hmm. well I guess it depends. you say that TH would have a valid point if the subject of conversation were blacks, Asians, etc ... but if you say it about Chinese it wouldn't necessarily be seen as incorrect by a vast majority of people, including many other Asians. In this part of the world Chinese people (not the country of China) are seen to have a very powerful influence. There are some countries, where, while they may not be overtly involved in politics, it is possible that their financial position, and social/family networks, enables them to pull more than a few strings. The Chinese are known as 'The Jews of Asia.'

There are institutional differences between Chinese and Jewish minorities abroad.

People of Chinese origin don’t need a host government to do their bidding. China is strong enough to take care of its own business, unlike Israel which seems to need a sort of older brother.

You rarely see American-Chinese in the government spending every waking hour lobbying for China’s interests over Uncle Sam’s back. The Jews in Washington on the other hand seem to be mainly preoccupied with the Middle East policy and issues surrounding it.

Of all the neocon Jews we’ve seen the last few years. How often have you heard one speak on monetary issues, unemployment, the environment, traffic congestion, stimulating internal economy? It happens, but only sporadically. But you’ll hear them about Iran, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Lebanon ALL the time. What causes that you assume?

It seems their only policy area is the Middle East, ergo: how do we keep Israel safe from Arabs? A noble cause for them I’m sure, but not in the best interest of the non-Jewish majority.

Jewish dual loyalty is a fact, empirical and explainable.

__________________

Yes, but of course Christian influence in a mainly Christian nation is nothing out of the ordinary. Agnostics have no real thing/nation/struggle binding them, same goes for atheists.

The desire to influence politics is a natural human trait and not inherently wrong. It’s only when disproportional influence comes from a relatively small minority that trouble begins.

There's nothing wrong with Jewish influence in Israeli media, but once they own and influence The New York Times, Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Newsweek, US News and World Report etc, is when trouble begins.

__________________

I am not talking about China the nation - but since you mention it - its probably a good thing to think about. The role China is playing in Africa at the moment may lead to some interesting developments. The US should probably be taking note of what China is doing. Quite clearly the current regime has read the Chinese equivalent of 'How to Win Friends And Influence People' and is promoting itself to African leaders in such a way that many African countries will become satellites of Chinese influence in the future. These countries are often resource rich, but lacking the capital to access those resources. If Chinese companies do it for them, and promote consumerism in the region, its influence will be like the US influence has been in other parts of the globe.

The gap left by western lack of interest in these nations will probably aid the rise of China.

As for the interests in the middle east - if you look at history texts prior to the early seventies (including those from the US LIbrary of Congress) you see quite a different perspective on the region. The change coincides with the OPEC oil crisis of the early seventies. Prior to this time there was no need to bring these countries 'to heel' so to speak. The relationship between Israel and the US has grown since that time. I think its a co dependent relationship. Both countries use each other to legitimate their actions in the region.

The relationship has become particularly important over the last decade as we become more and more concerned about apparently declining oil resources - while our consumption has gone up.

If there are Jews having a stong influence in US politics their influence will decline as oil supplies from the region are reduced, or we begin to move more towards fuel alternatives.

Its not a marriage made in heaven - and basically - once the US has got all it can, it will abandon Israel no matter how many Jewish influences there are close to the ear of the US administration. Israel is only powerful because of its strategic location. No oil in the ME, and the region has as much interest to the US as subsaharan Africa has since the end of the cold war.

You bring up an interesting point, China’s rapid expansion of influence is worrisome for people in my hemisphere. I do want to point out one thing though, Chinese “influence” is -at this stage- based on mutualism. You give them what they want and they in turn give you what you want.

When analyzing the Jewish State, this equation doesn’t fly. Their relationship is not based on mutualism, since it’s not a “give and take relationship” but rather a take-relationship. They take, without really giving back.

