The following image is too large to be displayed. It is orig

On the issue of Jewish media involvement: a brief analysis

Archived source material.

Hooktube links to the two videos: https://www.hooktube.com/watch?v=-QQ0Lv4_--4, https://www.hooktube.com/watch?v=jbvk5TPJhxM.
SoulPancake wiki page: http://archive.is/pmgLZ.
Participant media wiki page: http://archive.is/P2gb2.
Jeffrey's wiki page: http://archive.is/TUbas.
Sources within demonstrating Jewish ancestry: http://archive.is/h27sT.
Linde's wiki page: http://archive.is/1WKbE.
Sources within demonstrating Jewish ancestry: http://archive.is/ecqQl.

Interestingly enough, the Streisand effect comes into play with the last archived source, as the Jewish role in the most recent Academy Awards is highlighted. I urge any readers to constantly archive material they come across that follows a similar tone, because once this bias is demonstrated, the material is often taken down. The most recent example that comes to mind is the "goy, bye" and "white flight" of Huffington post (http://archive.is/nJMoz). When Jewish involvement or any reference to a Jew, in any form besides praise or ancestral suffering, is brought up, you can expect similar responses: "-bergs" and "-steins" writing articles assuring us that everything is fine and to not be bigoted or notice patterns.

If you thought that was bad, wait until you see this source I came across: http://archive.is/uWiXj.
I quote: "The most influential person in Tinseltown is Jewish. Or so says The Hollywood Reporter. Bob Iger, the chairman and CEO of the Walt Disney Company, tops an inaugural list of 100 prominent players that the show biz publication released this week."
Now, surely this level of leadership and ownership of media groups is not inconsequential. There must be some impact this has, as one would expect that amount of influence to hold some sway.

As I demonstrate in terms of 'SoulPancake' (which is not alone, as there is a multitude of other media organizations that follow suit), the promotion of politically correct 'diversity' is commonplace and not even realized for what it is: tacit multiculturalism. It is actually expected that an alleged 'marginalized' minority group would be sympathetic to efforts to embolden multiculturalism as a means of downplaying ethnic conflicts, but when so much power is concentrated in the hands of a minority group, questions naturally arise. The most pertinent of which is what the results are. How are Jews demonstrated in the media organizations that are Jewish, what are the results? Just as SoulPancake and other groups combine 'pop culture' and memorable creations with this multiculturalist slant, Disney and other organizations do, too.

For one, 'Participant media' was one of the production companies responsible for creating the film 'Denial', focused on a trial libel trial of David Irving and Deborah Lipstadt regarding the 'denial' of the Holocaust. It casts Rachel Weisz, herself a Jew (http://archive.is/vOxF4), taking on the role of a heroine in the, rather ugly, face of Irving, cast as Timothy Spall. If that name rings a bell, that is because Spall also played Peter Pettigrew. If you are familiar with the Harry Potter film series, he is not the symbol of male attractiveness, and it seems that the role carried over into the film. With a budget of $10 million and a box office of only $7 million, the film was a net loss financially, but from a standpoint of media influence and portraying a certain... motif, if you will, it was quite successful because it sold a great buy, if you are Jewish or sympathetic to such 'motifs'.

Therein lies the point that Jewish media organizations have set a "precedent", if you will. The WASP does not align himself with multicultural values considering he is not a minority group who is dispossessed in a foreign land. But the Jew, who is both white (tactically) and relies on these efforts to protect himself as a minority group, is different. This difference is demonstrated in this one example I have provided. Now, standalone, this is irrelevant. It's just one media organization that just-so-happens to be Jewish, and just-so-happens to have produced a film with a certain 'motif' and owns a media company with a multicultural slant. What of it? Well, as I linked above, I will let the Jews themselves demonstrate their own over-representation here: http://archive.is/uWiXj. The Streisand effect, also named after the Jew Barbara Streisand (http://archive.is/mvnVA, but with a nose like that, you don't need a source), comes into play once more. In an effort to laud around the Jews within media and film, my point is substantiated: there is a visible and, often times, overt Jewish voice in many organizations. This does not mean that other groups are not present, or that other groups, minority or otherwise, do not also hold the same views: the point is simply noticing a pattern of Jewish involvement within an industry that is relevant in moulding opinions, pop culture, personal taste, etc.

Now, such a 'slant' of multiculturalism and anti-racism/open bias against 'racism' has become so obvious and overt that even mentioning it is met with the most vocal criticism. "How can you even point out an anti-racist bias! That is expected in 'current year'!" This is when you realize that a popular belief has become properly injected into the hearts and minds of a people. This criticism from the same group of people who value tolerance of opinion and nuanced dialogue. It comes as a surprise that anyone can even point out such biases. I've even heard people cry out that being anti-racism is like being anti-murder: it's only "human". Glossing over the convenience of appealing to humanity to make an argument (I believe that stealing and rape is also 'human' because humans have and continue to commit rape and theft, so it must be alright if it is a quality of humanity: the point is to raise the convenience of 'humanity' as an appeal to anything humans do as being 'acceptable'), it comes as a surprise that there was a period of time (in living memory, actually) that anti-racism was the 'expected bias'. The Naturalization Act of 1790 "limited naturalization to immigrants who were free white persons of good character". For just a moment, imagine even saying that statement out in the open for one second. What will be the response in the closest large urban setting?

