Unfinished documentary on Jewish intellectual movements

Minority Rule would have been the late Byron Jost's second film, after the illegal-immigration documentary The Line in the Sand. About an hour of footage, consisting mostly of interviews with E. Michael Jones, Kevin MacDonald, Joseph Sobran, and others, has been uploaded to youtube. Subject matter includes Boasian anthropology, Freudian psychoanalysis, and the Frankfurt School (continue reading).

The movie gets off to a bad start with some confused comments by Catholic partisan Jones. Jones asserts that Catholics and Jews arrived at a time when "the Protestant ruling class had simply lost its nerve [. . .] had lost its ability to determine culture." As evidence he cites . . . The Great Gatsby. In Jones' bizarre understanding, Tom Buchanan's racial awareness illustrates the Protestant elite's "loss of nerve", Gatsby is a Jew, and Nick Carraway is a Catholic. Jones doesn't bother to explain how a Protestant elite that had spontaneously "lost its nerve" prior to the 1920s managed to pass the 1924 Immigration Act.


Winomadus said...

Excellent. I liked the analysis of the traditional christian autority: the Father. He is autoritarian therefore abusive, therefore faschist, therefore antisemit. The christian family must therefore be destroyed, as simple as that.
All of this was announced plainly in the Protocols anyway.
But who knows all that stuff ? it's youtube with 3000 hits versus the teLevysion. Like, what African Americans knows about the identity of the company ships owners involved in the Atlantic slavery trade? It's published in Utube, if not in their history books.

PS:I've seen a video evaluating the Rothschilds fortune to....700 trillions dollars, could that be true?

Anonymous said...

PS:I've seen a video evaluating the Rothschilds fortune to....700 trillions dollars, could that be true?


Winomadus said...

"No" ?
However wikipedia quotes:"
Although family financial records have not been preserved, at its height in the mid-19th century, the total family worth spread across Europe would have been, in today's terms, at the lowest estimates in the many hundreds of billions ($US), if not in the trillions."

Trillions (in todays's equivalent) in the mid-19th century, what make you think they didn't make more money since then, 'anonymous' ?

TGGP said...

You know what they say about Westerners who move to Cambodia: they molest children.

Anonymous said...

TGGP thinks that he has such a high IQ no one will take that comment seriously:

Winomadus said...

There is no way to know exactly how much the Rothschilds own.
I've read several studies of people interested in this question.
To quote a few, it goes from "the ownership is opaque" to "they own all (establishement-banks-shares, etc) albeit not a single one under their name".
Everybody talk, at best, about 'estimations', based on decades, sometimes century old numbers. It seems that the Rothschilds fortune in assets and shares started to blurry past 1848 and apparently the Rothschilds themselves are not willing to clarify the matter.
However, the lowest possible figure is 2 trillion dollars and most likely much higher according to this site

Anyway, the point is that this amount of money would look outrageously disgusting to modern African American if they knew that part of it was made during the atlantic trade of their slave ancestors. According to current human right ideology, african american who descend from the 11-15millions deported african slaves, should be compensated for that.

Anonymous said...

Re the Rothschild fortune, I remember coming across this article in the MSM where it was suggested that their fortune might be in the trillions of dollars:


"But in another way it marks out the continuation of an even older tradition - the ability of the family which has founded one of the world's largest private banking dynasties to sustain their secretive fortune, which industry insiders count not in billions but in trillions, and keep it within the family."

Considering that they're Jews and that anyone who broaches the topic of the magnitude of their fortune gets tarnished as a "kook" or "nut" if they're amateurish and as "anti-Semitic" if they're more serious, I suppose you can't really put it past them.

FewManChew said...

Very informative, thanks. 'Deeper grammar', good phrase. I would say to him though, that revealing Paul Tillich's sex life could be seen as a) an attack on a hero, meant to discredit him all around b) maybe implicitly the fact that the passage chosen by the speaker involved 'negresses' added to, in the speaker's mind, the degeneracy. The students picked this up, and that's what they reacted to.