Why do people think Jews run everything?

Great Debates
1

In This article, Colin Powell rejects the idea that the war in Iraq was driven by Jewish interests.
(Of course, the Jews put Colin up to reject this idea. After all, he’s a Jew).

I myself am Jewish. While I know many wealthy Jewish people (doctors, lawyers, politicians, etc etc), I don’t see how people could think that Jews are more influential than Christians, Muslims, whatever.

Even if every single Jew in the country was rich and powerful, that wouldn’t put them up against Christians, or the rest of the world for that matter. (And this is of course assuming all Jews are both evil and have the exact same ideologies). Most Jews I know are actually against the war. There are so few of us that I can’t see how people can think we’d be so influential on something.

This isn’t just for politics. The movie industry, music industry, food industry. Someone posted a link to a particular white supremacy message board where people made such claims.

What I’d like to know is why people think this. Is there actually any justification to this? I know these claims have been circulating for centuries probably. I as a Jew don’t even understand what they’re talking about. Is it just another way to say that Christians should run everything?

What really makes me wonder is why a Congressman would say it.

2

You know whats great about this country? Even Idiots can get voted into Congress.

As for the rest of your question, I don’t think I can help you out. We need to ask Jon Stewart. He knows all that is Jew.

Fagjunk Theology: Not just for sodomite propagandists anymore.

3

I really think that it’s as simple as this: Jews make more money. This leads to people thinking they are somehow “running everything.” A better question might be “why don’t people think the Asians are running everything?” since Asians tend to make more than whites, blanks and hispanics also.

4

Well, the Congressman didn’t say anyone ran or should run everything. He posited that domestic political pressure was affecting or could affect U.S. foreign policy on a particular issue, which is somewhat different. Not clear either that his theory relied on anyone being “evil.” Whether you believe his theory is a different story.

The theory as I understand it (and indeed it is a sensitive subject) is that neoconservative and pro-Israel hawks in the U.S. (whose membership probably overlaps) have found common cause with Sharon/Likud’s tough stance, and have sought to shape U.S. foreign policy to that end – effectively with the aim of neutralizing any radical Arab/Muslim activist leadership that might effectively rally a pan-Arab/Islamist movement (which, among other things, would threaten Israel, who has been most secure when Arab/Muslim leadership has been splintered, and least secure when “Arab strongmen” like Nasser or (potentially) Saddam have shown signs of forming a critical nationalist mass (as opposed to the seemingly eternal bickering amongst the alleged Arab allies – see last week’s Arab League meeting with one statesmanlike ambassador telling the other to “Shut up, you monkey.”).

I found a good exemplar of the type of argument Powell was rejecting at:

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

Now, there are those who take it as read that Buchanan is an anti-Semite and/or that criticism of pro-Israel political action is generally motivated by religious/racial enmity; the OP sort of indicates this presupposition by eliding any distinction between whether U.S. war aims are being influenced by Israel supporters, on the one hand, and whether there is disproportionate Jewish influence on the culture and body politic as a whole. I’ll sit out that dispute because it always seems to degenerate into reciprocal accusations of racism, chauvinism, and ill motive.

In the abstract though it is not inconceivable that a subset of the U.S. population could wield influence, including numerically disproportionate influence, as a bloc constituency on particular issues. Most on the left and right will agree/concede that current U.S. policy toward Cuba gives great deference to a relatively small number of vocal conservative Cubans in Florida (who happen to form a potential swing vote in national elections, it should be noted). It’s possible the embargo would have been lifted by now if it were put to a plebiscite of the rest of the U.S., who probably doesn’t feel that blockading Cuba is as vital now as it may have been in 1968. Similarly, I don’t know that U.S. Presidents would be scheduling too many meetings with Gerry Adams or spending any appreciable time brokering Northern Irish peace accords if there weren’t still the vestiges of an Irish American political bloc. Not sure if this means that Cubans or Irish are more influential in society as a whole; or that they are even more abstractly “influential” in a general political sense – just that on issues that they see as acute to causes dear to them, they have been able to get the U.S. government to shape its foreign policy toward an end that the majority of the country might not share (but does not feel so passionately about to oppose in any comparably organized fashion).

