In our second installment of this "Occupied America" series, we noted that three conditions must obtain for a country to be considered "occupied." The third condition was that: The occupier must dominate the political process and must exact tribute.
We will examine whether this condition is satisfied in this third installment.
Trying to understand government policy questions with a rational and "race blind" world view is crippling. You cannot explain why things happen the way they do. You miss every time!
Why do we have welfare policies that have driven black illegitimacy from about 3% in 1950 to 70% today?
Why do we have welfare policies that cause 40% of black males to be in jail or on probation, to have contempt for serving customers, and to become unemployable?
Why are we constantly inventing new legal "rights" that tie the hands of police in stopping the massive wave of crime that engulfs our central cities?
Why do teachers focus on "self esteem" while dumbing down math and reading - producing constantly falling SAT scores?
Why do we have welfare policies that have driven the White illegitimacy rate from less than 1% in 1950 to 24% in 1995?
Why do we have uncontrolled immigration and falling wage rates for our less educated citizens despite 70% opposition by the electorate?
Our race-blind conservatives recognize that these policies are mistaken and believe that once they point out the error of these policies, our government will stop.
But race blind conservatives have been pointing out the error and destructiveness of these policies for over 40 years! Yet the policies continue! Everyone understands that people and governments can make mistakes. But after 20 years of bad results, you would expect the policies to change!
But they don't! Why? There is a simple answer.
It is an answer that middle class Euro-America doesn't yet want to hear. The answer is that these policies are perfectly consistent with the racial and ethnic interests of their proponents.
Disregard the racial and ethnic agenda and you can never comprehend why government does what it does. But in our society, understanding the ethnic and racial agenda is difficult, for it is an agenda that does not speak its own name in public. It is an agenda that tries mightily to conceal its purposes and the real reasons for its actions.
Not a word of these purposes will ever pass the electronic media. Very seldom will they pass in the print media. However, if you want to predict the outcome of a presidential election, or understand why we adopt horribly destructive social policies, understanding a few simple ethnic/racial agendas is critical.
There is a 100% correlation between government actions and the racial interests of those who participate most vigorously in the governmental process. The policies that seem so perverse and retarded are perfectly rational and effective once one understands the real motivations.
Conservatives open every criticism of these destructive policies with the ritual incantation that the liberals promoting them have "good intentions." But how do conservatives know that?
Where is the evidence of those good intentions?
The fact that conservatives never attempt to prove liberal good intentions tells you that they are passing before a very important social censor. The ritual incantation of "good intentions" is a protective device that prevents them from having to get to the ugly truth.
But it also prevents them from developing any motivational message capable of galvanizing voters to oppose the policy. If you cannot identify the bad motive behind the policy - if you are not allowed to identify the proponent publicly and how he benefits from the policy - then, you cannot effectively attack his policy.
After all, the liberals never had any trouble naming Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan and the "rich WASPs" as the culprits blocking economic opportunity at the beginning of the 20th Century. They did this even though WASPs are, and always have been, a relatively impoverished group ranking behind every other White ethnic group in America and only marginally ahead of blacks in educational attainment and income.
So why the double standard? Why can't conservatives identify the culprits who benefit from destructive liberal policies?
I have a simple thesis.
The destruction and dependence of blacks, the dumbing down of our schools, the rising illegitimacy rates, and the soaring immigration and the driveling stupidity of television all relate to and reinforce one another in maintaining the power of our political elite.
On Jan. 24, 1995 The Wall Street Journal published a book review by Scott McConnell on page A 20 entitled "Strange and Powerful Allies" about the "Creation and Collapse of the Black-Jewish Alliance."
"Mr. Friedman, an official of the American Jewish Committee, shows that the history of blacks and whites fighting racial discrimination together was mainly a story of cooperation between blacks and Jews. Former Columbia professor Joel Spingarn, a Jew, chaired the NAACP shortly after its founding in 1909; for decades Jewish attorneys made up the majority of the NAACP's legal committee. A Jewish leftist named Stanley Levison was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s closest advisor. Two-thirds of the whites who went South as Freedom Riders in 1961 were Jews, as were over half the white volunteers for Mississippi Summer of 1964.
