Deep Cultures - Part I

In the past Jim Bowery and "Frey's Friend" (writing anonymously) refer to Jews as having a "deeper culture" than Whites. They suggest that Jews are far more powerful politically than other European groups.

Bowery and Frey's Friend have a point.

Below are some quotations from the book "Jews and American Politics" by Stephen D. Issacs, published by Doubleday in 1974.

Issacs suggests that Jews are politically active and support integrationism out of fear for their survival. He cites important research suggesting that Jews are far more suspicious, and far less trusting of others than are members of other European- American groups.

This distrust is the key to their power and influence. They constantly think past words of others to their interests and hidden agendas. If you ignore the words and concentrate on the interests and hidden agendas, you understand reality.

In contrast, our Christian institutions have taught us to be trusting of others - to assume only the best of motives - and to prepare ourselves for the Second Coming, when there will be no need for suspicion and all men will be brothers in Christ.

Two points:

  • First, Christ's words and deeds do not support this vision as a prescription for survival here on earth.
  • Second, there is a level at which trust equates with stupidity.

Indeed, this institutional ignorance that Christian Churches implant in their flocks has more to do with preventing questions about what happens to funds in the collection plate than it does with theology or survival. Christian institutions, just like top managements of corporations, abhor accountability.

The Jews have a very different vision and method of organizing themselves.

Theirs is centered on group survival. They teach their members to be suspicious. The rabbis would rather be accountable to suspicious fellow Jews than to keep them stupid and risk weakening the group.

They assume that other groups are always hostile, and they are intensely suspicious of their motives.

It is an aggressive posture - one that Euro-Americans must emulate if they wish to understand how the browns, blacks and talmudists exert such disproportionate influence on our politics.

It is a point about liberals that conservatives typically have a hard time understanding.

The policies urged upon the welfare state by these liberals are slyly destroying black America far more surely than the Ku Klux Klan could ever dream possible. Abortion kills more than one black baby for each live black birth. The rate for whites is .25 to 1.

Aid to dependent children has been destroying the black family. The illegitimacy rate has risen from about 6% in 1950 to 60% nationally today. These policies have produced a class of young black male who is essentially unemployable.

The visible destruction wreaked by these policies has continued for over 40 years.

Hollywood-based cultural attacks are now beginning to have a substantial effect among Whites as well.

Now you might reasonably ask - If these high minded liberals are so concerned about blacks and the "downtrodden," then why are they destroying them?

The answer is that they are not "high minded liberals." These people have a vision of a society in which they are "safe." It is a vision, not surprisingly, calling for social welfare policies that cripple and destroy other cultures.

The crippling and destruction have been ignored for the past 40 years because either (i) it is the desired outcome, or (ii) it is irrelevant in that the policies were never intended to benefit the downtrodden, but were intended to transform society in ways that make a much less visible and much more prosperous group feel more secure.

That is why conservatives obsess about "educating the liberals," not understanding that the destructiveness of their policies is beside the point. What conservatives and gentiles need to understand is that policies espoused by groups full of fear and paranoia will always serve second agendas that are never publicly announced and are much more important to the psychic security of the proponents than the objective results of that policy for the broader society generally.

Ideas are weapons in struggles for dominance and supremacy.

Bowery is right.

We are losing. Often, most of our Euro-American brothers do not even recognize the ongoing struggle for group survival nor understand its agendas and likely outcomes.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Jews and American Politics

Stephen D. Isaacs

Doubleday 1974

p 140

IX The myth of "liberalism"

The Jewish Voter

When analyzing the "Jewish vote," academicians tend to agree that Jews' "liberal" voting often is inimical to their own best interests and almost inevitably conclude that this voting behavior must emanate from the strong ethical tradition of Judaism. Their overwhelming attachment to progressive causes over the last four decades in America often is cited as proof per se that Jews are the most selfless voters in the American polity; that a Jew, when he steps inside a voting booth, is cloaked in a history and tradition of social justice, humanism, and charity that virtually preordain his voting posture. Jews do have a sturdy tradition of charity, love for fellow man - [141] particularly if fellow man is downtrodden, oppressed and disadvantaged. But other religious and ethnic groups have such traditions too; the humanitarian ethic is neither the invention nor the exclusive property of Jews.

Jews' distinctive voting history suggests something else: that the Jew in America may be motivated not so much by Isaiah's ancient call to "seek justice and relieve the oppressed" beating a tattoo inside his subconscious as he is the fear of a tattoo on his forearm. While sociologists have striven to trace patterns, the politicians--actually the most perceptive students of behavior in America--have known all along the core fact: the Jew is an insecure, frightened voter. Thus those politicians who have captured the "Jewish vote" have played to Jews with hardly any effort at subtlety. As long ago as the 1870'S, Rutherford B. Hayes was protesting Russia's treatment of its Jewish citizens and making sure that Americans knew of his protests. Theodore Roosevelt did the same later. So did William Howard Taft. Perhaps the most blatantly hypocritical of such acts in those days was that committed by Secretary of State John Hay, who, at the direction of President William McKinley during the off-year congressional campaign of 1902, complained loudly to Rumania over its persecution of Jews. Hay's protest was bruited widely throughout the American Jewish community while he noted privately, 'The Hebrews--poor dears! All over he country they think we are bully boys."

