Why do Jews seem to control the social sciences?
I am very aware of Jewish history. I respect it and have no quarrels with it (the non-Zionist kind I mean). Anyway, I have noticed that at my university, there is a preponderance of Jews (non-orthodox) in key teaching positions within the Social Sciences. This concerns me since I do not have hatred, but any mention of this will surely be a detriment to my scholarly career.
I write this with utmost sincerity. It is something which I cannot remove from my mind.
What am I to make of this?
If you study Jewish history of the past two centuries, you will realize that a great part of European Jewry was swept away with secularist, leftist, liberal movements like Socialism and Zionism. These movements also dominated American Jewry, most of which was transplanted from Europe in the early 1900s. Orthodox Jews did their best to withstand these powerful winds, and thank G-d there are some of us left today and we are a growing community. Most of the Orthodox Jews you see in America today came from Europe in a later period, just prior to or just after WWII. Today's secular academic Jews, many of whom are college professors, are mostly descended from the followers of leftist movements who left the Torah and Judaism behind in late 1800s or early 1900s.
Please do not form your opinion of Jews based on these people, whom we see as deserters and apostates and unqualified to speak for the Jewish people.
The question I initially asked probably sounded naive. Marx, Rakovsky, Trotsky, even national socialism, is no secret to me. I recognize the Jewish presence in much of it, though I am not implicating anything by this fact alone, but I am versed about such things.
I was not so much seeking an answer, but rather an opinion, and you have provided that. I find the history of the banking system (US and Europe) fascinating. Also, the origin of the Israeli state (1949) seems blacked-out academically and within the news. I personally do not have any attachment to my nationality, nor do I see any necessity to boast or indulge in it. The point I am trying to politely get across is that I do not associate myself with any "hate-group", nor am I Jewish, nor am I white-supremacist. Perhaps I have succumbed to liberal democratic values (I live in Canada), but I would much prefer to be judged upon my own merits as an individual.
To me, it just seems any discussion of Zionism from a non-Jew is targeted as politically incorrect or anti-Semitic. This sincerely bothers me because I assume that "anti-Semitism" connotes hatred. I do not consider myself anti-Semitic since I do not have hatred for anyone. Still, I don't dare open my mouth about such things at the university I attend.
I just see a circumstance where certain subjects are "off-limits" for discussion at my academic institution. I hasten to ask you about my next questions, because they are so often associated with "conspiracy" and I truly detest that word. The fact is I am not one to whole-heartedly accept all alternative accounts of history that fall into this category (conspiracy). However, it is regretable that so much of what ends up in this category also has merit.
What am I to make of such people as the Rothschilds, Kuhn, Schiff, Warburg, and Loeb (the early bankers)(Federal Reserve)?
How do I dismiss that a Bilderberg group meets once a year? (I am not making any suggestions of conspiracy, but the fact this group exists is troublesome in itself.)
Why does a Freemason's temple look like a synagogue?
Sept 11. what was that about?
Hitler was Jewish? (one quarter at least)
6 million Jews, gas chambers? (I am no denier. I am sincerely not.)
I do not mention these things in protest nor with some agenda to prove. I am not displaying my ego, by trying to boast as to say "Hey, look what I know!". That is not my point. I am not trying to impress you or anyone. I would just like some answers. Perhaps you could entertain some of my questions.
As a scholar I know the danger of relying on any one account, so I take everything with a grain of salt. I sincerely just feel alone. No one to talks about these concerns.
If I may make a point,
I have recently read John Locke's "a letter concerning toleration" for school. I don't know if you are familiar with him, but he is considered one of the founding ideologues of liberal democracy. Anyway, reading his work is like reading a copy of the US constitution. This is all relatively known, and it is not politically incorrect to speak of this. However, I do know that John Locke was a high-ranking freemason, and a proponent for liberalism. So, as politely and discretely as I knew possible, I emailed my university professor a question about how any of this might relate to Freemasonry. It is not really a secret that the United States was founded upon this basis. Still, the reply I got back from my professor was very dismissive of my question, and he suggested that it was lacking sufficient ground, and that I ought to do more research. In short, he did not want to answer my question. He indeed maybe thought I was being critical of the literature and I offended him that way. I am just gravely concerned that such topics are off-limits.