"Left-wing Jews from the National Lawyers Guild were heavily involved in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, the civil-rights youth group that emerged in 1960. Liberal Jews such as Allard Lowenstein (later a congressman) went South to volunteer their legal services for the cause of civil rights. And Jewish martyrdom is also part of the story: Andrew Goodman and Joseph Schwerner, two young New Yorkers doing voter-registration work, were assassinated on a deserted Mississippi road in 1964,with a Young black named James Chaney.
"Mr. Friedman writes as an old-fashioned liberal, with undiluted admiration for most of the Jewish activists who combated racism. Indeed, his book is an effective rebuke to black publicists who minimize the Jewish contribution to the civil-rights struggle. Yet there are times when his narrative cries out for a speculative approach."
The author of the review, Mr. McConnell, then coyly notes:
"These days, the movement that broke down the barriers of discrimination, integrated the schools and created the industry of civil-rights litigation is invariably presented as an unmitigated triumph. Yet black anger and despair remain in many ways deeper than ever.
"This prompts the question whether the path of the modern civil-rights movement was the only good one available to black Americans. Incredible as it may seem, there are still scarcely any black-owned grocery stores serving Harlem or Watts. Might it have been possible for black leaders to place more emphasis on building businesses, less on filing lawsuits against discrimination?"
It seems quite clear, in retrospect, that the Jews motives for fomenting the civil rights movement were bad. How do we know?
Simple.
The Jews themselves used industry, thrift, entrepreneurship, hard work, and study to get ahead. Yet for blacks, they counseled demands, entitlements, legal rights and claims against the majority.
Having already produced success for themselves, it is inconceivable that Jews ever really believed that the civil rights program they presented would produce equality or opportunity for blacks. You cannot make such a mistake when you have your own contrary experience to draw from.
It was a program intended from the beginning to produce a permanently dependent voting block of alienated people angrily opposed to the Euro-American majority. It has accomplished that purpose. The program was intended to impose costs on Whites, and divide them in such a way that only a super-majority could assert majority interests and win an election. It accomplished that objective as well. In short, the civil rights program was "good for Jews." Whether it was good for blacks was irrelevant. And in any event, it was quite different from the program the Jews followed to advance their own interests.
My thesis is that the dumbing down of Television entertainment, the dumbing down of our schools, the dumbing down of our elections, the creation of social welfare policies that entrap blacks - the general decline of our culture - are part of a single rational and sensible program for political control of the United States.
The theoretical underpinnings of this program were developed in the early part of this Century by Jewish social scientists at the Frankfort School, and following their move to the U.S. in 1938, the New School For Social Research in New York. This school invented public opinion and polling. It invented new advertising concepts for the electronic media. Those who understood the power of advertising paid up to acquire the media empires. (See "The Radio Project and Little Annie" on the "breakthroughs" page at http://www.88net.net/ygg/.)
It was a more effective way of controlling the masses than totalitarian Marxism. Same program - same ultimate objective - just new techniques and new marketing. Instead of yearning for capitalism to produce an economic collapse from which they could grab power, the alienated Jews would work to produce a cultural, moral and social collapse, toward the same end.
Can cultural decline really render a population easier to control?
Yes indeed!
The Nov. 15, 1996 edition of the Wall Street Journal had an article on the gender gap (the tendency of women to vote for Democrats more than men) on p A-14:
"A Wirthlin Worldwide poll taken on the evening of Nov. 5 for the Christian Coalition found that married women were split evenly, 44-44, between Messrs. Dole and Clinton. Whatever else, this isn't a "gap." Another poll by the Los Angeles Times showed that married voters as a group were within three points of one another when it came to choosing the President or Mr. Dole. Again, a competitive situation, but no gap. Exit poll numbers collected by the Voter News Service, a consortium of network TV and the Associated Press, are similar. They show married voters, male and female, divided 44 for Mr. Clinton and 46 for Mr. Dole."
"Seen in this context, what was seen as an issue of male vs. female actually emerges as the nuclear family vs. something else. What that something else might be isn't automatically obvious, but some educated guesses are possible. One is that the women who went for Mr. Clinton are living in a condition of relative insecurity or entitlement."