For decades, many Jews have insisted that no such thing a "Jewish vote" exists. Jews, they have maintained, are like all Americans and, as such, vote on all the issues, not just "Jewish" ones. To admit otherwise would, of course, lend credence to the anti-Semites' claim that Jews in America are subversively un- American, are Jews before they are [142] Americans, before they are editors, before they are stockbrokers. So, while some Jewish agencies have persistently denied the existence of a "Jewish vote," just as persistently the politicians have pandered specifically to "Jewish" interests and issues. The pandering has been especially observable since 1948, when the state of Israel was created. Many appeals have been in the form of accusations against opposing candidates' alleged lack of zeal for Israel's defense. The tactic is employed whether or not the opposing candidate is Jewish. Unsubtle appeals to the "Jewish vote" have been most obvious in New York State, where more than two of every five Jews in America live. In 1956, for example, in Jacob Javits' first race for the United States Senate, his opponent, Robert F. Wagner-- then mayor of New York City and a Catholic--bought advertisements in Jewish newspapers that showed Wagner with the chief rabbi of Israel. Another pictured Wagner with fellow Democrat Herbert Lehman's hand on his shoulder. The Jewish Lehman had been a popular governor and senator from New York.

New York Jewish voters were bombarded by similar propaganda in 1970. In the gubernatorial race between Arthur J. Goldberg, the former Supreme Court justice, and the incumbent, Nelson A. Rockefeller, Rockefeller had a particularly delicate problem: not only was Goldberg a Jew, he had been a lifelong, ardent Zionist. Advertisements claimed that Rockefeller was "one of the staunchest supporters of the state of Israel" and always were signed by leading Jewish businessmen and community figures. One pro-Rockefeller letter, over the signature of E. J. Korvettes' Charles Bassine, was mailed to one hundred thousand Jews in "swing" voting districts.

* * *

[144] The notable feature of an such appeals is that none are pitched to altruism and progressivism. They are aimed at Jews' insecurity, an insecurity that can, on occasion, make this highly educated group appear incredibly and almost pathetically gullible. Politicians know (because they are told so by the Jewish strategists they hire) that many Jews perceive Israel as their ultimate refuge, as being synonymous with survival.

* * *

[148] Just how distrustful Jews are has been calculated in a survey conducted by the National Opinion Research Center for Dr. Melvin Kohn of the National Institute of Mental Health. In this survey, Jews almost leaped off the chart in terms of their intrinsic distrust of others. That survey, reported by the center's Andrew Greeley in his book That Most Distrustful Nation, attempted to assess various white ethnic groups' comparable levels of distrust. The scale went from Plus 4--most trusting--to Minus 4--least trusting:

GROUP ORDER AND SCORE
Irish Catholic 2.506
Scandinavian Protestant 1.583
Slavic Catholic 1.481
German Protestant 0.767
German Catholic 0.757
Italian Catholic 0.502
White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant 0.242
Jewish - 3.106

These figures might also suggest that the disparity in general outlook between Jews and non-Jews carries over into political behavior, since voting statistics of Jews compared with non-Jews show the same variant. It has been proven, too, that as other members of society advance up the educational, economic, and professional ladders, their votes become increasingly "conservative," for preserving the status quo. But as Jews move up the same ladders - and they have hurried up them faster than other groups - [149] their votes become increasingly progressive, more amenable to change.

* * *

The upper class Jews are progressives because they reject what they see as a narrow, parochial route to survival--the one chosen by the more ethnic, more sequestered Jews. The "elite," which moves more in non-Jewish society than the more ethnic Jews, tends to see survival in terms of an America that is open, unauthoritarian, socially concerned. They are for civil rights, for "liberal," progressive government. In that kind of America, they reason, all Jews as members of the society will thrive. They want a world in which all can live harmoniously, so they view an attack on blacks as an attack on their - Harmonious World, an attack on free speech as an attack on their Harmonious World. But this "liberal" stance does not mean the upper class "elite" is any less defensive any less protective of Jewish interests than the pious Hasidim with their side curls who want government aid - - their Jewish day schools. Their version of defense only sounds more polite than that of the Hasidim. That is why the pattern of Jews' voting in presidential elections is so consistently "liberal." It is in fact not so much liberal as it is anti what they fear, as is clear from the record of Jewish voting for the last half century:

PERCENTAGE OF JEWISH VOTE
1916 Republican (Hughes) 45
Democrat (Wilson) 55
1920 Socialist (Debs) 38
Republican (Harding) 43
Democrat (Cox) 19
1924 Progressive (La Follette) 22
Republican (Coolidge) 27
Democrat (Davis) 51 51
1928 Republican (Hoover) 28
Democrat (Smith) 72
1932 Republican (Hoover) 18
Democrat (Roosevelt) 81
1936 Republican (Landon) 15
Democrat (Roosevelt) 85
1940 Republican (Willkie) 10
Democrat (Roosevelt) 90
1944 Republican (Dewey) 10
Democrat (Roosevelt) 90
1948 Progressive (Wallace) 15
Republican (Dewey) 10
Democrat (Truman) 75
1952 Republican (Eisenhower) 36
Democrat (Stevenson) 64
1956 Republican (Eisenhower) 40
Democrat (Stevenson) 60
1960 Republican (Nixon) 18
Democrat (Kennedy) 82
1964 Republican (Goldwater) 10
Democrat (Johnson) 90
1968 American Independent (Wallace) 2
Republican (Nixon) 17
Democrat (Humphrey) 81
1972 Republican (Nixon) 35
Democrat (McGovern) 65

conscious evolution
Subscribe to prometheism Group

Articles  News  Science  Philosophy  Politics  Eugenics  Heaven  Links  Prometheism  Transtopia  Neoeugenics  News Blog 

>> Site Map <<



Eugenics Papers | Martinez Perspective | Transtopia Site (New) | Prometheism | Euvolution | Pierre Teilhard De Chardin