap,.
Shakespeare, W. (1600). The Excellent History Of The Merchant Of Venice: With the extreme cruelty of
Shylock the Jew towards the saide merchant, in cutting a just pound of his flesh and the obtaining of Portia
by the choyse of three caskets. London: J. Roberts.
Canadian Jewish News. (1991). January 31. p.33.
Mitchell, M. (1936). Gone with the Wind. New York: Macmillan.
Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner. Columbia. (1967). Director, Producer: Stanley Kramer. Screenwriter:
William Rose. Cinematographer: Sam Leavitt.
Newsweek. (1991). June 10.
Roots. (1977). Wolper Productions. Directors: Marvin Chomsky, John Erman, David Greene, and Gilbert
Moses. Producer: David Wolper.
The Holocaust. (1978). Titus Productions. Director: Marvin Chomsky. Producers: Robert Berger and
Herbert Brodkin. Screenplay: Gerald Green. Music: Morton Gould. Producer: Robert Berger.
Haley, A. (1976). Roots. Garden City, New York: Doubleday.
Courlander, H. (1967). The African. New York: Crown Publishers.
Freedom Road (1979). Zev Braun Productions, Freedom Road Films. Director: J’an K’adir. Producer: Zev
Braun. Writer: Howard Fast. Editor: Anne Goursaud.
Fast, H. (1990). Being Red. Boston. Houghton Mifflin.
Farewell Uncle Tom. [1972] Cannon Releasing Corporation
Medved, M. (1996). Jews Run Hollywood, So What? Moment. August.
Priest. (1994). Miramax Films.
The Crying Game. (1992). Miramax Films.
Seven Years In Tibet. (1997). Sony Pictures Entertainment, TriStar Pictures, Mandalay Entertainment,
Reperage & Vanguard Films, Applecross.
Larry King Live. (1996). Guest: Marlon Brando. Friday, April 5.
Larry King Live. (1996). Guest: Marlon Brando. Friday, April 5.
From lawrence.auster at att.net  Sun Jan  4 16:24:14 2009
From: lawrence.auster at att.net (Lawrence Auster)
Date: Thu Jan 29 10:59:52 2009
Subject: [Kol-kor-l] The Jewish Role in Immigration
Message-ID: <20090104150851.CWBI12540.fed1rmmtao106.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net>

The Jewish Role in Immigration
By David Duke

Give me your tired, your huddled masses,
Yearning to breathe free.
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
— Emma Lazarus

The influx of Europeans into North America led the Indian populations to displacement and eventually to
consignation on reservations. Similarly, relentless Jewish immigration into Palestine was against the
interests of the Palestinian people, but it was necessary for the Jewish takeover of the region. It laid the
foundation for the Zionist State.Any tribe, race or nation desiring to preserve its culture, group interests and
sovereignty must preserve its predominant status in the geographic region in which it dwells. Most nations
have had a fundamental understanding of that fact from the time of the earliest civilizations, and every
modern nation has sought strict control of its borders and immigration.

Most Americans view the Indian historical record of resistance to European colonization as morally
justifiable, but in the skewed ethics of today, some find European-American attempts to preserve our
unique genes and culture from non-European immigration - morally reprehensible. Nevertheless, despite
pervasive propaganda promoting multiculturalism and the media-touted joys of diversity, opinion surveys
in America show overwhelming opposition to unrestricted immigration. Similar public sentiment holds true
in every European nation.

It was not until the 1965 Immigration Act that the U.S. Congress ignored the majority’s wishes and began a
policy that discriminated against potential European immigrants, and encouraged massive non-European
immigration. From that time forward, the federal government also showed less willingness to enforce our
immigration laws and police our borders. These policies resulted in a flood of non-White immigrants, legal
and illegal. Immigration and higher non-White birthrates have transformed the American population from
almost 90 percent European in the early 1960s to less than 70 percent at the end of the century. The U.S.
Census Bureau has predicted that by the middle of the 21st century, well within the lifetime of many reading
these words, European Americans will be a minority in the United States. We are already a minority in most
of America’s major cities and will soon be outnumbered in California and Texas. Policies similar to those
enacted in the U.S. have introduced large numbers of non-Europeans into Canada; Negroes into Britain;
North Africans and Asians into France; Turks into Germany; and a potpourri of alien races into
Scandinavia, Spain, and Italy.

As I grew racially aware, it was certainly obvious to me that the new immigration policies of the United
States and Europe would greatly damage Western societies. Only a short time after the change in
immigration policy, crime problems escalated in all the affected nations. The quality of education suffered
and social welfare problems increased. As this planned racial transformation accelerates, these ills will
reach catastrophic proportions.