5

It’s true that the Jews do have a powerful lobby. But then again, so does the AARP, and nobody thinks that there’s a secret cabal of 70 year olds secretly running things from a condo in Florida.

I think it boils down to a mixture of anti-Semitism and plain ol’ ignorance. People love a good conspiracy theory, and the Jews are one of the few ethnic classes it’s still PC to pick on.

FWIW, Jonah Golberg has an excellent article on this very topic out today:

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg031303.asp
Jeff

6

The bible states that it is wrong to lend money. Back in the Dark Ages, Christians followed this rule (perhaps the Pope said so). The Jews also followed this rule, except they felt that it only applied to lending money to other Jews. If a king needed money to go to war, build a castle or a road, he needed to borrow money and had to go to the Jewish community to get it. Nobody likes the person they borrow money from and especially if it is considered sinful for them to be doing it. When it came time to pay the money back, there were all kinds of resentment to the fact that the Jews were getting rich(er). Many of the first big banks were founded by Jews and many of the first companies that needed large amounts of capital were controlled by Jewish interests. Textiles and apparel were a couple of these industries. In this country another was furniture manufacturing and retail stores. Also, note that movies, music and theater also require venture capital.

All of this does not mean that there weren’t poor Jews or middle class Jews, but what most people saw were names like Rothschild. Sad to say it has always been easy to make the Jews the scape-goat when one was needed.

7

First of all, apart from a few complete nutcases I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the Jews “run everything”.

The argument is more a case of Jews having more influence than their share of the population which is certainly true in the US. It probably has to do with the fact that Jews put more stress on college-education than many other groups.

“But then again, so does the AARP, and nobody thinks that there’s a secret cabal of 70 year olds secretly running things from a condo in Florida.”
Actually the AARP is a good example. Obviously it doesn’t secretly run everything but clealry it is very influential when it comes to government policy on pensions,health care etc.
Similarly the Jewish lobby, via groups like AIPAC, is highly influential when it come to Mid-East policy.

I think the issue of how much the Jewish lobby is shaping current US policy in the Mid-east is a perfectly legitimate one. IMO it’s not the most important factor but it is quite important and possibly decisive in close debates. You could have a similar discussion about the role of the Cuban lobby on Cuban policy.

8

According to the KKK, everybody in the US pays a tax to the Jews, since the majority of food items in the supermarket has a “K” (for kosher) in the label. Supposedly it costs a lot of money for a food manufacturer to receive that nominal label, and consumers end up paying for it, of course.

Another interesting factoid from them is that 6 of Clinton’s cabinet members were jewish (I don’t remember their names, but Albright was one of them).

(Don’t shoot me, i’m just the messenger…)

9

Since when has the KKK become a legitimate source for facts?

I don’t know what percentage of supermarket products is prepared according to kosher rules but it’s obviously not remotely close to 50%. Probably more like 1% except perhaps in heavily Jewish areas.

As for Clinton’s cabinet it had 2 Jews IIRC. Bush’s has none.

10

Yep Skeptico, that is one of the many accusations I’ve heard. It heard it followed by, “Even though [the panel] thinks all gentiles will go directly to hell, they don’t mind stealing their money”.

There was also a thread a time ago in Cafe Society on how Jews run the movie industry, because very little antagonists are revealingly Jewish (I don’t think the OP proposed the idea).

Now, I’m sure Jewish lobbys have quite a bit of influence. That is their job. If people are complaining I guess they did their job. But I hear people saying Jews actually “control” this and that, as if there is some guy name Moshe who sits in a dark room and makes all the important decisions for everyhting.

11

I dont know, the Jew’s seem to control the worldwide matazah industry.

