Even more so; most of the JQ can only really illuminate the workings of some appendages of power. The Israeli lobby in Congress and AIPAC aren't in control of the CIA and Civil Service.

The media might be disproportionately J*wish but that's about as far as it goes. https://twitter.com/Odious_Ledger/status/1252396805217648643

As I've said before, Robert Conquest's third law; "The simplest way to explain the behaviour of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies."

Basically sums up everything wrong with Mike Enoch types.

It's totally illustrative of the shallowness of basically every political ideology that doesn't engage on the metapolitical level as we find that most political ideologies build their metanarratives around lazily scapegoating their enemies.

"Oh look its White Men/Libtards/Communists/Capitalists/Evangelicals/Lizard People/Fascists/Jews/Group X that is in charge of Organisation Y which explains why Organisation Y is socially corrosive/evil/subversive/oppressive" or something.

In reality, there's more explanatory power in positing that it is the mode in which said institution exists within the political order (power security or insecurity [which i think is power as cybernetics]/imperium in imperio/geopoltical pressures)

alongside whatever dominant group that may or may not be in said organisation and their inherited traditions of thought + historical development that explains why such an organisation operates the way in which it does.

In a sense, what I'm getting at is fairly Deleuzean.
The issue at hand isn't some fundamental identity (Group X), its the historical development and how they exist in, and respond to the recurring problematic/field of difference that better explains why they act the way they do.