Indeed, family breakdown and "alternative life styles" produce dependent constituencies that vote for the welfare state, for Israel, and for further cultural decline. Expanding this voting block is "good for Jews." Further, the dumbing down of our population and the decline in literacy automatically yields enormous political power to the electronic media.
According to a recent articles in the Wall Street Journal and National Review, 40% of the American voters "lack the capacity to associate their own policy preferences with candidates who shares those preferences." A Dec. 17, 1996 article in the Wall Street Journal (page A-18) in discussing the Clinton scandals notes:
"So how can the average American not get news about the scandals? Because the average citizen doesn't read, listen to or watch any of the above. A study of the 1992 campaign by the University of Michigan's Center for Political Studies found that 50% of voters paid no attention to newspaper articles about the campaign, and 77% paid no attention to magazine articles. This month the Pew Research Center released a survey showing that while the audiences for radio (19%) and on-line services (10%) again television is the leading source for news for a whopping portion of the public, now 72%."
Modern election campaigns are won by TV advertising. These campaign techniques are designed to appeal not to policy preferences of the voter, nor to help the voter correlate those policy preferences with actual results produced by the candidate, but appeal instead to "feelings." Our American electorate is being taught to vote for the candidate who displays the right "feelings."
It is obvious, if you think about it, that a politics dominated by actors projecting image and "feelings" gives enormous power to the media barons and big political contributors who pay for the advertising. It is in their interest to slide the entire agenda of policy choices out of the public debate and into the back rooms where real agendas need never be disclosed and the politicians can cede control without embarrassment. It is a way of stripping democracy of its substance. You convince
the people that their votes count, while effectively denying them any chance to influence policy with those votes. Indeed, the dumbing down of America ensures that campaigning politicians can bandy about slogans such as "fairness" and "making 'the rich' pay their fair share" without having to identify "the rich" and without having to produce evidence that their schemes will really distribute wealth and power rather than further concentrating it.
Academics produce a confusion of complex studies arguing about whether welfare produces the pathologies of inner-city America, or whether the lack of jobs (defects of free enterprise) produces these pathologies. These complex arguments are useless, because they never ask the obvious question - who benefits from the policy?
But to further our inquiry into the question of whether the American political process is dominated by a hostile power, three things are necessary:
Disproportionate political contributions by Jews,
Direct policy demands presented to the politicians by Jewish contributors, and
Slanted Television coverage by Jewish media barons as a means of electing obedient candidates and defeating disobedient candidates.
A. Disproportionate Political Contributions
From the Mar. 2, 1978 Wall Street Journal, P 18, article entitled "American Jews and Jimmy Carter" by James M. Perry, we read the following:
"The Jews are the most affluent group in our society. They are the most professional - 20% of the lawyers are Jewish, 9% of the doctors.... Jews are generous with their money. The White House's Mr. Siegel previously a longtime employee of the Democratic National Committee, estimates that as much as 80% of the big gifts that sustain the party, year in and year out, come from Jews."
How important is this money?
Business lobbyists tend to give in equal amounts to incumbents of both parties. They "hedge their bets." This leaves the big money men of the Israel lobby with the ability to throw the advertising advantage to whichever candidate they select. Goyim simply do not contribute to campaigns. They believe that good government should be free, just as they learned in high-school civics. Advertising costs money, and the big money men decide who wins and who loses. Every campaign finance "reform" that limits corporate and Political Action Committee donations merely increases the relative power of Jews and their political contributions.
B. Direct Policy Demands
Lets begin with presidential elections. I will offer up a thesis. Since 1932, the candidate friendliest to Israel always wins. It is the only data you need to predict the outcome of a presidential election.
The Roosevelt Elections.
Need no comment.
Truman - Dewey - 1948.
Lets start with an example from the foreword to Israel Shahak's "Jewish History, Jewish Religion" (Pluto Press, 1994) written by Gore Vidal:
"Sometime in the late 1950's, that world class gossip and occasional historian John F. Kennedy, told me how, in 1948 Harry S. Truman had been pretty much abandoned by everyone when he came to run for president. Then an American zionist brought him two million dollars in cash, in a suitcase, aboard his whistle stop campaign train. That's why our recognition of Israel was rushed through so fast' "
"I shall not rehearse the wars and alarms of that unhappy region. But I will say that the hasty invention of Israel has poisoned the political and intellectual life of the USA, Israel's unlikely patron.
