Stanford student leader: It’s not anti-Semitic to claim Jews control media, economy

ed note–the Jews themselves brag about this openly–their control over money, media, politics, etc. So, the logical question that must be asked is why they become so autonomically-apoplectic when it is discussed by Gentiles, where–oftentimes word-for-word–it is a repetition of what Jews themselves have said.

Organized Jewish interests understand that that there is a sequential order to events, that revolutions don’t just spring up from out of nowhere, but rather that just like the letter R with which the word ‘revolution’ begins, it lies way down the line after a series of preceding steps are permitted to arise.

This being the case, these same organized Jewish interests understand that unless a movement against them is nipped in the bud, if possible at ‘A’ but if not, somewhere around c,d,e,f, etc, that momentum will build against them. Furthermore, as it is with any battlefield order of events, one must know his enemy from A-Z if he is to beat him.

Having said this, OJI understand that even allowing Gentiles to begin the thought process of rationally discussing how these various areas of influence–money, media, politics, etc–are almost without exception in the hands of this tiny colony of jermites must be stopped at its source. But it certainly does not end there, as anyone who has spent enough time in this ‘movement’ can attest, there are other ‘politically incorrect’ things we are not allowed to discuss either–the religious roots of organized Jewish power, the inherently violent nature of Judaism, how there is no difference between Judaism and Zionism, etc.

The bottom line is that going to war against these people/interests is not child’s play, and if someone (or a group of someones) is not adult enough to deal with reality on its own terms, they need to go back to clutching their blankets and sucking their thumbs while leaving the difficult part of this battle to the grown-ups who are at least mature enough to deal with facts rather than fantasy.

JTA

A member of Stanford University’s Student Senate argued that it is “not anti-Semitism” to claim Jews control “the media, economy, government and other social institutions.”

Gabriel Knight, a junior, made the remark at a Student Senate meeting Tuesday addressing a proposed resolution on anti-Semitism, according to the Stanford Daily, the main campus newspaper. Knight also said, “Questioning these potential power dynamics, I think, is not anti-Semitism. I think it’s a very valid discussion.”

He apologized later in the meeting after Jewish community leaders and a Jewish student accused him of anti-Semitism.

“I will apologize for when I supposed that [the clause] wasn’t anti-Semitic,” said Knight. “It wasn’t right for me to say that Jewish people can’t be offended by that. What I meant to say is that it’s still making a political statement, which is my problem with the clause — it’s an important conversation we should be having.”

READ: Stanford student accuses group of anti-Semitic question

Knight’s remarks came during a debate over language in the proposed resolution, which offers guidelines for defining anti-Semitism and calls on the student governmental body to oppose anti-Semitic activities and fund anti-discrimination education.

The resolution initially included “anti-Zionism” in its definition of anti-Semitism, a term removed in response to objections made at a meeting last week. However, several speakers at Tuesday’s meeting objected to language linking “anti-Semitism to the denial of Israel’s right to exist.”

Another point of contention was a clause that deemed demonizing, delegitimizing and applying double standards to Israel anti-Semitic, which the Senate voted to delete, saying it would restrict “legitimate criticism of Israeli policy.”

According to the Stanford Review, a campus publication that describes itself as “a political magazine that promotes independent thought at Stanford,” some at the meeting also questioned whether the Anti-Defamation League was qualified to educate about anti-Semitism.

The resolution was tabled so sponsors and supporters could assess whether or not to support it without the language that was cut.