What groups had anything to gain from this demographic Armageddon? The individual foreigners who
could benefit from the economic opportunities afforded by the Western societies had little political or
economic clout while outside the Western nations. As I looked into the American fight over immigration
laws during the last 100 years, the driving force behind opening America’s borders became evident: It was
organized Jewry, personified by the poet Emma Lazarus whose lines I quoted to begin the chapter.

By the time I was a junior in high school, I had become convinced that massive non-European immigration
poised the greatest short and long-term threat to the America that I loved. I saw that the Immigration Act of
1965, unless repealed, would eventually sound the death knell for my country. Much of the material I read
pointed to a long history of organized Jewish efforts to radically change America’s immigration laws. I
contacted Drew Smith, an elderly New Orleans attorney who had authored The Legacy of the Melting Pot,
and who had already taught me a lot about the immigration issue.[869]

Smith and I met one rainy day after school at the Citizens Council offices. He explained the history of
American immigration law. After quoting the Lazarus lines from the base of the Statue of Liberty, he asked
me, “Whose interest could have been served in having America flooded with ‘wretched refuse’?” He
quickly answered his own question. “It was in the perceived interest of a cohesive people who use racial
solidarity like a weapon, a weapon they want only for themselves. The efforts to change the American
immigration law and ultimately displace the European majority has been led almost exclusively by Jews.”

Smith explained that Emma Lazarus — like many other immigration activists — was a Jewish partisan who
supported the creation of an exclusively Jewish Zionist state in Palestine, but who supported “diversity” for
America. He pointed out to me how Jews such as Lazarus have even changed the modern meaning of the
Statue of Liberty. The beautiful jade-colored colossus had no original connection with immigration and
predated the Ellis Island immigration center. It was a gift from France to commemorate the American
Revolution, not to honor the arrival of “wretched refuse” on America’s shores. It is instructive to note that this
beautiful statue of European Womanhood faces not to Africa, Asia or South America, but the land where
she was born, France and Europe itself.

Emma Lazarus had been best known for her fulminations against Russia’s pogroms following the
assassination of Czar Alexander II in 1881. The irony is rich: A Jewish supremacist dedicated to the
creation of an elite Jewish State in Palestine was anxious to turn America into a refuge for the castoffs of the
world. Drew Smith owned many books on the immigration issue, including some by Jews, in which he had
underlined important passages. I borrowed them and passionately delved into them.

Jewish organizations such as the American Jewish Congress led (and still lead) the effort to liberalize
American immigration and defeat restrictionist legislation. In 1921, 1924, and 1952, Congress passed
legislation that simply attempted to maintain the racial status quo in America. Interestingly enough, even
though Anglo Americans were in a vast majority of the American population as well as in Congress, they
did not attempt to increase their own percentage of the American population, but simply sought to fairly
maintain each group’s status quo. In the early legislative battles, Jews were the leading advocates of open
immigration and vehemently opposed legislation that would maintain America as an ethnically European,
Christian nation. In the House of Representatives, Adolph Sabath, Samuel Dickstein, and Emanuel Celler
led the fight for unrestricted immigration, while in the Senate, Herbert Lehman and in later years Jacob
Javits coordinated the effort.

In the early struggles, Representative Leavitt clearly outlined the Jewish involvement in remarks before
Congress.

"    The instinct for national and race preservation is not one to be condemned
. No one should be better
able to understand the desire of Americans to keep America American than the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Sabath], who is leading the attack on this measure, or the gentlemen from New York, Mr. Dickstein, Mr.
Jacobstein, Mr. Celler, and Mr. Perlman.

They are of the one great historic people who have maintained the identity of their race throughout the
centuries because they believe sincerely that they are a chosen people, with certain ideals to maintain,
and knowing that the loss of racial identity means a change of ideals. That fact should make it easy for
them and the majority of the most active opponents of this measure in the spoken debate to recognize and
sympathize with our viewpoint, which is not so extreme as that of their own race, but only demands that the
admixture of other peoples shall be only of such kind and proportions and in such quantities as will not alter
racial characteristics more rapidly than there can be assimilation as to ideas of government as well as of
blood. (Congressional Record, April 12, 1924.)[870] ""

Sociologist Edward A. Ross, in his influential 1914 book The Old World and the New: The Significance of
Past and Present Immigration to the American People, quotes the famous pro-immigration leader Israel
Zangwill as suggesting that America is an ideal place to achieve Jewish interests. Ross then bluntly writes
about the Jewish influence.

Jews therefore have a powerful interest in immigration policy: Hence the endeavor of the Jews to control
the immigration policy of the United States. Although theirs is but a seventh of our net immigration, they led
the fight on the Immigration Commission’s bill
. The systematic campaign in newspapers and magazines
to break down all arguments for restriction and to calm nativist fears is waged by and for one race. Hebrew
money is behind the National Liberal Immigration League and its numerous publications.[871]

In 1924 Congressman Knud Wefald pointed out the Communist ties of many of the Jewish immigrants and
stated that many Jews have no sympathy with our old-time American ideals.”

