Welcome to PatsFans.com

[Jpost] 51 of Vanity Fair's Top 100 Bankers, Media Moguls, Image Makers Jewish

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by maverick4, Oct 12, 2007.

  1. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    Not saying this much representation is a bad thing, I post this to simply link back to the old dispute that this country isn't somehow heavily influenced, sometimes against its best interests, for Jewish causes like AIPAC and why we are in Iraq and want to go into Iran.

    ------------
    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1191257286817&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

    It's a list of "the world's most powerful people," 100 of the bankers and media moguls, publishers and image makers who shape the lives of billions. It's an exclusive, insular club, one whose influence stretches around the globe but is concentrated strategically in the highest corridors of power.

    More than half its members, at least by one count, are Jewish.

    It's a list, in other words, that would have made earlier generations of Jews jump out of their skins, calling attention, as it does, to their disproportionate influence in finance and the media. Making matters worse, in the eyes of many, would no doubt be the identity of the group behind the list - not a pack of fringe anti-Semites but one of the most mainstream, glamorous publications on the newsstands.

    Yet the list doesn't appear to have generated concern so far, instead drawing expressions of satisfaction and pride from the lone Jewish commentator who's responded in writing.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2007
  2. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,191
    Likes Received:
    199
    Ratings:
    +294 / 12 / -10

  3. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    To answer your question, if 51 of the top 100 Media, Banking, and Image Makers were gay, and coincidentally America was invading countries around the world that were anti-gay, which really has nothing to do with America, then I would be just as pissed.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2007
  4. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,676
    Likes Received:
    312
    Ratings:
    +611 / 7 / -7

    It's an interesting hypothesis that Iraq, Iran, and the remainder of the middle east have nothing to do with America, which consumes 25% of the world's oil production every year, and has been characterized by all sides of the political divide as "addicted" to foreign oil.

    It's also interesting that a man whose father was marked for death by Saddam Hussein, W, is more interested in the opinions of the "Israel Lobby" (or, as you've clearly implied by this thread, "the Jews" in general,) than he is in the threat to his father's life.

    I'm also stunned that I never realized a man whose wealth was made through the oil industry, and who has persistent and robust ties to that industry, is not reacting to these interests, but rather to a small ethnic group which is disproportionately successful in modern American life.

    Look, Maverick, I'm really sorry that Jews are more successful, per capita, than other ethnic groups in this country. Really. I'm sorry about the grades, the SATs, and the generations of hard work that took families from the lower east side living eight families to an apartment, to the positions you're so concerned about at present. I'm deeply ashamed that Jews managed to overturn quotas in the Ivy League capping the Jewish enrollments in their institutions, and terribly sorry too that the country clubs can't discriminate anymore.

    But the fact of success does not establish your assumption of control. To consider all US foreign or Middle Eastern policy the "fault" or the "credit" of America's Jews is just plain medieval.

    "JEWS TOO SUCCESSFUL!" scandalous, scandalous headlilne, that. What, is global warming our fault too?

    You know what? We just want to bloody worship as we see fit, support our fellow AMERICANS (and sometimes our fellow Jews,) and be thought of as such.

    This crap's over the line, from my point of view. When you're going after "The Israel Lobby," I take you at your word, and I'll discuss whether AIPAC is or is not the "guiding voice" in American foreign policy 'til the cows come home.

    But this is just blatant anti-Semitism, going steadily in the direction of "Have you even read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

    Read what you're posting and tell me you don't know the difference.


    PFnV
     
  5. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,206
    Likes Received:
    236
    Ratings:
    +580 / 6 / -2

    It's the JOOOOOOOOS dammit. Them, and those Jesus Freaks. :D


    I'm kidding people.
     
  6. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,191
    Likes Received:
    199
    Ratings:
    +294 / 12 / -10

    But, Iraq is anti-gay, so maybe that's the motivation behind the war and there are certainly many gays in high places. And, besides, why blame the Jews, when in the United States there are clearly many more Christians in high places? Why aren't you pissed at "the Christians"? I just think your point is wrongheaded. If the survey showed that 51% of Zionists were in positions of power, you might have a point, but Jews are a pretty diverse group even among the wealthy.
     