Pointing out the pendulum of cultural beliefs within a society is bound to be met with backlash when the current 'accepted bias against ___' is contrary to what used to be acceptable. If I go up to a bunch of ISIS fighters and point out pre-Islamic culture, they will fight back against what they view as 'preposterous anti-Islamic culture'. Coincidentally enough, they are in the process of cleansing the same 'culture' to replace it with their own, just as their ancestors did to the Zoroastrians in Iran or the Christians in the Levant. The anti-racist crowd is operating in a different manner, as can be observed with the recent events in the United States. On a long enough timeline, all previously held opinions within a society will be put upon the chopping block of, in this case, multiculturalism.

Have the Jews been the only ones to push such a narrative? Of course not, the WASP and other non-minority groups have been more than helpful in promoting such ideals, as it is excellent in their efforts to parade around their diversity. To them, they are welcomed as houseguests who punish the 'bigots' and wear their badge of anti-racism with pride. The reason I respond to this is because this is a common criticism that is levelled when discussing these ideas. "Is it only Jews who argue for these ideals? No, then the argument is over." To them, there can be one of two conclusions: either Jews are the only group that push for anti-racism and multiculturalism, or they are totally uninvolved. This false dichotomy is also extended to the issue of media presence: either all Jews are within the media, or none of them are. The answer is a middle ground that, if ceded, defeats the point they are attempting to refute. Pointing out disproportionate Jewish media involvement or common 'motifs' presented within the media does not make a statement on behalf of "the Jewish guy down the street". However, a sweet irony is that at the same time the argument for absolute individuality (well, the majority of Jews are not within the media, so the observable patterns can be dismissed) is made, the following argument appeals directly to the tribal identity and in-group preferences: "you anti-Semite!"

Right after the point is made emphasizing the concept of the individual and average Jew, the pejorative "anti-Semite" is often brought up. It is contradictory to argue against ethnic Jewish collectivism/for the treatment of people as unique individuals isolated from a common culture or ethnic unification and to reference the same unifying group/collective in the same breath. I thought that all Jews were isolated individuals not bound or inter-connected by a common identity if they were meant to be treated in isolation and distinctly divided from one another? The issue is that one generalization and observable pattern is unacceptable because it is 'racist', whereas the other is acceptable because it is 'anti-racist'. Play by rules you disallow for yourself, but promote for your enemy.

Finally, when all efforts have failed, the response will be "yes, and?" or "well, why?". This is the part where the tacit implication is an appeal to motivation, that an individual will necessarily mention these patterns and observations because they are ideologically motivated or that they have a genetic hatred for Jew (even though the rejection of Jewish influence is based directly on what their ACTIONS in positions of power have resulted for the average non-elite white person). You can't even observe a pattern of behaviour within an elite group without being criticized for some 'hatred'. Interestingly enough, even though the typical "hello, my fellow white people" Jewish twitter blue checkmark is common, the most common run-in you get into will be with a non-Jew or non-minority. One often wonders why these people are so avid anti-racists, despite being of the same stock of the fervent 'pro-racist' whites that founded and conquered the previous groups. One interesting point I will briefly mention is the comparison between the "white man's burden" and the modern liberal anti-racist: both intend on assisting the non-white, but the latter is an evolution of the former and looks back with an anti-racist disgust. I will let Kaczynski summarize this important phenomenon: http://archive.is/x66iq.

Although not included in the pastebin, the following is from Kaczynski's manifesto on leftists from the last archived link: http://archive.is/x66iq.

"But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, "politically correct" types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by "leftism" will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology."

"Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn't seem to be any remedy for this. All we are trying to do here is indicate in a rough and approximate way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main driving force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be telling the WHOLE truth about leftist psychology. Also, our discussion is meant to apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the question of the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of the 19th and early 20th centuries."

"The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call "feelings of inferiority" and "oversocialization." Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential. By "feelings of inferiority" we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strict sense but a whole spectrum of related traits; low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have some such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism."

"When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights activists, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities and about anything that is said concerning minorities. The terms "negro," "oriental," "handicapped" or "chick" for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. "Broad" and "chick" were merely the feminine equivalents of "guy," "dude" or "fellow." The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights activists have gone so far as to reject the word "pet" and insist on its replacement by "animal companion." Leftish anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the word "primitive" by "nonliterate." They may seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to ours. (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the hyper sensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)"

"Those who are most sensitive about "politically incorrect" terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any "oppressed" group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual white males from middle- to upper-middle-class families."

"Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals) or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not mean to suggest that women, Indians, etc. ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology.)"

I highly recommend reading the rest of the manifesto from the archive on leftists. Bumping once more so that newfags can critically examine these claims and come to conclusions based on their own judgement.