The leadership of our intellectual life in many of its phases has come into the hands of these clever
newcomers who have no sympathy with our old-time American ideals 
 who detect our weaknesses and
pander to them and get wealthy through the disservices they render us.

Our whole system of amusements has been taken over by men who came here on the crest of the south
and east European immigration. They produce our horrible film stories [and] they write many of the books
we read, and edit our magazines and newspapers. (Congressional Record, April 12, 1924.[872]

The last important congressional legislation passed to protect the status quo of America was the
Walter-McCarran act of 1952. Congressional opposition was led by the Jewish troika of Celler, Javits, and
Lehman. Every major Jewish organization (as well as the Communist Party USA) also lined up to oppose
it, including the American Jewish Congress, American Jewish Committee, the ADL, National Council of
Jewish Women, and dozens of others. During congressional debate, Francis Walter noted that the only
civic organization that opposed the entire bill was the American Jewish Congress. Representative Celler
noted that Walter “should not have overemphasized as he did the people of one particular faith who are
opposing the bills.” (Congressional Record, April 23, 1952.)[873]

When Jewish Judge Simon Rifkind testified against the bill in joint hearings, he emphasized that in
supporting breaking down U.S. immigration law, he represented “the entire body of religious and lay
opinion within the Jewish group, religiously speaking, from the extreme right and extreme left.”[874]

It thrilled me to read the courageous remarks of Mississippi Congressman John Rankin during the debate.
Today such truthful comments by any elected official would bring a torrent of abuse that few could
withstand.

They whine about discrimination. Do you know who is being discriminated against? The white Christian
people of America, the ones who created this nation
. I am talking about the white Christian people of the
North as well as the South. . . .

Communism is racial. A racial minority seized control in Russia and in all her satellite countries, such as
Poland, Czechoslovakia and many other countries I could name.

They have been run out of practically every country in Europe in the years gone by, and if they keep
stirring race trouble in this country and trying to force their Communistic program on the Christian people of
America, there is no telling what will happen to them here. (Congressional Record, April 23, 1952.)[875]

Finally, in 1965, the goal first advanced by Jewish organizations in the 1880s came to fruition when
Congress passed the Immigration Act. It has resulted in immigration becoming 90 percent non-European.
America went from an immigration program meant to be proportionately representative to all groups in the
United States to one that discriminated against Europeans. As with earlier legislation, Jewish
representatives and senators as well as powerful Jewish lobbying organizations led the assault. It
succeeded because during the 41 years since 1924, Jewish power had increased dramatically in virtually
all spheres of American life.

In 1951 Senator Jacob Javits authored an article called “Let’s Open Our Gates.”[876] that called for
massive unrestricted immigration. Javits and Representative Celler figured prominently in the passage of
the bill in 1965. Nine years before passage of the 1965 Immigration Act, the American Jewish Congress
initially proposed the essential elements of the bill and praised President Eisenhower for his “unequivocal
opposition to the national quota system.” In a 1956 editorial they praised him for “courageously taking a
stand in advance of even many advocates of liberal immigration policy and embraced a position which
had at first been urged by the American Jewish Congress and other Jewish agencies.”[877]


Jewish Motivation Behind Immigration

It would have been stupid and counterproductive for the Jewish organizations that pushed for open
borders to admit that they were motivated by interests that conflicted with those of non-Jewish Europeans.
They promoted open immigration as “patriotic.” From the early days of the century, they made public
pronouncements that multiculturalism and diversity would be beneficial to the United States, cleverly
masking their strategic motivations.After the passage of the open immigration statutes of 1965, Jewish
authors such as Naomi W. Cohen felt much safer in revealing some of the real Jewish reasons for
promoting such policies. She wrote that, beginning with the persecutions in Russia in the 1880s through the
Nazi occupation of Europe and into the Cold War tribulations in Eastern Europe, open immigration in
Western nations served Jewish interests because “survival often dictated that Jews seek refuge in other
lands.”[878] Cohen also wrote that a U.S. internationalist foreign policy serves Jewish interests because
“an internationally minded America was likely to be more sensitive to the problems of foreign Jewries”[879]
Perhaps even more important, Cohen intimated that Jews saw open immigration policies as breaking
down the homogeneity and unity of America, creating a pluralistic society in which Jews could thrive.In his
monumental book A History of Jews in America, Howard Sachar notes that pluralism supports “legitimizing
the preservation of a minority culture in the midst of a majority’s host society.”[880] So, in effect, by breaking
down the integrity and cohesion of America, Jews could increase their integrity and cohesion. Sachar goes
on to explicitly show how pluralism intensifies Jewish solidarity:

But Kallen’s influence extended really to all educated Jews: Legitimizing the preservation of a minority
culture in the midst of a majority’s host society, pluralism functioned as intellectual anchorage for an
educated Jewish second generation, sustained its cohesiveness and its most tenacious communal
endeavors through the rigors of the Depression and revived anti-Semitism, through the shock of Nazism
and the Holocaust, until the emergence of Zionism in the post-World War II years swept through American
Jewry with a climactic redemptionist fervor of its own.[881]

Social psychologist Kevin MacDonald pointed out in A People That Shall Dwell Alone that major
anti-Semitic movements are usually found in ethnically homogeneous nations and that “ethnic and
religious pluralism serves external Jewish interests because Jews become just one of many ethnic
groups
 and it becomes difficult or impossible to develop unified, cohesive groups of Gentiles united in
their opposition of Judaism.”[882] [883]

In his 1985 book A Certain People: American Jews and Their Lives Today, Charles Silberman writes that

American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief, one firmly rooted in history,
that Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a
diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for example, not approval of homosexuality, that
leads an overwhelming majority of American Jews to endorse “gay rights” and to take a liberal stance on
most other so-called “social issues.” [884]

John Higham, in his book Send These to Me: Immigrants in Urban America, states in clear terms that
Jewish-sponsored changes in immigration law were a defeat of the political and cultural representation of
“the common people of the South and West.”[885]

During the decades leading up to opening the borders in 1965, Jewish groups had piously stated that there
should be no discrimination against any group in immigration and that such could only be good for
America. But, Richard Arens, staff director of the Senate subcommittee that produced the Walter-McCarran
Act, pointed out that the same Jewish forces which were the most avid promoters of open immigration,
hypocritically opposed ethnic immigration they deemed unfavorable to their own interests.

One of the curious things about those who most loudly claim that the 1952 act is “discriminatory” and that it
does not make allowance for a sufficient number of alleged refugees, is that they oppose admission of any
of the approximately one million Arab refugees in camps where they are living in pitiful circumstances after
having been driven out of Israel.[886]

Organized Jewry not only wants to prevent Arab refugees from returning to their homes in Israel, they also
oppose their coming to the United States. Do they see the displaced Palestinians as potential political
opponents? Jewish groups clearly promote forms of multiculturalism that destroy Gentile cohesion, but not
those which could threaten their own group power. So clearly, their dedication to multiculturalism is purely a
strategic one; they want groups coming into the nation which can further pluralize American society and
destroy its cohesion, but not those groups whom they see as political threat.

Jewish-dominated political and media institutions have long promoted the demographic invasion and
dissolution of America. While the Jewish media demonize as “racists” those who oppose the flood of
non-White immigration into America, Canada and all the European nations, Israel’s immigration policy that
excludes non-Jews is condoned. A million Palestinians fled their homes in the wake of the Israeli blitzkrieg
takeover of Palestine. They cannot return to their ancestral homeland, and many are forced to live in
refugee camps that are little more than concentration camps of want and squalor.

A. M. Rosenthal is the long-time editor of perhaps the most influential newspaper in America, the
Jewish-owned New York Times. A hawkish supporter of Israel, he only complains about the Zionist state
when it is not Zionist enough for his taste. Yet, in a 1992 editorial Rosenthal feels obligated to criticize
another country which desires to preserve its racial integrity and cultural heritage:

They would do better to set a quota on immigrants and nurture a more pluralist society by adopting a
formula for citizenship based on residence than blood ties.

Equally distressing is Bonn’s failure to revise an outdated naturalization law rooted in ethnicity. Under the
existing system, a Turkish guest worker who has lived in Germany for 30 years and speaks German
fluently is denied the citizenship automatically granted a Russian-speaking immigrant who can prove
German ancestry. [887]

Rosenthal likens current German immigration policies to that of the Nazis. Yet, is Israeli immigration law so
different?

Not only Germany, but every White nation is a target of Rosenthal’s open immigration advocacy. Only
Israel’s immigration policy — the most draconian of all — is immune from criticism. In America, Rosenthal
identifies himself as the offspring of an illegal immigrant (his father) and even lauds the immigration of
Haitians, many of whom are drug users and HIV-positive.

Almost always now, when I read about Haitians who risk the seas to get to this country but wind up behind
barbed wire, I think of an illegal immigrant I happen to know myself, and of his daughters and his son
[himself]
.

Even reluctantly recognizing some economic limitations, this country should have the moral elegance to
accept neighbors who flee countries where their life is terror and hunger, and are run by murderous gangs
.