"Unlikely, because no other minority in American history has ever hijacked so much money from the American taxpayers in order to invest in a 'homeland'. It is as if the American taxpayer had been obliged to support the Pope in his reconquest of the Papal States simply because one-third of our people are Roman Catholic."
Eisenhower - Stevenson - 1952.
The real action, as far as Israel was concerned, was the Republican primary battle between Taft and Eisenhower. Taft opposed entry into World War II and was regarded as an "anti-semite" Eisenhower won the primary. As between Eisenhower and Stevenson, it was a yawner.
Eisenhower - Stevenson - 1956.
Same, both candidates equally acceptable to Jewish interests.
Nixon - Kennedy - 1960.
The most interesting activity takes place in elections in which Jewish interests are confronted by two unattractive alternatives. The 1960 election between Nixon and Kennedy is a classic. From "Jews and American Politics" by Stephen Isaacs (Doubleday, 1974) page 157:
"Four years later, in 1960, the Republicans nominated Nixon. To most Jews, he was the archetypal Jew-baiter, the man who had smeared Helen Gahagan Douglas by calling her 'soft on communism,' whose supporters had reminded voters that the real name of her husband, actor Melvyn Douglas, was Hesselberg."
But Kennedy was not much more appealing to Jews. From "The Samson Option" by Seymour Hersh (Vintage Books 1993), p 96:
"It was a rough session. Kennedy had just returned from a brief vacation at the family compound at Hyannis Port, Massachusetts, and it was a prominent Bostonian, Dewey D. Stone, who set the tone with the first question, as recalled by Feinberg: 'Jack, everybody knows the reputation of your father concerning Jews and Hitler. And everybody knows that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.' Kennedy's response was to the point: 'You know, my mother was part of that tree, too.' Ribicoff, who would join Kennedy's cabinet, understood the message: The sins of the father shouldn't fall on the son.' Fortunately for Kennedy, that message was enough for the men at Feinberg's apartment. Kennedy had gone upstairs to a separate room with Ribicoff to await their judgment, Feinberg recalled. The group agreed on an initial contribution of $500,000 to the presidential campaign, with more to come. I called him [Kennedy] right away,' said Feinberg. His voice broke. He got emotional with gratitude."
Johnson - Goldwater - 1964.
You cannot really understand the Johnson-Goldwater contest until you understand the problem Israel was having with John Kennedy in 1962 and 1963. From "The Samson Option" Page 117:
"John Kennedy, profoundly committed to the principle of nonproliferation, continued throughout 1962 to pressure Ben-Gurion about international inspection (of Dimona, Israel's nuclear weapons plant) and continued to receive the prime minister's bland and irritating assurances that Israel had no intention of becoming an atomic power. The president was far too politically astute not to understand, as he angrily told his friend Charles Bartlett, that the Israeli 'sons of bitches lie to me constantly about their nuclear capability.' "
Page 120
"By spring of 1963, Kennedy's relationship with Ben-Gurion remained at an impasse over Dimona, and the correspondence between the two became increasingly sour. None of those letters has been made public. Ben Gurion's responses were being drafted by Yuval Neeman, a physicist and defense ministry intelligence officer (Mossad) who was directly involved in the nuclear weapons program. It was not a friendly exchange' Neeman recalled. Kennedy was writing like a bully. It was brutal."
Concerning Johnson we read on Page 126:
"Johnson's ties to Israel were strong long before he became President. Two of his closest advisors, lawyers Abe Fortas (later named to the Supreme Court) and Edwin L. Weisl, Sr., while not particularly religious, felt deeply about the security of Israel. Johnson also had known of Abe Feinberg and his fund-raising skills since the Truman years; Feinberg was among those who had raised money for Johnson's successful campaign for Senate.' "
"There was a much deeper link, however, that had nothing to do with campaign funds: Johnson had visited the Nazi concentration camp at Dachau while on a congressional fact-finding trip at the end of World War II. His wife, Lady Bird, told a Texas historian years after Johnson's death that he had returned 'just shaken, bursting with overpowering revulsion and incredulous horror at what he had seen. Hearing about it is one thing, being there is another.' There are no photographs of the visit, but Johnson's Congressional archives contain a full set of U.S. Army photos taken two days after the liberation of the death camp on April 30, 1945."