I am certain that you must get bombarded with these types of concerns. I hope I do not sound like a maniac or a fanatic. I do not obsess over such topics.
I would just like to know that someone is hearing me out, and that I am not being absurd. If I have erred in the knowledge I have come to know, I would like to be corrected and refuted. I am not trying to propagate my own opinions. I am trying to grasp what I think is true. I sincerely do not know what to believe.
If you have gotten this far in reading what I have written, I sincerely appreciate it. I appreciate any advice you may have for me. I see merit in what is written on your website.
Thank you very sincerely in advance,
and I appreciate the reply you have already given me.
I am sorry that I have insufficient time to address specifically each of the people and subjects you asked about. But I will try to give you a more general answer. We have to realize that there's a difference between
how Orthodox Jews see the movements and people of which you speak, and the way non-Jews see them.
From the Orthodox Jewish point of view, the ideal is that the Jewish people should be involved in its own religion - Torah study, fulfilling the commandments - and not involved in the gentile world. We should be a self-contained light to the nations, a shining example for the world without us having to go out and mix into the world. Because when Jews mix into the gentile world, there is invariably trouble. The Jews are adversely affected by it and they will end up not serving G-d as they should.
History has seen many Jews who broke away from Judaism and tried to contribute to the rest of the world, some with very damaging affects. We look at it as if those Jews were swept away by the winds of the time, the movements, the fads. This is the kind of language I used in my previous letter to you.
Non-Jews, on the other hand, look at it as if Jews are the creators of (not the victims of) these movements and ideas, and are responsible for bringing them to the world. The next, tempting step is to think that there is some kind of Jewish conspiracy to bring these things to the world.
But this is a distortion based on ignorance. A non-Jew cannot know what goes on inside the true Jewish people, the people of the Torah, so he harbors these suspicions. As an Orthodox Jew, from inside the Jewish community, I can tell you the real truth, that these movements do not originate in Judaism, but on the contrary in a break with Judaism.
Thus take your example of the freemasons. The opening of the freemasons to Jewish membership was a major step for many assimilation- minded Jews of europe towards equality and association with gentiles. They even made changes in the official masonic texts and perhaps in the architecture, as you say, to accomodate Jews. But does that make the freemasons Jewish? If the early Bolveshiks were Jews, does that make Bolshevism Jewish? These are all things that do not originate from within the Jewish people, but from without. Jews did these things not because they were Jews, but despite the fact that they were Jews. This is something that's hard for a non-Jew to know, but take it from me.
One or two words about the Holocaust: Unfortunately the Holocaust did happen: nearly 6 million Jews were indeed murdered by the Germans, most of them in gas chambers or in mass shootings. This is not a
Zionist falsification. The Zionists, however, do use the Holocaust as a tool to silence their opponents. They also used it as a tool to justify the founding of their state. They made the nations of the world feel a collective guilt so that they would vote to give the Jews a piece of land. This was obviously unfair since the land was being taken from the Palestinians who did not participate in the Holocaust.
This is reminiscent of the old fable about the boy who cried wolf. The boy has told so many lies that even when he speaks the truth he is not believed. Here as well, the Zionists have spread much false propaganda
in the world, so that even when they tell us about the Holocaust, people suspect that it is a lie. However, we know the Holocaust to be a fact because of the innumerable Jewish non-Zionist eyewitness accounts of what happened, as well as meticulous detailed German documents.
As far as the crime of Holocaust denier, I personally don't think it's good to limit free speech and freedom of the press, because it creates the sense of an oppressive Communist-like government. It makes people feel like there's something being hidden. Better to let everyone express his opinion and let the facts speak for themselves.
Thanks again for your interest and best of luck.