Video: “Jew Watch” on YouTube

posted at 8:42 am on February 27, 2007 by Allahpundit

Remember Jew Watch? It got some attention a few years ago when it became, temporarily, the top result on Google for the word “Jew.” (It’s number five now.) Last night I was browsing through the News & Politics videos on YouTube and, lo and behold, there was Frank Weltner, JW’s grand dragon, in at #71 on the category’s most viewed clips of the day with something called “Israel Harms Many Nations.” It’s five minutes on the influence of the Rothschilds and Israel’s alleged designs on the world’s communications and publishing industries.

I clicked over to his accout page, “cpotato2004”. It seems he’s been uploading videos for the past month, a few of which have been viewed more than 5,000 times. (“USSR Was Founded and Run by Killer Jews” has only 2,750 as of this writing.) The one that caught my eye, though, was “Eli Wiesel’s Alleged Kidnapping,” which was posted on February 23, two days after the lawyer for Wiesel’s — or, as Weltner pronounces it, “weasel’s” — alleged kidnapper told a judge he believes his client has mental problems. You’ll find the clip below. I tuned out right after Weltner accuses Wiesel of having uttered “blood libels” against the German people.

Why mention this? Because of Nick Gisburne, the UK atheist whose account was twice deleted recently by YouTube after he posted an innocuous video about violent passages in the Koran. Go see the screencaps at Gisburne’s site in which YouTube defines the offense as “inappropriate content.” Exit question, then: Why is Gisburne persona non grata at YT while Weltner’s videos are in the top 100? There are only two possibilities — either not a single person of the thousands who’ve seen the Jew Watch stuff has flagged them as inappropriate, or the Jew Watch stuff has been flagged but YouTube’s decided it’s okay. Extremely depressing, whichever it is.

I flagged this one and “Israel Harms Many Nations” last night so the ignorance excuse is disintegrating as we speak. Let’s see what happens in the next 24 hours.

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


still no response despite ….

Dhimmitude is voluntary.
–Bat Y’or [poorly quoted]

Claire on February 28, 2007 at 12:30 AM

Easy there, little liberal. My my my, but you can be condescending, can’t you?

How about looking up “irony” while you have your dictionary out?

Nazism began with Hitler. (As your own link illustrates, the Workers party that AH joined had 25 members when he joined it). Read Mein Kempf, read any of Hitler’s speeches. Again, and for the last time, Hitler was wildly anti-Communist, anti-Socialist, anti-Bolsevik.

Try to follow the logic here: Nazism began with Hitler, Hitler was a fascist from the get-go, never a socialist, so the statement that Nazis were socialists before they were fascists is, well, it’s ludicrous.

honora on February 28, 2007 at 10:25 AM

Yea, that’s the way I learned it a few eons ago. But lately it seems a possibly more useful descripiton is running the spectrum from a centralized, collectivized, socialist left [which would include both Communism and the various fascisms – thus Hitler and Stalins’s emnity not being doctrinal, but rather territorial and even to some degree personal] over to a more individualized, free-market right.

I think “right-wing” was frequently applied to military dictatorships, no matter what the social organization / economic stripe.

I think I like the collectivist – free market description of the spectrum better, especially in describing the division on the American political scene.

eeyore on February 27, 2007 at 6:09 PM

Well more useful is subjective. And revisionist history when people make statements that Nazis were socialists. When did we stop teaching history in schools?

honora on February 28, 2007 at 10:27 AM

Of course, this is strictly a hypothesis on my part, albeit one backed up by similar demographic trends noted in other preindustrial cultures.

Matt Helm on February 27, 2007 at 1:16 PM

See section “Her betrothal to Joseph”; clearly no one knows Mary’s exact age for this–looks like 12 or 13.

honora on February 28, 2007 at 11:53 AM