Jews worldwide are furiously clutching their pearls after Hall Of Fame Irish singer-songwriter Van Morrison included the song “They Own the Media” on his new album, evoking an age-old antisemitic canard which allegedly has “outraged” many of his Jewish fans and music critics:
In the track, the 75-year-old rock and folk legend does not reveal who the pronoun refers to, but sings, “They control the narrative / they perpetuate the myth / Keep on telling you lies / telling you ignorance is bliss.”
An official audio-only video for “They Own the Media” was posted on YouTube on Thursday, and had over 12,000 views by the following day.
The song is part of Morrison’s 28-song album “Latest Record Project: Vol. 1.” Other titles on the record include “Why Are You On Facebook,” “Big Lie,” “The Long Con” and “Where Have All the Rebels Gone?”
In 2005, the two-time Grammy winner was accused of antisemitism for his song “They Sold Me Out,” in which he sings in from the perspective of Jesus: “For a few shekels more, they didn’t even think twice / For a few shekels more, another minute in the spotlight.”
Throughout the coronavirus pandemic, the artist has shared conspiracy theories that target Jews, according to the Forward.
“Well the new Van Morrison album will certainly satisfy anyone who’s wondered what The Protocols [of Zion] would sound like with a sax accompaniment,” commented the British writer and presenter Matthew Sweet.
“It’s a terrible night for a moondance,” quipped a Pitchfork review of the new album. “On this risible and intermittently lovely 28-song collection, Van indulges in some of his most cherished paranoid theories and deepest-held grudges.”
Why would the Jews automatically assume that the “they” in “They control the media” refers to Jews?
Perhaps he’s referring to “the Irish” or “the Puerto Ricans” — or merely “the Liberals” — but it would seem that their guilty consciences are perhaps condemning them.
Famed Jewish attorney and accused child rapist Alan Dershowitz believes that Jews — despite controlling virtually all major media outlets — need even more power, to ensure the nebulous “safety” of Jews.
As long as even one media outlet — or even one editor at the New York Times — isn’t Jewish, the Jews will continue to claim they “don’t control the media” — they always try to disprove any “canard” about Jews by arguing from the exception — and ignore the fact that the exception proves the rule.
Every time they silence anyone who criticizes them, they prove they do indeed have inordinate power for such a relatively small group of people.
Celebrities like Van Morrison are especially troublesome for Jews — on the one hand, they are cash cows who enrich them, but they must be carefully monitored in case any of them “spills the beans” about Jewish power or perfidy.
Of course, Jews themselves are free to openly admit — or even brag — about their obvious control of Hollywood — because when Jews brag about it, they are obviously suggesting that Jewish control is a good thing — for Jews.
In fact, Joel Stein, a writer for the Los Angeles Times, got so tired of hearing his fellow Jews deny they controlled Hollywood, that we wrote his 2008 landmark article, “Who Runs Hollywood? C’mon” — in which Stein prodded even Abe Foxman, the former director of the ADL to admit, “I think Jews are disproportionately represented in the creative industry. They’re disproportionate as lawyers and probably medicine here as well.”
As Johns Hopkins professor, Benjamin Ginsberg, observed in The Fatal Embrace — his 1993 seminal study on Jewish power — “As a general rule, what can and cannot be said in public reflects the distribution of political power in society; as Jews gained political power, politicians who indulged in anti-Semitic tactics were labeled extremists and exiled to the margins of American politics.” (p.2)
To put it more succinctly, what you can and cannot publicly say about Jews is controlled by Jews — and the more powerful Jews are, the less you can criticize them — these are Ginsberg’s words, not ours.
Jews have amassed so much powerl since the end of World War II — using the Holocaust™ both as a weapon and shield — that they can now silence public figures like Van Morrison who don’t even mention Jews at all — but merely say anything that some people might construe to be unflattering about Jews.
The Jewish-dominated media constantly ridicules “conspiracy theories” because they know that like “all roads lead to Rome,” all conspiracy theories ultimately lead to the Jews.
And Jews should take that as a compliment — that they have indeed achieved the overwhelming power they have admittedly sought in order to feel “safe” — so that they can exercise that power in any way they see fit without ever having to worry about reprisals, such as their physical removal from any nation — which they have experienced hundreds of times in the last 2,000 years — For No Reason Whatsoever™.
the best song of the three i noticed is: Why are You on Facebook?
its a catchy tune
He’s awake!
Speaking of Judas, im curious as to what CFT’s opinion is on his lineage. And if he is supposed to be a pure blooded adamic man, I’m curious as to why the Jews would take offense to a song about someone who isn’t even them.
John, yes, sometimes it is hard to understand why something offends Jews, but when you are predisposed to be offended, and even want to be offended, it’s hard to predict what will set one of them off — it’s not logical.
Here’s the thing about Judas Iscariot — many people don’t want Judas to be an Israelite because he betrayed Christ — “No White man would ever betray Christ!” Really? Peter says the “men of Israel” nailed Christ to the cross, so why is it so hard to think that one of them could also betray Christ?