If that were a qualification for entry into our Golden land, the Haitians should be welcomed with song,
embrace and memories.[888]

As a chronic reader of The New York Times, I have yet to read a Rosenthal editorial calling for the
acceptance into Israel of the million or more Palestinians who are forced by Israel to live in the dire poverty
of the refugee camps. Nor has Rosenthal ever called upon Jews to welcome Palestinian refugees into
Israel with “song and embrace.” Rosenthal is not stupid, but he is profoundly hypocritical. He knows that
making full citizens of all the Palestinians currently in Israel and all those in refugee camps outside its
borders would quickly sweep away the Zionist political state in the same way that non-European
immigration erodes the America of our forefathers.

On the other side of the coin, Rosenthal knows that Israel could not have been created but for their
emigration-invasion of Palestine. Looking at the historical record, should Palestinians have welcomed the
Jewish immigrants with song and embrace? Rosenthal has no more regard for traditional Americans
anymore than he has for the original Palestinian inhabitants of what is now called Israel. He has only one
overwhelming concern: Jewish Supreamcism.

Rosenthal is proud of what he and many other Jews are: aliens as much as the wetbacks with whom he
identifies. He lives here, partaking of all the advantages of American citizenship, but he will not — and
cannot — become a real American who places the interests of America above those of the Zionist agenda.

As the Jews become more brazen in their exercise of power, some now boast of their role in
dispossessing the European-Gentile American. Earl Raab, executive director emeritus of the Perlmutter
Institute of Jewish Advocacy, an associate of the ADL (Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith) and writer for
the San Francisco Jewish Bulletin, wrote:

It was only after World War II that immigration law was drastically changed to eliminate such
discrimination. In one of the first pieces of evidence of its political coming-of-age, the Jewish community
has a leadership role in effecting those changes.[889]

Raab goes on to celebrate the coming minority status of Whites in America. Once that has happened, he
looks forward to “constitutional constraints” (restriction of freedom of speech?):

The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or
non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a
Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country.

We have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to ethnic bigotry for about half a century.
That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it
irreversible and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever. [890]

As Raab says, Zionist Jewish activists who have supported an exclusively Jewish-run national state have
been nourishing massive nontraditional immigration into America, and they look forward to the time when
the voting demographics of the United States reflect that transformation.

I wonder if Zionist Israel Zangwill — who coined the term “melting pot” — envisioned his Jewish state as a
melting pot of Jew and Arab; of Islam and Judaism. Given the ethnocentrism of Zionism, I rather doubt it.
One American cartoonist wrote that the problem with a melting pot is that “The bottom always gets burned,
and the scum rises to the top.” It is true that America has seen a melting of the different nationalities of
Europe into a traditional American majority, but in spite of the pervasive race-mixing propaganda of the
Jewish media, there has been no great melting of the White and Black, and only marginal melting of the
Mestizo and Anglo elements. However, what these Zionists have not yet been able to accomplish through
their advocacy of miscegenation, they are in the process of achieving through massive immigration and
differential birthrates.

Jews have also promoted, through “zero-population” advocates such as Paul Ehrlich, smaller families
among the natural leaders of the American majority. Jewish promotion of the women’s liberation movement
and abortion on demand has lowered the birthrate of America’s most productive and educated classes.
Their blunt desire is the dissolution of the European race in the West by any means necessary. Continued
massive non-European immigration satisfies
these aims.

In summary, massive non-White immigration has been one of the most effective weapons of organized
Jewry in its cultural and ethnic war against the European American. We cannot win this life and death
struggle until our people realize that we are in the midst of a war — and our side is suffering great losses. To
lose this war would mean the destruction of our American culture, heritage, and freedoms. It would mean
nothing less than the destruction of the very genes that have made possible all the social, cultural and
spiritual creations that distinguish our civilization. Our voices are muted by mass media that are in the
hands of our enemies. Too many of us are silently witnessing the genocide of our people. The time is late.
We must speak out now and defend ourselves. We must fight for the continuation of the magnificent culture
bequeathed to us by our forefathers. We must take whatever action necessary to insure the future of our
children and our generations to come. As is true for all living things, we must fight for our right to live.

America is in many ways already occupied similarly to the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Jewish
Supremacists control the news, publishing and entertainment media, they control our elections and
politicians, and now they are orchestrating a massive immigration into our land that will make us a
politically and culturally impotent minority in the same way that the people of Palestine have suffered that
fate. They seek to make our country into a tower of Babel in which they will occupy the top floors.

Not only are Americans on the road to oblivion from immigration, but so are our brethren across Europe.
Indeed, many nations are under the Jewish Supremacist drive toward globalization, and the destruction of
any sort of ethnic or national pride and cohesiveness that could pose a threat to their hegemony. They
seek to remake the world into an unremarkable mass of atomistic, deracinated individuals incapable of
collective resistance.

If we remain silent in this critical time in our people’s history, our people will be extinguished and silent
forever.