In contrast, Goldwater's virulent anti-communism frightened Jews. The fact that Goldwater himself was half-Jewish made matters worse. Goldwater was the kind of uncontrollable person who might get up on the stand on inauguration day and do side-by-sides from Marx and the "Protocols", or translate selected passages from the Sanhedrin (the Talmud). Goldwater posed a severe risk of unwanted disclosure. - of "spilling the beans" and placing on the table in a very public way questions about communism and communist slaughters of gentiles that might become very uncomfortable. He knew too much. Predictably, the media attack on him was utterly merciless. Sort of what you would expect if the Republicans had nominated Israel Shahak in 1996!
Goldwater's actual motivations are murkier. While he eagerly sought to run against Kennedy, he showed little interest in defeating Johnson. Perhaps the assassins had deprived him of his motivating agenda.
In any event, Israel was the only country that had anything to gain by Kennedy's death. Motive and means! And then Jack Ruby (Rubenstein)! Does Mossad keep lists of terminal cancer Sayanim?
Humphrey - Nixon - 1968.
A possible exception that proves the rule. Having learned from his race against Jack Kennedy, Nixon had taken on advisors like Leonard Garment and fundraisers like Max Fischer. Kissinger ran his foreign policy. However, his election owed more to popular reaction to Lyndon Johnson's prosecution of the Vietnam War.
"The Yiddish word, "taam," means Jewish soul. Hubert Humphrey had it. Even Texas's Lyndon Johnson had it." (The Sampson Option, page 117)
McGovern - Nixon - 1972. The McGovern - Nixon contest was a classic because no typical American voter of that day would have had a clue what issues were actually driving events. From "Jews and American Politics" by Stephen D. Isaacs (Doubleday, 1974), Page 1:
"This was George S. McGovern's debut at trying to raise "big money" for his attempt to win the Presidency of the United States and he had a right to be nervous. The men seated around that table were big money. Indeed, billions of dollars in personal net worth was represented at the table. Laurence Tisch had invited his friends... Alfred P. Slaner ... Morris L. Levinson ... Preston Robert Tisch ... Robert Bernstein ... Saul P. Steinberg... Arthur G. Cohen ... R. Peter Strauss ..., and Meshulam Riklis..."
Page 3:
"He (McGovern) said he supposed that the best way they could all get to know each other would be for him to answer questions. He remained standing and looked around the table. A slight, greying, carefully tailored man, seated several places to his right rose. He spoke with a noticeable Hebrew accent in identifying himself as Meshulam Riklis. ... 'Senator', Riklis asked, just what is your position on Israel?'
"The only hope for a just and permanent settlement in the Middle East, McGovern answered, looking down the table at Riklis, was not an imposed peace, but a negotiated one, worked out in a world forum like the United Nations."
"With that answer, McGovern blew most of the traditional big money from Jews in 1972, money that was to go first to Hubert Humphrey, then later into the Republican campaign in unprecedented amounts."
The hostility of the press and electronic media toward McGovern was surprising. McGovern was the most liberal man ever nominated by the Democratic party. The biased press should have loved him if their biases were purely ideological. But they didn't. It was a simple case of this conservative observer not understanding those biases.
Ford - Carter 1976.
See below.
Carter - Reagan 1980.
All you need to know about the Carter - Reagan election comes from an article in the Mar. 2, 1978 Wall Street Journal, page 18 Column 4, entitled "American Jews and Jimmy Carter" By James M. Perry:
"Walter H. Shorenstein, a San Francisco developer who has raised millions of dollars for the Democratic Party and its candidates, isn't sure Jimmy Carter understands the way American Jews feel about Israel.... Not every leader in the American Jewish community is in such despair. But almost all of them are worried about what they perceive to be the administration's hard-line policy opposing Jewish settlements in occupied Arab territories. They are flatly- and emotionally - opposed to the administration's decision to sell advanced warplanes to both Egypt and Saudi Arabia and to cut back on the number of planes it is willing to sell to Israel. And, as a result, some of them are rethinking their commitment to Jimmy Carter."