Evidence that he was an Israelite? Judas received the gospel with the other disciples, which is proof he’s an Israelite, as it was intended only for Israelites. If Judas looked physically different from the other disciples — like a “Jew” does today — all the other disciples would have noticed and said something about it, wouldn’t they? When Christ said there was a “devil” among them, they would have all looked at “the Jew”, no? Apparently, none of that happened.
Some Jews look more white that some white people do. The parable of the wheat and the tares bears this out. Unlike the other disciples, who were Galileans, Judas hailed from a place called Kerioth, which was heavily populated with Edomite Jews.
Judas acted like he received the Gospel, as even some wolves in Christian Identity (or whatever you prefer to call it) do, but his actions ultimately revealed who and what he was. His betrayal of Christ wasn’t a spur of the moment thing, but rather something he’d planned over a period of time. By betraying Christ, who was the Word made flesh, He was rejecting the Gospel.
While there’s no doubt that whites can be twofold the children of hell that Jews can, Christ chose Judas, whom He knew would betray Him, so the punishment for that betrayal would fall upon a Jew instead of one of the Israelite people, whom He came to redeem.
Obie, you’ve made some of the following unproven assumptions:
* The wheat and the tares is referring to “race”
* Edomites are Jews
* Judas was a Jew because he came from Kerioth
* Judas merely pretended to keep the gospel
* Judas planned to betray Christ for longer than what the Scripture indicates
* Punishment for killing Christ would not fall on the Israelite people
Although when I read the Scripture, I would note the following:
* The wheat and the tares is a spiritual teaching (https://christiansfortruth.com/will-all-israel-be-saved-or-just-a-remnant/).
* The Scripture never says Edomites are Jews (https://christiansfortruth.com/edom-in-the-old-and-new-testaments/).
* The Scripture never says Judas was an Edomite.
* The Scripture never gives any indication that Judas was planning his betrayal for any longer than what the Scripture actually indicates.
* Judas had remorse and guilt over his betrayal of Christ (Matthew 27:4)
* The blame for Christ’s death is lain at the feet of Israel (Acts 2:22-23, Acts 3:12-14, Zechariah 12:10)
What do you think?
What do I think?
I think you raise some very interesting points, all of them worthy of detailed discussion. In fact, I’m going to do just that in a couple (maybe a series) of articles on my blog as soon as I can find the time. I’ll let you know when I’ve published them.
Is it necessary for the Scripture to identify particular people as Edomites for them to have been Edomites?
Perhaps it is what is not said about the Edomites that we should delve into? 1 Kings 11 opens with mention that King Solomon had taken foreign wives and they had led them astray. Then it mentions that the Israelite army went to Edom, killed all the men therein, and remained there for six months.
Do these two sequential passages imply that the Israelite soldiers did as their king did and availed themselves of foreign women? With the resulting offspring, a sort of ancient “Lebensborn”, becoming Edomites by maternal descent but Israelites by virtue of their unknown fathers?
Thanks Obie, I’ll keep an eye out.
ReformingBoomer, is it necessary for Scripture to identify them? I suppose my answer is a simple “yes.” If we based interpretations on what the Scripture doesn’t say, then the only limitation of our interpretation is our imagination.
@Johan
I suppose in a similar line, we also do not know from the scriptures that Judas was an israelite as it doesn’t tell us that either.
Acts 2:22-23 is a reference to the trial as it says “you nailed Him to the cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death”. (Which Jesus interceded for them asking for their forgiveness because they knew not what they were doing). The part of delivering Him over (Judas’s Betrayal) was accounted for as God’s predetermined plan. The betrayal of Jesus at the hands of Judas, I don’t see the scriptures laying that at the feet of Israel.
Acts 3:12-13 is also a reference to the trial and not Judas’s betrayal.
Zechariah 12:10 is the same account as well. Zechariah also adds the layer of the fact that the ones who pierced Him didn’t understand what they did in the moment, as it’s a past tense reflection.
Did Judas plan his betrayal? I am under the impression that John 13:18 tells us that Jesus chose Judas to betray him.
While John 13:27 is controversial, it does provide us with evidence that Judas’ act of actual betrayal was done via Satan entering into him, and both verses suggest that Judas had no agency when it came to the betrayal. Of course, that is more or less the position of mainstream Churchianity and so I have to question it.
Which reminds me that John 13:33 has Christ consider his disciples to be separate from the Jews, referencing the Jews of John 8:22, whom he accused of plotting to kill him in John 8:37. What is the significance of this distinction?
Thanks for the reply.
The predisposition to being offended is a reasonable answer.
My question was less about my own thoughts as to whom Judas was based on lineage, and more about consistency in message between the biblical essays and the articles about news events.
My concern is that more Christians are begining to ask the Jew question, especially with the increasingly hostile tension between Israel and Gaza right now.
People want to understand why they shouldn’t or shouldn’t support Jews in Israel today. They want biblical answers.