This maxim is not only true for Europeans and Americans, but for all the peoples of the Earth.


References

869. Smith, Drew L. (1971). The Legacy Of The Melting Pot. North Quincy, Massachusetts. Christopher
Publishing House
870. Congressional Record, April 12, 1924. 6,265-6,266.
871. Ross, E. A. (1914). The Old World And The New: The Significance Of Past And Present Immigration
To The American People. New York: The Century Co. p.144..
872. Congressional Record, April 12, 1924. 6,272.
873. Congressional Record, April 23, 1952. 2,285.
874. Joint Hearings Before The Subcommittees Of The Committees On The Judiciary, 82nd Congress,
First Session,
On S. 716, H. R. 2379, And H. R. 2816. March 6April 9, 1951. 563
875. Congressional Record, April 23, 1952. 4,320.
876. Javits, J (1951) Let’s Open Our Gates New York Times Magazine July 8. p.8, 33.
877. Congress Weekly. (1956). Editorial of February 20. p.3
878. Cohen, N. W. (1972). Not Free To Desist: The American Jewish Committee 1906-1966. Philadelphia:
The Jewish Publication Society Of America.
879. Ibid. p.342.
880. Sachar, H. (1992). A History Of Jews In America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
881. Ibid. p.427.
882. MacDonald, K. B. (1994). A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism As A Group Evolutionary
Strategy. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.
883. MacDonald, K. B. (1998). Separation And Its Discontents: Toward An Evolutionary Theory Of
Anti-Semitism. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.
884. Silberman, C. E. (1985). A Certain people: American Jews and Their Lives Today. New York: Summit
Books.
885. Higham , J. (1984). Send These To Me: Immigrants In Urban America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
886. Bennett, M. T. (1963). American Immigration Policies: A History. Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press.
p.181.
887. A. M. Rosenthal. (1992). New York Times. December 9.
888. A. M. Rosenthal. (1992). New York Times. December 9.
889. Jewish Bulletin. (1993). July. 23.
890. Jewish Bulletin. (1993). Feb. 19.

-----

You or someone using your email adress is currently subscribed to the Lawrence Auster
Newletter. To unsubscribe from our mailing list, please let us know by calling to 703 875-7600

Thanks,

Lawrence Auster,
1300 Wilson Blvd, Ste 120
Arlington, VA 22209-2312
From lawrence.auster at att.net  Tue Jan 13 18:06:50 2009
From: lawrence.auster at att.net (Lawrence Auster)
Date: Thu Jan 29 10:59:54 2009
Subject: [Kol-kor-l] The Difficulty of Being an Informed American
Message-ID: <20090113161420.OANU73.cdptpa-omta02.mail.rr.com@rpetu>

The Difficulty of Being an Informed American

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS for VDARE.com

The American print and TV media have never been very good.  These days they are horrible. If people  intend to be informed, they must turn to foreign news broadcasts, to Internet  sites,  to foreign newspapers available on the Internet, or to alternative newspapers that are springing up in various cities.  A person who sits in front of Murdoch’s Fox “News” or CNN or who reads the New York Times is simply being brainwashed with propaganda.

Before conservatives nod their heads in agreement, I’m not referring to “the liberal media.”  I mean the propaganda that issues from the US government and the Israel Lobby.

It was neoconservative Bush regime propaganda fed to America through Judith Miller and the New York Times and through Murdoch’s Fox “News” that convinced Americans that  they were in danger from a small secular Arab country half way around the globe called Iraq.  It was the American media that convinced Americans that getting rid of dangerous “weapons of mass destruction,” weapons that did not exist in Iraq, would be a cakewalk paid for by Iraqi oil revenues.

It is the same propagandistic American print and TV media that have rationalized Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan based on seven years of lies and deception.

It is the same media that today provids only Israeli propaganda as “coverage” of the Israeli war crimes in Gaza.

It was the New York Times that spiked for one year the leaked information from the National Security Agency that the Bush regime, in violation of US law, was illegally spying on Americans without warrants.  The “liberal” New York Times agreed to suppress the story so that Bush would not face reelection under the cloud of his outlaw behavior.

Conservatives think the Washington Post is “liberal media” despite the fact that the  editorial and commentary pages are controlled  by neocons and their sympathizers. 

During the run up to wars and during wars, the American press has always been a propagandist for the government.  The only exceptions occurred  during the later phases of the  Vietnam war and the Contra-Sandinista conflict in Central America.  Karen de Young and some others tried to honestly cover the Contras and Sandinistas and were demonized by “patriots” taken in by the government’s lies.

Conservatives still blame the “liberal” media for losing the Vietnam war, when in fact all the media did was to provide some truthful  reports that opened some American eyes.  

When the truth  cuts against the position of the US government, conservatives see it as “liberal.”  