  7. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,676
    Likes Received:
    312
    Ratings:
    +611 / 7 / -7

    Crap, I have to modify my position, Maverick, or at least explain.

    I don't think you're an anti-Semite, some guy that can't have a beer with a Jew without wondering why the bastard took your job or your girlfriend or something, and I don't think you're some neo-Nazi book burner...

    What I really think is that the post amounts to anti-Semitism, although from what I understand, that is going to mean I'm "playing the anti-Semitism card."

    Let's leave it at this: the "Conspiracy of Jews in Control of the Banks and the Media" argument is definitely short of a nuanced understanding of political science from my point of view. I think the viewpoint amounts to anti-Semitism, but I do not think that you, personally, are full of rage at the Jews of the world. I've met those types, and they have their own little blogs and web sites for the curious. You can tell when you're talking to one, and I don't see you as like that.

    But please consider: It's also very much in vogue among those who very much want to dismantle the state of Israel, to demonstrate to their audiences the political sway of the Jews. I can understand how it could be very attractive to one who opposes that state, regardless of his attitude toward individual Jews.

    But it should not go without mentioning that these worthies are quite frequently also ardent anti-Semites.

    One wonders whether it's the argument necessary to back up an anti-Israeli policy shift, or whether this subset of those opposed to Israeli statehood are driven to that position by their anti-Semitism.

    Again, I don't say that's how you came to your positions. I say it's worth considering that the position of opposition to Israeli statehood might not stand on its own, and in such a case, it is comforting to be able to add an assertion of Jewish control of American policy.

    You have no idea how frustrating it is to read that Saudis and Jordanians flew planes into American buildings, built and owned primarily by Christians, that Americans invaded an entirely different nation full of Muslims in "retaliation," and that lo and behold, we should -- again -- blame it on the Jews.

    PFnV
     
  8. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    I could care less that Jews are doing well, my best friend growing up was Jewish, as were many of my college friends, I know how hard they work and deserve the success they have. And I said before but feel compelled to repeat simply because I realize how rabid the 'anti-semite' card gets played, I have personally seen the atrocities at various concentration camps in Germany (yet I also hate it when people crucify those who question the facts surrounding the Holocaust).

    AND I am also very aware of all the crazy lunatics on the internet with their Jew conspiracies and alien sightings and whatever, BUT...


    I'm not one of them (as you said in your last thread, thank you).

    I consider myself and have been known by my peers as long as I've been alive as a rational, even handed person, and I hate how my views are being lumped together with complete psychos.

    Using documented evidence of what 'Clean Break' and what AIPAC have been trying to do for the past 10 years, I can't simply see it as coincidence that our actions regarding Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Iran have no influence or direction from Jewish Americans.

    And normally I could care less, but when these actions of invading countries and basically being a dick on the world stage are going against the best interest of America, I CANNOT help but wonder about how much of this is related to Jewish American influence, that is not in this country's best interest.

    PFnV, you know I respect you as a thinker and I take you seriously, and I do realize how crazy I sound just like those wacky internet guys with their sites, but c'mon man, when lots of prominent people (including Jimmy Carter and the Dean of Harvard Law) call out the influence of Jewish Americans on American politics, isn't there SOME truth to this? You can't write this off as pure fiction.

    I wish I were a Jewish person so my criticisms of AIPAC and Middle East policy would carry more weight among some of you. But even then, I guess the machine would crucify me as a self-hating Jew, eh?
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2007
  9. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,676
    Likes Received:
    312
    Ratings:
    +611 / 7 / -7

    Interestingly enough, Noam Chomsky, of all people, was recently "crucified" as a "Zion-con":

    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1143498893816&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

    We've talked about the Clean Break report, but we seem to have sort of acknowledged the futility of relying on it in support of the notion that Israel is controlling American politics.

    It is useful to you in that it identifies that some Jews, and some (Netanyahuite) Israelis, felt that action against Iraq was a good idea.