Israel is often presented as America’s bodyguard in the Middle East. We are told that the Jewish State is there to protect Uncle Sam’s petrol interests. Credible evidence for this is lacking. Not only is it lacking, the converse is much more credible, namely that Israel’s existence is harming American petrol interest. The first Oil Crisis can be directly “credited” to the Jewish State’s war with the Arabs.

Also do not underestimate the influence of Jewish pressure groups in the US government and media. I know it’s hard to digest, perhaps the idea of Jewish influence (or the term itself) makes you feel uncomfortable, like you’re stepping into bigot territory. But nonetheless it is empirical and factual. True power is the ability to present nonsense as sense, to sell people their own doom and make them come back for seconds. And organized Jewry (which is not necessarily the same thing as individual Jews) has done this over and over again.

For me, the assassination of Kennedy marked the turning point, for you the oil crisis.

__________________

His whole argument boils down to this fairly tepid and meatless statement.

"the key figures in these movements identified in some sense as Jews and viewed their participation as in some sense advancing Jewish interests"

The whole exercise seems like a waste of time if he can't come to a more intresting and menaingful conlusion than that.

mutualism ... hmmm - and there is no 'mutualism' between the US and the 'Jews?' ... and are you sure about this mutualism with the Chinese? why do you think Chinese merchants and their property were attacked in the Solomons a few months ago? In many parts of the world the Chinese are not seen as so benign at all ... they are often seen as racist, and operate in such a way as to exclude others. Like the Jews they also tend to group together in ghettos - i their case called 'Chinatowns.' LOL - I personally don't have a problem with the Chinese - but depending on where you are, or where you are from, they can be seen in EXACTLY the same ways as the Jews are in your view.

are you sure? if Israel was in Northern Australia do you think the US would be interested in having the same kind of relationship?

well, I have books published in the US PRIOR to the oil Crisis - and I have also read enough about the discrimination Jews faced in the US in the seventies to doubt this.

I also couldn't care less if people thought I was a bigot - I know I'm not. I know Jews who are opposed to the state of Israel, I know Jews who are not. I don't like the relationship the US (ad now my own country) has with Israel, but regardless of how much you and I might see this as hurting our interests, having a state you have a 'special relationship' with in the region is useful. Who else are your allies there? You know you can't trust those who are closest to you.

I agree that those who can manipulate the public into believing nonsense is sense can achieve high levels of power and control over their populace, however you don't have to be Jewish to do this. I would be extremely interested in the events you referred to where organized Jewry have managed to manipulate people to such an extent.

Yes, the Chinese provide desperate needed hard currency and investments to isolated regimes in exchange for commodities. No matter what their motives are, it still is a form of mutualism, ergo: they give (cash) and take (commodities). Now compare it with the Jewish State. What exactly does it give (not counting political problems)?

To this very day, the US gives Israel a multi billion dollar allowance. Surely this State is no longer a kid, it prides itself on its splendid high-tech economy, surely they can get by without US allowance?


I'm not exactly an expert in the status quo in your part of the globe, but you provide a convincing case and I'l take your word on it. Perhaps the Chinese do behave like South East Asian version of Jews.

Depends on multiple factors.

True, the oil crisis was a factor, perhaps even a major factor. But many other factors have influenced the changing attitude toward Jews. For instance steady growing Jewish influence in the media.

In the sixties Jews in the media were seen sporadically, there was Sammy Davis Jr., but that was about it. Today you won't find a sit-com without at least one Jew in it (always in positive roles by the way), in many cases multiple Jews have been inserted in the show. In the sixties there were a few Jewish papers and magazines, today only a few major papers and magazines are not owned by Jews. You see, you have to take these factors into consideration as well.

Media is a major factor: it moulds people's minds, it determines their perception of people, nations, policies etc. Expose an audience to a nice, funny, persecuted Jew on the silver screen over and over again and it becomes a fact, jews are funny, lovable unjustly persecuted and hated. There's Ben Stiller, Seinfeld, David Schwinmmer (how could you hate them, look at hem,ahhhh ain't they cute?). Now, if you depict their critics (Arabs and conservative WASPS) as wild, biggoted idiots over and over again, people soon make up their mind.