When propaganda supports the government’s lies, conservatives see it as “patriotic.”

However, any resemblance to independent reporting disappeared from the American media when the Democratic regime of President Clinton allowed Murdoch and a small handful of moguls to concentrate the American media in a few corporate hands.  That was the end of American reporting.

Journalists disappeared from media management and were replaced by corporate advertising executives with an eye not to offend any source of advertising revenue, and certainly not to offend the government, which controls the broadcast licenses that comprise the value of the mega-companies.  Today reporters write the stories that their masters want to hear, or they are out.  The function of editors is to make certain that no uncomfortable information reaches the public.

The public is slowly catching on, and the print media is dying.  The New York Times, Chicago Tribune, and Los Angeles Times are all on the ropes.

Americans are still subjected to Fox “News” and CNN propaganda piped into airport waiting rooms, doctors’ offices, and exercise centers

People ask me where they can get reliable information.  I tell them that their goal cannot be reached without their commitment of time.

People who have access to television services that provide English language foreign broadcasts, such as Iran’s Press TV,  Russia Today, or Al Jazeera, can get get news and insights from those parts of the world demonized by the US media.

The BBC World Service still reports facts while covering itself  by providing the views of the US, UK, and Israeli  governments.

Both the Asia Times and Israeli newspapers, such as Haaretz can be read online in English.  There are other such newspapers, and all of them provide information that Americans will never see in their own media.  Any American newspaper that was as truthful about the Israeli  government as Haaretz would be closed down.

The only US print source with which I am familiar in which some honest reporting can be found  on a regular basis is the McClatchy papers.

Americans addicted to print media must turn to alternative newspapers, which tend to be weekly or bi-weekly.  However, the news and commentary provided are often superb.. 

Alternative newspapers are often the children of people motivated by a sense of justice and the love of truth.  Such people have become an endangered species in the American “mainstream media.”  The free press Americans have today is online and in the alternative media.  

The function of the “mainstream media” is to sell products and to brainwash the audience for the government and interest groups.  By subscribing to it, Americans support their own brainwashing.

Paul Craig  Roberts was associate editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, columnist for Business Week, and columnist for the Scripps Howard Newspapers.

 
Source : http://www.vdare.com/roberts/all_columns.htm

----------------------------------------

January 11, 2009
The collapsing US economy 
Will the Government Turn to the Printing Press?

By Paul Craig Roberts 

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, nonfarm payroll employment declined by 3,445,000 from December 2007 through December 2008.

The collapse in employment is across the board.  

Construction lost 520,000 jobs.  Manufacturing lost 806,000 jobs. Trade, transportation and utilities lost 1,495,000 jobs (retail trade accounted for 1,120,000 of this loss).  Financial activities lost 145,000 jobs.  Professional and business services lost 713,000 jobs.  Even government lost 188,000 jobs.

Only in health care and social assistance has the economy been able to eke out a few new jobs.

Many analysts believe the job losses will be as great or greater during 2009.

Moreover, the reported job losses are likely understated.  Noted statistician John Williams (shadowstats.com) reports that biases in measurement have understated the job loss over the last 12 months by 1,150,000 jobs.  

Williams also notes that the official unemployment rate is an enormous understatement, due in part to the Clinton administration’s decision not to count as unemployed those discouraged workers who have been without jobs for more than one year.  Williams reports the unemployment rate as it was measured prior to "reforms" designed to minimize the measured rate of unemployment.  According to the methodology used in 1980, the US unemployment rate in December 2008 reached 17.5 percent.

Yes, "our" government lies to us about economic statistics, just as it lies to us about "terrorists," "weapons of mass destruction," "building freedom and democracy in the Middle East," and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  

An objective person would be hard pressed to find any statement made by the US government that is reliable.

The collapse of the job market means even harder times for last year’s and this year’s crops of college graduates.  The offshoring of professional jobs and the widespread use by US corporations of H-1b, L-1, and other work visa programs for foreigners have left many recent American university graduates without careers.  

Recently, Bill Gates of Microsoft was pleading with Congress to allow even more foreigners in on work visas. According to Gates, there is a shortage of American workers despite a 17.5 percent unemployment rate.  I personally know American computer engineers, both seasoned and recent graduates, who cannot find jobs.

What Gates and American corporations want is cheap labor, in effect indentured servants, unprotected people who don’t demand an American standard of living and who have no student loans to repay.

If Congress expands the work visas as US unemployment mounts, we will have one more piece of evidence that "our" representatives have no sympathy for the American people.

Where were America’s leaders while the economy slipped over the precipice? 

