According to a 2016 Jerusalem Post article, "US Jews contribute half of all donations to the Democratic Party (and about 25% of donations to Republicans)". For 2020, among the top 25 donors, 15 are Jewish or of Jewish origin [jweekly.com] .
For a small demographic, at around 2% of the US population, to donate at a rate 25 times the national average is an incredible testament to both their financial success and desire to be involved in the political process. If the donations were from another similarly sized minority group, say Mormons or Muslims, it would be expected to see conversations of whether the goals of that group align with long-term best interest of the country in general. However, this topic seems off limits to most mainstream media often being declared inherently hateful by groups like the SPLC and ADL. Regardless if you think substantial Jewish influence is concerning or benign, is there a way to discuss it without being called anti-Semitic?
My vote wasn't about concern, but confusion. It would appear that the donations are against their own interests. Democrats are solidly behind BDS. Dems were the loudest voices of outrage against Trump's relocation of the US embassy to Jerusalem.. even though just about every president for decades has pledged to do so. So, what gives?.. They donate overwhelmingly to the party of condescending racism and anti-Semitism. SMH..
I voted something else. I think the influence is concerning but I don't see it as a "Jewish" influence in the ecclesiastical sense but in the sense of being the influence of the world's preeminent banking industry. I'm speaking from ignorance here so correct me please because this is just a hunch. I think all the banks are itching to do away with cash and convert completely to digital currency because you can't hide digital currency under the floorboards. It seems to me that most of Trump's middle class supporters are not likely to be too fond of this idea. I don't know how much leftists would support this either. It seems that bankers have played both sides of the divide because both sides use money whether it's war or politics; it's a win/win for the banks.
Jews like Germans and Americans are not all the same, not all accountable for all the same actions.
Nazis were eventually tried in a Court (not a Court of Law) and found guilty of crimes against humanity. Many Germans were against the Nazis, and many paid the price for their opposition.
Zionists are currently perpetrating virtually the same crimes perpetrated by the Nazis, and one example of such a crime is the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty, there are many more documented crimes against humanity accountable to Zionists (not all Zionists). Many Jews are against Zionism and they paid the price, are paying the price, or will pay a heavy price for that opposition.
Not all Americans are RINOS (Republican in Name Only), Fascists, Neocons, DINOS (Democratic in Name Only) Marxists/Communists, Globalist, Antifa, BLM, whatnot.
Those in power have used their power to censor opposition that opposes their power when the power in question is despotic, and those against it, everywhere, all throughout history, have to pay a cost for opposing tyranny. America is no different. The British censored opposition by initiating an aggressive war for profit, the same crimes the Nazi's were found guilty of perpetrating almost 2 centuries later. The British Loyalist Party in America after 1789 (the so-called Federalist Party) was also opposed and the standard censorship in that case was published in the form known as The Alien and Sedition Acts.
I'm not concerned with what a "group" is claimed to be responsible for perpetrating criminally, because there is no way to account for anyone in the "group" when claims are made that the "group" did it.
Claims that the "group" did something is like claiming that a gun does something. Some ONE some PLACE some TIME does some ACT and an innocent victim is injured as a result, not a group, not even when there is an angry mob claimed to be guilty of a lynching. Some ONE fomented the mob into anger, typically with liberal use of deception, and someone provided the rope, someone kidnaps the victim, someone forces the victim into the rope, someone applies the forces that end the victims life. If it takes two people to pull the weight of the victim off the ground, then those two people, each one, is guilty of that specific act, the two do not constitute a fictitious guilty being that is held accountable while those two move to the next rope and the next victim; unless the angry mob believes in lies.
The Jews (most) are the most racist people on the planet and this is why it matters:
SATANIC VERSES OF THE TALMUD'S
goy' (Gentile) hits a Jew he must be killed." (Sanhedrin 58b) *"If a Jew finds an object lost by agoy' it does not have to be returned." (Baba Mezia 24a)
90 % of people think The Talmud contains morals similar to everyday Christianity.
Wake Up Sheep!!
5 billion or more of your tax goes to defend this Zionist State
is there a way to discuss it without being called anti-Semitic?
I see these points as applying to every discussion and not specifically to people of the Jewish faith, but as it's the topic of hand, I'll use them as an example
If a certain political contribution from an individual, be they Jewish or Christian or atheist, is not in line with how you feel the politics of your country should go, address how you feel the politics of your country should go and why you feel those contributions go against it and not your views on the motivation for those contribution or the malfeasance of the person doing the contribution.
In any discussion where a person belongs to a population, be a racial, religious, nationalistic, do not fall into the trap of basing your argument on stereotypes about that population. Instead, view individuals as individuals, as people that are influenced and have a foundation within their race religion or Nation but that are not a caricature of the same.
One of the main reasons that I feel the Jewish conspiracy idea has persisted for so long is that as a whole, Jewish people tend to be very successful within the countries that they inhabit. And for me, a main reason for this is that they Network very well. whenever they need something, they will turn to another person, usually from their own Jewish population, to help them out... And they do receive that help. As such, they succeed and that success is seen as suspicious because other people don't succeed as easily. They network, they keep information within themselves for their own success, and again that is seen as conspiracy because other people aren't privy to the same networking, don't have as a strong community as they do.