    It is diametrically opposed to your premise of American action for Israeli purposes, in that it repeats over and over again an emphasis on Israeli self-reliance:

    The only part of the report that is in line with your current argument, is that the NeoCon/Netanyahuite manifesto likes the idea of taking down Iraq. Given that Clean Break came several years after "Gulf War I," when many Americans were still grumbling about how US Troops should have gone on to Baghdad, you can hardly call that sentiment a solely Jewish or solely "Israeli inspired" agenda.

    This is the sort of detail that gets maddeningly left out of the analyses I see regarding Jews being behind our current foreign policy. My own congressman, Mike Moran, made this point a few years back. He was "ridiculed" and "silenced," I'm sure, according to some literature. He was rightfully criticized, if you ask me, for telling very little of the story - a convenient and simplistic subset whose basic thrust was, "we're in Iraq because of Israel, and we're 'in bed' with Israel because of the Jews."

    Regardless of a person's feelings about Jews, this train of thought ignores differences among Jews and Israelis; the possibility that the U.S. has other interests or perceived interests in the region; the possibility that particular classes within the U.S. have certain interests in the region; the possibility that the President himself has a personal agenda as regards Iraq; the possibility that an external enemy as a bogeyman is attractive as an excuse to roll back civil liberties; and on and on. You may disagree with one or another of the above, or all of them. You may believe that Iraq simply needed squashing, that anything is better than Saddam, or that we should never have gone into Iraq. But you can not reasonably support the contention that Israel is controlling American policy, except by gross overemphasis of the particular druthers of a particular sector of Israeli political opinion.

    I do not agree with many of the ideas in Clean Break, but I do agree that Israel is best off in the long run with a lower level of U.S. aid; obviously, many Israelis agree with me. I agree in principal that "peace for peace" is a more fair idea than "land for peace," particularly when one understands the history of the conflict; however, in practice, fairness has nothing to do with it. There will be no peace without a state of Palestine, and I am far from the only Jew who believes this (as Israeli sentiment also supports.) The difficulty, of course, is getting the peace part to happen as well as the land giveaway. It takes two to tango.

    Regardless, economic self-sufficiency and a harder line against belligerant neighbors is the major thrust of that report, and it only looks so breathtakingly telling if you ignore the major thrust, and focus on the hopes of one group within Israel, regarding Iraq; and even then, only looks telling if you conveniently forget that the US had recently fought a war against that nation, was regularly flying over her airspace, and was periodically complaining about Iraqi noncompliance with inspections regimes. As importantly, to believe the invasion was scripted by Jews/Israelis, you have to conveniently disregard the sentiment of many Americans when the US failed to invade Iraq proper in Gulf War I.

    It's a seductive and simplistic premise, that everything is AIPAC's fault, and a convenient and seductive premise that AIPAC is the fault of the Jews.

    And where do we eventually end up? Basically, we blame Jews for the invasion of Iraq and for the US posture vis a vis Iran.

    It is not. It is our own fault, as Americans - for those of us who feel the policy is askew.

    PFnV
     
  10. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    The issue of American aid to Israel as a defence is irrelevant when you consider how our aid to Israel has NOT decreased significantly, the only parts of the AIPAC and 'Clean Break' agenda that have been implemented have been the war-mongering aspects of the recommendations.

    How convenient, the US invades Iraq and soon Iran, and people can point to the clause about how Clean Break people want to decrease American aid... all I have to say is look at the emprirical evidence and the actual results and events.
     
  11. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,676
    Likes Received:
    312
    Ratings:
    +611 / 7 / -7

    Come on Mav. Let's get past the disagreement and think this through.

    The report had many points, and one of them was about Israeli/Jordanian/Turkish (and not American) action in Iraq:

    The only aspect of Clean Break remotely similar to what then transpired, was that Iraq was invaded. The AIPAC/Neocon/Netanyahuite document envisioned a very different scenario.

    About the only thing Clean Break shows is that Israel saw Saddam Hussein as a danger. This is not surprising since he had lobbed missiles into Israel in the 90s, and threatened to "burn half of Israel with chemical fire."

    As for urging American action? That was not the report's point.

    What one can identify is that some of its authors were among those who advocated anti-Iraqi steps.