Our leaders were telling us lies in behalf of special interests into whose pockets Washington was pouring the taxpayers’ money.  Our leaders engineered wars that put billions of dollars into such disreputable pockets as Halliburton’s, the firm of the American outlaw, Dick Cheney, and into Blackwater, supplier of the overpaid mercenaries that the Bush Regime uses to beef up its military force in Iraq.  Some of the taxpayers’ billions, of course, recycled into "our" representatives reelection campaign funds.

Our leaders were too busy making trips to Israel to reaffirm their support for Israel’s ongoing theft of Palestine and for wars that enable this theft.

Our leaders were too busy serving financial interests by dismantling regulatory barriers to over-leveraged greed.  The extraordinary level of leveraged debt and the fraudulent financial instruments resulted in annual compensation for hedge fund managers and investment bankers larger than a king’s ransom.  

When the leveraged mortgages went bust, the banksters declared a "crisis" and Congress responded by ripping off the American taxpayers for another trillion dollars.

More is to come.  Credit card debt, car loans, and commercial real estate mortgages have been securitized, too.  There is little doubt there are derivatives based on this enormous pile of debt.  As each "crisis" unfolds, it will mean more bailout rewards for the crooks who deep-sixed the US economy.

It is not implausible that by the end of this year the unemployment rate, honestly measured, will be as high as during the Great Depression.

Few in Washington think there is any cause for alarm.  Obama is calling the situation "serious" not because he believes it is but in order to get another trillion dollar "stimulus" package on the taxpayers’ books.  Stimulus will do the trick, economists say, and, moreover, the Federal Reserve has already extended $2 trillion in loans, but won’t say to whom the money has been lent.

This massive expansion of new debt, economists think, is going to fix the economy and put people back to work.  They think the solution to excessive debt is more debt.

The federal government budget deficit for the 2009 fiscal year will be $2 trillion at a minimum.  That is five times larger than the 2008 budget deficit.

How can the Treasury finance such a massive deficit?

There are three sources of financing.  Possibly people will flee from stocks, bank deposits, and money market funds into Treasury "securities."  This would require a form of "money illusion" on the part of people.  People would have to believe that investments can be printed, and that printing so many new Treasury bonds would not dilute the value of existing bonds or reduce their chance of redemption.  They would have to believe that the bonds would be repaid with honest money, not by running the printing presses.  

A second source of financing might be America’s foreign creditors.  So far in our descent into massive debt foreigners have footed the bill.  Our foreign creditors now hold very large amounts of US debt and other dollar-denominated "securities."  They are likely to develop a case of cold feet when they see a $2 trillion expansion in US debt in one year.  Their most likely response will be to start selling their existing holdings.

Who would purchase them?  The only way the Treasury can redeem the bonds that come due each year is by selling new bonds.  Not only must the Treasury find purchasers for $2 trillion in new debt this year but also must find buyers for the bonds that must be sold in order to redeem old bonds that come due. 

If foreigners cease buying and instead start selling from their existing holdings--China alone holds $500 billion in Treasury debt--a deluge will fall on an already flooded market. 

The third source of financing is for the Federal Reserve to monetize the debt.  In other words, the Treasury prints bonds and the Fed purchases them by printing money.  The supply of money thus expands dramatically in relation to goods and services, and high inflation, possibly hyperinflation, would engulf America.

At that point the US dollar, if still on its feet, collapses.  The import-dependent American population, dependent on imports for their mobility, their clothes, shoes, manufactured goods, and advanced technology products, no longer will be able to afford these imports.

A scary scenario?  Yes.  Overdrawn?  Perhaps, but perhaps not. The United States has spent the last 7 years in pointless wars that benefited only the military-security complex and Israel’s aggression against Palestinians and Lebanon.  According to prominent experts, the out-of-pocket cost and already incurred future liabilities of Bush’s wars comes to $3 trillion.  

The cost of the Bush Regime’s wars, together with the 2009 budget deficit that Bush has bequeathed to Obama, equals half of the accumulated national debt of the United States.

Several years ago United States Comptroller General David Walker informed Congress and the White House that the accrued liabilities of the US government exceeded the ability to pay. Yet, "our" leaders ignored the Comptroller General and rushed headlong to add more trillions of dollars to federal liabilities.  In effect, the United States is bankrupt at this present moment.  According to generally accepted accounting principles, the federal government has a negative net worth of $59.3 trillion.

Who is going to lend to a bankrupt government that is ruled by financial crooks, the military-security complex, and the Israel Lobby?  How long will the world finance US aggression that disrupts energy prices, keeps the world on edge, and makes America’s creditors complicit in war crimes?

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/090111_economy.htm
-----

You or someone using your email adress is currently subscribed to the Lawrence Auster
Newletter. To unsubscribe from our mailing list, please let us know by calling to 703 875-7600

Thanks,

Lawrence Auster,
1300 Wilson Blvd, Ste 120
Arlington, VA 22209-2312
Contact: lawrence.auster@att.net