As you look towards Jewish malfeasance, search within yourself and your own religion and see if there aren't aspects that are similar there. For example in the usa, Christian influence in politics is arguably every bit as strong, if not stronger, then Jewish influence in politics. Conversely Jewish influence in Hollywood is much stronger than Christian influence in Hollywood... But they're still Christian influence. As such, looking within oneself to see similarities in another may help you understand them better and find better ways to converse about certain topics. Most important, it is critical to get to know actual people of whom you speak. If you've never met, interacted, or better yet befriended, someone of the jewish, Muslim, gay, black, poor, rich, any population then you are privy to rely on stereotypes and mischaracterizations rather than individuality. I rely on a good example of Daryl Davis and the KKK community. Daryl Davis, a black individual. successfully reached out to many KKK members and in friendship, was able to get them away from their hate of black people. I feel applying that same philosophy towards the Jewish faith, getting to know a person or a synagogue of people of the Jewish faith, can take the hate away from your own heart and find ways to speak about them that aren't anti-Semitic, even if you are criticizing them
I can argue Pro and Con of the Judean Religion, but saying any negative gets you condemned, as does saying negative about any main followed religious beliefs in any country. Same goes for any race. Would look at the individuals and businesses associated with the donor first. Can't Generalize anymore, gets everybody mad and they will defend any you are criticizing. mho, hypocrisy, but funny.
Singling out "Jews" as a group is no different than singling out any other group, and it is unjust to its innocent members. If anyone disagrees, we should feel free to figure out to which group they belong and condemn that person based on that group membership, regardless of what that person actually did. Not Constitutional. Only tyranny behaves that way.
In Australia there was a large Jewish organisation that went bonkers over One Nation, (B'nai Brith), I found it odd that they reacted the way they did.... it was a completely paranoid reaction and wrong and it sent the wrong messages out into the community.
I found it wrong that the Jewish groups were supporting Multiculturalism so strongly and calling those opposing it racists... whereas race and culture are not the same thing.
I could be wrong but I think Israel would not be Multiculti as such.
So It does not surprise me that Hollywood and the Jewish Diaspora would be anti-Trump even though he did move the Embassy to Jerusalem and does support Israel as a soverign state.
Jews also overwhelmingly control Hollywood and the pop culture, the mainstream media and social media, as well as academia. They use these bully pulpits to trash white gentiles, Christianity, and the United States and it’s founders. Those things have way more influence over society than political donations but it is also taboo to mention that.
They're confused poor things, the word, "democrat" is part there-of, "Democracy" so people think they are all for the people, and are democratic, but, the Democrat party are just the opposite, they have some fooled, but not all of us! I wish everyone well.
It is all a very thought out and planned scenario. The left follows the same script (in general). Big Tech also. It all, always has the "feel sorry" for us element. Joos are the ultimate supremacy group and get away with it and even get huge support from the Christian right and REpubs, when the joos seem to support the left? Clever as a clam.
As long as it is recognized that the general does not address the specific, I don't see why not. Jews are incredibly successful. That's an interesting topic but doesn't apply to all Jews. A large number of Jews support Democrats but clearly a significant minority support Republicans. Why do they support a group that seems to have a problem with antisemitic and anti-Israel behavior? Again, another interesting conversation. Perhaps the clear answer is that we are not defined by our group but by our individual choices and I wouldn't want it any other way.
But what does Jewish mean here? What are the values of those called Jews? Are they all the same? Are they really Jewish? Jewish in what capacity? How does it influence people and with what goals? I would like more clear answers to those questions before I can provide any answer, because I don't see much link to Judaism or historical culture of Jewish people. Judaism is an ethnic religion comprising the collective religious, cultural and legal tradition and civilization of the Jewish people. What are they and how do they link to the people in the link?
The devil is in the detail. The difference between influencing the media on one hand and controlling on the other. The later is stormfag babble.
I'm all up for the former, the starting point may be Ben Shappiros differentation between orthodox and secular judaiism.
I'm back yay!
Jews present themselves as a high-minded and ethical people who are a light until the gentiles. So why do they keep getting such bad reputations?
Scholars like Thomas Sowell sometimes compare Jews to Parsis (Indian Zoroastrians) as similar "middleman minorities." But Parsis tend not to alienate their host societies the way Jews do.
As a Jew, it is not concerning. Jews are not some monolith. You can have liberal Jews in politics like Bernie Sanders and conservative Jews in politics like Stephen Miller. You can have liberal Jewish pundits like Sam Seder and conservative Jewish pundits like Ben Shapiro. You can have atheist Jews, secular Jews, orthodox Jews, etc.
The typical "political influence" narrative is usually an attempt to claim that Jews have some sort of allegiance to a foreign power, Israel, and therefore are not truly American. You see this when Conservatives claim Democrat Jews are "voting against their interests" and bring up Trump's support of Israel or attacks on BDS. Most Jews have never been to Israel, and many are critical of their government and civil rights - I know I am.
For anyone critical of the "George Soros" bogeyman, I wonder if they equally as critical of Sheldon Adelson? If anyone thinks there are "too many Jews" in politics, I wonder if they think there are too many white men in politics? Or too many politicians of Italian or Irish decent? Or too many Christian politicians? How about the fact that the US is only about 20% Catholic, yet the Supreme Court currently is about 70% Catholic - do we have a problem with Catholic political influence?