Before, when the Edomite connection was employed (whether right or wrong, and no I’m not advocating for falsity spreading), there was a presentable package to people whom were waking up to the Jew question. But, now it seems like all we have is rev 2:9 (which could be applied to significantly more than just Jews in Israel).
Explaining some sort of long winded extra biblical beast-jew connection narrative, I feel, would be both harder to digest and harder to present.
John, we intend to publish an entire essay that lays out who the Jews are — and who they are not in very simple and straight forward terms, without having to resort to esoteric, gnostic, Talmudic, and occult sources and explanations such as Jews are Edom and the serpent seedline, which we believe unnecessarily complicate the issue. And, yes, there’s more to it than merely Revelation 2:9.
In the meantime, we do have an introductory essay on the Jews here:
https://christiansfortruth.com/who-are-jews/
But there’s also a good explanation of who are they are in this recent article:
https://christiansfortruth.com/jews-have-meltdown-when-navy-chaplain-quotes-bible-that-the-men-of-israel-crucified-christ-and-need-to-repent/
Thank you, I look forward to that.
“But, now it seems like all we have is rev 2:9”
In regards to the Edomite Question, we have quite a bit more than just Revelation 2:9. One source that I find fascinating is the book of Obadiah.
The Edomites are a rather unique people per that book, in that they were promised to be smote for their heinous crimes against Israel, without any chance of repent and with no survivors, yet this punishment has been suspended for ~2500 years.
There is also a yuge gap in the record of the Edomites. We know that ~2000 years ago they ruled Judea. We know, again from Obadiah, that on The Day of the Lord they will be ruling in what we know as Israel and Jordan. What we do not know is where the Edomites are right now.
It has been suggested that the modern Jews are Israelites who have race-mixed themselves out of the promise. This position seems reasonable to me, and it would seem to counter the “Jews = Edomites”. However I believe there is evidence from scripture that the two positions can both be true as 1 Kings 11 opens with Solomon taking foreign wives and then tells us that, for six months, the Israelites were literally the only men in town in Edom.
While that is not conclusive, it does present at least one time that the Israelites had very ample opportunity to breed their bloodline into the Edomites. Please note that I would not consider this to be “second seedline” theory and that, as I understand that theory, the Edomite Question can be taken entirely independent of that theory.
Also, wanted to reply to these:
“Peter says the “men of Israel” nailed Christ to the cross, so why is it so hard to think that one of them could also betray Christ?”
There is a difference between ignorance + manipulation (Jesus said forgive them for they know not what they do) and premeditated betrayal (example of Judas).
““No White man would ever betray Christ!””
There exists the precident and expectation that there would be whites whom would betray Jesus. I’m unsure if that precident is set for an israelite though (what I’m seeing is that the Lord will make Israelites, whom survived the exile, seek Him and find Him) . I wonder why the Chaldeans aren’t discussed more. They are the ones whom are described as inserting aliens into the Lord’s house (jeremiah 51:51) and they are the ones blamed for the bloodshed of Jerusalem (jeremiah 51:35, compare with Matthew 23:34-35). Also, Babylon and the Chaldeans could be argued to be the harlot in scarlet (Isaiah 47 compare with rev 18).
None of this should detract from Israelite’s own wickedness and their own responsibility and exhortation to live righteous lives. The Lord makes it clear that His people will be held accountable for their own sins, and the ones who lead them astray and extorted them will be punished and held accountable for everything they have done and caused as well.
I also wonder a bit about this, as a tradition in mainstream Christianity is that Judas was the urbane, successful merchant who gave up success, in stark contrast to the low-income “blue collar” background of the other “big name” disciples.
Scripture tells us that Judas was very merchant-minded (John 12:5), but I do find it curious that even after all this time of Christianity being (((converged))), that Judas in the mainstream still winds up often being portrayed along the lines of a stereotypical money-grubbing merchant kike.
Is there any truth to this portrayal, or might it be a last little bit of based “anti-semitism” still clinging to life?
Well, I guess I’m a Van Morrison fan now. This song might get better with repeated listening; while not bad it is not as catchy as his most famous song, the socially-subversive ode to “oil drilling”, “Brown Eyed Girl”.
This reminds me of when Neil Young made a song entitled “We R in Control”, which has a similar message, but apparently gets a pass for saying that “We control the data banks; We control the think tanks;we control the Chief of Staff; We control the TV sky; We Control the FBI…” because the song implies the “we” as being a robot.
Specifically, a “Chemical Computer Thinking Battery”. If you squint a bit, that could describe a human. Still, lyrics like that seem like they’d be found (((offensive))) if released today. Perhaps the Jews don’t backport their Woody Allen-esque paranoid guilty consciences to classic rock song?
The guilty flee when no one accuses….
Outed again!
Yeah, the joos like to try and punch above their weight constantly; they’re happy if they win, and unhappy if they win. Bizarre.
Here is the loud-mouthed antichrist Sarah Silverman ranting, as per usual: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZ-bO2GFJdg