12

I’ll agree here, CyberPundit, mostly. The Jewish lobby can likely affect Mid-East policy, with the caveat that they can only influence it to the extent that they all agree. With regards to influencing the US’s pro-Israel stance, yeah, they probably have some control. However, if the vast majority of non-Jews disagreed with them, this would likely change. The opinion of the Jewish lobby is not worth more than the opinions of everyone else.

But in cases like Iraq, Jewish opinion is divided. Jewish liberals mostly oppose the war, Jewish conservatives mostly support it. In this case, I doubt the Jewish lobby has much effect, because it doesn’t represent their entire base.

So I’ll certainyl concede that they’re powerful, though probably no more powerful than other lobbies of comparable size. And certainly the idea that they “control” anything is laughable.
Jeff

13

"Five Jews served in President Bill Clinton’s cabinet. And while no Jews served in the cabinets of Ronald Reagan or George Bush Sr., there were four in Jimmy Carter’s cabinet and several in the Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson and John F. Kennedy administrations." - Canadian Jewish News, 01/11/01

My guesses:

Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State
Robert Rubin, Secretary of Treasury
William Cohen, Secretary of Defense
Dan Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture

14

You may be right about the Clinton cabinet over the full 8 years; I was thinking of one particular cabinet at a point of time.

I don’t think Albright is really Jewish. IIRC she only discovered her Jewish roots a few years ago so presumably she was not raised Jewish.

As for Wiliam Cohen he is ethnically Jewish but IIRC a practicing Unitarian.

Anyway ultimately so what? Even if there were 5 Jewish cabinet members under Clinton that is no evidence of some kind of Jewish conspiracy.

15

Well, I think there is a WASP cabal that runs this country.Ever notice that every single president except one was a WASP?
Take a look at Clinton’s Cabinet and the current cabinet. At least 70% of these people are WASPs. Look at Forbes Top CEOs. At least 60%. The WASPs are taking over the whole entire world! The ANC thinks so as do the Rastifarians.

Don’t you see people! WASPs control everything. They already rule our military! They rule this country by controlling 90% of the wealth, the government and the means of production. They will be coming for your children next!

BEWARE THE WASPS!!!

16

Where?

17

What I don’t understand, is the claim that the Jews run Hollywood, and the music industry, when everybody knows that it’s allways been the Canadians that controll it
Monty Hall, Art Linkletter, Alex Trebek, Gordan Lightfoot, Mike Myers, Donald Sutherland, Raymond Burr, David James Elliot, Jason Priestly, Norm MacDonald, William Shatner, James Doohan, Lorne Greene, Colin Mochrie, John Candy, Tom Cavanagh, Tom Green, Michael Ironside, Matthew Perry, Martin Short, Howie Mandell, Jim Carrey, Alan Thicke, Michael J. Fox, Leslie Nielsen, Nelly Furtado, Céline Dion, k.d. lang, Neil Young, Joni Mitchell, Barenaked Ladies, Bachman Turner Overdrive, Avril Lavigne, Alanis Morissette, Shania Twain, Bryan Adams, Sum41, Leonard Cohen, Paul Shaffer, and so on. :smiley:
And if anybody gets pissed and says, I’m making some sort of anti Canadian statement, relax, I’m just having some fun.:wink:

18

Well, to lend money and charge interest for it. I guess the original idea was to keep usury from happening inside the community. Considering that Jews were barred from just about every other profession, it’s not surprising that a disproportionate number went into banking.

I’m not going to take the time to cite chapter and verse, but that’s the idea behind it.

19

*Exodus 22:24

If you lend money to My people, to the poor among you, do not act toward them as a creditor: exact no interest from them.

Deuteronomy 23:20/21

You shall not deduct interest from loans to your countrymen, whether in money or food or anything else that can be deducted as interest; but you may deduct interest from loans to foreigners. Do not deduct interest from loans to your countrymen, so that the Lord your God may bless you in all your undertakings in the land that you are about to enter and possess.*

Somewhat open to interpretation, of course.

20

I should say “just about every profession in Europe”, of course. And I think candida has covered the cites I didn’t want to go look up.