A similar viewpoint comes from a Sep. 22, 1980 Wall Street Journal article on page 1 entitled "Estranged Friends" written by Albert Hunt:
"Viewing this Democratic disaffection, Ronald Reagan hopes to rival Richard Nixon's support from an estimated 35% of Jews in 1972. This month thousands of rabbis in New York State received New Year's wishes in the mail from Ronald and Nancy Reagan. The campaign is setting up "Rabbis for Reagan" and "Concerned Jews for Reagan" groups to spread the word of the GOP nominee's staunchly pro-Israel position. Reagan supporters also are circulating copies of a recent TV interview in which Democratic Sen. Henry Jackson said Mr. Reagan "has unique qualifications" to talk on the question of Israel, because he was one of the "original supporters" of the Jewish state."
Reagan - Mondale 1984.
See above.
Bush - Dukakis 1988.
See below.
Bush - Clinton - 1992.
The Bush-Clinton contest of 1992 is quite interesting. Big Jewish contributors assumed that Bush would be as inclined toward Israel as Reagan, and were delighted with his war against Iraq. However, the Iraq war was not enough. As we read in the April 26, 1994 Wall Street Journal on page A22, in an article entitled "Pro-Israel Lobby Sees Role Shrink . . . " by Robert S. Greenberger:
"By contrast, former President Bush and former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir were barely on speaking terms. Mr. Shamir fought U.S. efforts to broker Mideast peace and Mr. Bush blocked $10 billion in loan guarantees for Israel. As a result, during the 15-year reign of hardline Likud governments in Israel, AIPAC officials often served as go-betweens or referees, defending Israel's government before an often hostile U.S. administration."
In contrast, Clinton was and is "the best friend Israel has ever had in the White House".
Clinton - Dole - 1996.
Here is all you need to know about the 1996 presidential election from page 334 of "By Way Of Deception."
"U.S. Senator Robert Dole, during an interview while he toured Israel, suggested that the United States should consider cutting its massive aid package to Israel to free up funds for emerging democracies in Eastern Europe and Latin America."
Bob, you putz! You just don't talk like that about Israel. Especially if you plan to run for president!
It is relatively clear that Jewish demands are clearly and unequivocally put to American politicians in private. Our politicians then can accede to these demands in private,
without having to suffer public humiliation. It is the way of any good occupying power!
C. Media rewards and punishments.
In Occupied America - Part I - I listed the chairman and CEOs of all of our American electronic media. It is clear that a candidate perceived as being unfriendly to Israel, or independent of the Israel lobby, cannot pass through the lenses of these Television Moguls and still win an election. At least - it has never happened yet!
The sanction is not always money - that can be raised from Goyish business interests - but rather unrelenting hostile news coverage. Control of the electronic media is the sine-qua-non of occupation. the correlation between its displeasure and electoral results at the presidential level is perfect. And it will remain perfect because the public is unaware of it.
Given our current state of cultural decline and the consistent dumbing down of Television and education, the mechanics of applying these sanctions are shockingly simple. All the media barons need do is ensure that their employees avoid the candidate's planned sound bites, and air his occasional gaffes and his momentary frowns instead! No need to regale the audience with lots of complicated arguments about policy, and no need to let the newsroom employees know the real reason the candidate has been targeted.
It is elegantly simple and wondrously effective.
Now the objection can be raised that it is unfair or illogical to blame all Jews for the actions of a "few activists." The problem with this argument is that we know Jews display bloc voting of 80% to 90% for liberal candidates who support cultural decline, racial antagonism toward the White majority, and policies that create voting blocks dependent on government aid. This voting pattern bespeaks hostility and racial polarization. It is an ethnic characteristic of the group.
A second objection is that we Whites are largely responsible for our own fate, and that objection is true. We want something for nothing. We do not want to pay for entertainment. So we watch their "free" Television and willingly imbibe the cultural toxins. We willingly participate in the dumbing down of our race. Indeed, we would not be living in an Occupied America if we simply canceled our cable subscriptions and kept our TV sets turned off.
In "Occupied America - Part IV - Rays of Hope in an Ugly Trend" I will sum up and conclude this series.
Yggdrasil
