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& #39;t in control of the CIA and Civil Service.

The media might be disproportionately J*wish but that& #39;s about as far as it goes. https://twitter.com/Odious_Ledger/status/1252396805217648643">https://twitter.com/Odious_Le...

As I& #39;ve said before, Robert Conquest& #39;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& #39;s totally illustrative of the shallowness of basically every political ideology that doesn& #39;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& #39;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& #39;m getting at is fairly Deleuzean.
The issue at hand isn& #39;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.