The Iraq war is a fine example: www.nowarforisrael.com

__________________

ummm ... no. The Solomon Islanders saw the Chinese as being all take and no give. With news over the riots in Tonga the last few days AGAIN we hear about Chinese merchants being attacked ...

I personally think the state of israel is more trouble than its worth, but I think the psychological and strategic benefits of having a powerful client state with the same/similar ideology as the US in the region is pretty important. Wresting it away from socialist influence has also been important to the US. Now - if you were to ask me why Australia has taken the stance it has re Israel in recent months ... I'd be stumped for an answer - other than to say that under our current PM Australia has relinquished its status as an independent nation and become the US's vassal.

well maybe it could ... but its maybe better to keep handfeeding it to keep a powerful presence in the region.

well yes - but you see a lot of changes in other things since the sixties too. I don't remember too many women as news anchors, or anchors on current affairs. I don't remember seeing women in strong positive roles very often.

do you think there has been a feinist takeover of the media to brainwash us all as well?

well yes, I agree with this - but I also know that a country like the US in particular needs to have an external enemy, and since the end of the cold war who you gonna cast in that role?

I also think that criticisms of the Borat movie might take into account that as a Jew, Sacha Cohen's characterisation of Muslims - as both Ali G and Borat - reinforce negative views of Muslims by allowing his characters to bash Jews, insult women etc. If a Muslim was playing a Jew who made comments about Muslims it would be seen as an attack on Jews, but this doesn't happen in Cohen's case.... I think this, however has more to do with the fact that Muslim bashing is OK in the popular imagination these days, than having anything to do with Jewishness.


I agree that the Iraq war is a good example of a wide cross section of the public being shamelessly manipulated to believe bullshit, however I don't see any strong evidence that Jews alone are responsible for this manipulation.

As I stated in my previous post. I;m not an expert in the status quo in that area of the world, so I'll take your word on it.

Are you sure Israel is a client state of the US? Is it plausible that Israel will actually do America's bidding? For instance attacking Saudi Arabia and jeopardizing its people's lives just because the US wants to get rid of the Saudi regime and stabilize oil prices? I don't think the Israelis will ever do that, they are a very nationalistic and oppurtunistic poeple, no Jew will die for someone else's interest. They are masters of their own governments, they do not tolerate foreign lobbying groups in their Knesset, they have laws protecting their media from outside influence etc etc.

I don't blame them, but it's a fact.

If any emperical evidence exists, it points to the converse, namely the US doeing Israel's bidding.

The ironic truth about the Iraq war for instance was that the neocon inner circle responsible for marketing and designing the war was almost exclusively Jewish, but there were only three jews among the almost 3000 dead American soldiers.

Food for thought.

Yes definitely, of course, it's obvious. But I do not oppose that shift.





The media are the gatekeepers of political correctness, they determine who may be mocked, and who not. They detremine who may be criticized and who is exempt from it.

There are many proven cases of Jewish rabbis who had raped kids, but none of these made it through the gatekeepers, sure one or two papers put it on page 156, but the vast majority remained silent. But if a catholic preist does the same, all papers but will report the case.


Here's an excerpt from an interview with Marlon Brando on Larry King Live, he really nailed it.

BRANDO: "Hollywood is run by Jews; it is owned by Jews, and they should have a greater sensitivity about the issue of -- of people who are suffering. Because they've exploited -- we have seen the -- we have seen the Nigger and Greaseball, we've seen the Chink, we've seen the slit-eyed dangerous Jap, we have seen the wily Filipino, we've seen everything but we never saw the Kike. Because they knew perfectly well, that that is where you draw the wagons around."

KING: When you say -- when you say something like that you are playing right in, though, to anti-Semitic people who say the Jews are --

BRANDO: No, no, because I will be the first one who will appraise the Jews honestly and say "Thank God for the Jews."



I don't blame you, it took me two years to understand it.

__________________