    Think, man, think! Richard Perle - or, to use his official title, The Prince of Darkness - is not an AIPAC representative, and his actions and what he urges are not Jewish or Israeli positions. He was a guy with a history of support for the AIPAC lobby; is this enough to ban a man from politics? Were he a member of Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, but American-born, would that disqualify him? How about if he were a supporter of the African National Congress in the 80s?

    A LOT of people wanted Iraq invaded, Mav. Making it an Israeli or Jewish plot is too narrow.

    PFnV
     
  12. Turd Furguson

    Turd Furguson Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Ah, here's Maverick with his hard-on for the Jews again. There's some issues there I suspect.
     
  13. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,206
    Likes Received:
    236
    Ratings:
    +580 / 6 / -2

    Now that I think about it Turd, I think you're the originator of the JOOOOOOOS thing. LOL, I remember getting a laugh at the all caps J-O-S. Pujo was the creator of Jesus Freaks.
     
  14. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,676
    Likes Received:
    312
    Ratings:
    +611 / 7 / -7

    Gotta tell you guys, I don't know about the "Jesus Freaks," but the JOOOOS thing gives me the Hebrew Jeebies, if I do say so myself. It's one of those things where it's all fine and dandy, but then someone tweaks the satire out of it and it becomes half-serious... and then you're left without being able to say anything about it, when it's transformed from mocking anti-Semitism to anti-Semitic in its own right.

    I don't see that here but I have seen it here before (as far as my own sensitometer goes.) So fine, okay, no "dirty words" just bad actions.... just don't tell me I'm a hypocrite when someone goes on the "JOOOS" jag and I point out that in another context it's serving a very different function

    moralistically,

    PFnV
     
  15. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Ah yes... the tired old, cowardly maneuver we often see by Nem when talking about Bush...

    You're giving us the ole' "Hey, I'm not saying this is a bad thing, I'm just throwing it out there... but look at how many dirty rotten Jews are on this list..!!"
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2007
  16. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,191
    Likes Received:
    199
    Ratings:
    +294 / 12 / -10

    I think Jews may well exert a disproportionate influence in many realms of power, but I don't think that Jews really have much politically in common, any more than Christians do. There is certainly a group of Jews who probably advocated and used their influence to promote the war, just as there's a group of neocons who did the same thing. And it's quite apparent, there are many Jews who are strongly opposed to war and have used their power and influence to try to end the war.

    The fact that groups like AIPAC have so much influence is nothing more than testament to the groundwork they've been doing for years. Where that group stands out is that it has equal influence with both the Dems and Repubs, but even that's not unusual. The same can be said for the Catholic Church, the AARP, the Teamsters, the AMA, the American Bankers Association, to name a few. The fact is we need to find to ensure that the activities of the various PACs and lobbyists are publicly scrutinized. The backroom deal has way too much power at every level of government.
     
  17. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    40,380
    Likes Received:
    204
    Ratings:
    +725 / 2 / -9

    I can get myself into a lot of trouble when I talk about stuff like this, the only time I feel comfortable and know that I have complete freedom of speech is when I talk about the White Mother F-ckers or the dirty Christian Bastards.
    :bricks:
     
  18. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,676
    Likes Received:
    312
    Ratings:
    +611 / 7 / -7

    I think the key may be to omit the "dirty", "smelly", "Mother F_ckers", "Bastards", and the like... also ditch the stereotyping, even if you're using nicer words... and presto, you're all right.

    But then, what's left to be said, huh, Harry?

    Honestly though, I don't know what this world would be without Harry half-hate rants... I feel like such a killjoy sometimes

    PFnV
     
  19. Turd Furguson

    Turd Furguson Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Many people in power are lawyers, bankers, judges and politicians (who were probably lawyers) Its not unreasonable to say that many Jewish people go to school with the aims of becoming one of those aforementioned professions. Then they are lumped in as having some stranglehold on policy making and what not.
     
  20. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    When it comes to defending Israel, an issue that unites Jewish Americans of all ideologies, I understand how people can be motivated to protect who they perceive as their brothers and sisters, but what I don't like is that this country is making moves that goes against its best interest.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>