POWER

In his strikingly personal book Jews and American Politics, author Stephen D. Isaacs spells out some very pertinent questions right on the dust-jacket. He asks: "Why is the political power of American Jews – and their contribution – far greater than their numbers?" "Why do Jews seldom run for office, and why do so many work behind the scenes as strategists?" The book is based on personal interviews with 200 leading American Jews, many of whom initially balked at the thought of "letting it all hang out" for the goyim to read, and react to. This paranoia is well-illustrated in a most curious appraisal of the book by Joseph Raft: "A vast storehouse of information on a touchy subject which is poorly understood by Jews and their enemies." Raft might as well have changed the period comma and added "the goyim". To the political Jew, the world is not populated by Jews and non-Jews, it is populated by Jews and "their enemies".

Isaac provides a multitude of examples, many in direct response to his manuscript:

"Though well aware of the inbred dread of impending doom, this writer was startled by responses of noted public men on the subject of anti-Semitism. One question was repeated to most of those who gave longer interviews for this book: 'Do you think it could happen here?' (Never was it necessary to define 'it'.) In almost every case, the reply was approximately the same: 'If you know history at all, you have to presume not that it could happen, but that it will,' or 'It's not a matter of if: it's a matter of when.'

"Fear undoubtedly is the greatest single factor accounting for Jews' high level of political activity. In one way or another, Jews in politics are, at the extreme, striving to avoid becoming lamp shades or, at least, striving for a 'just' society – which may ultimately be the same thing."

Many of those interviewed for the book expressed alarm at the possible uses for such a survey:

"One man named in the first chapter of this book reacted with alarm when he was shown a draft of the chapter. 'Oh no!'he exclaimed. 'You can't do that. PLEASE don't do that.' He explained that, while he felt flattered to be included, identifying him as being Jewish would cause him problems. 'You just don't understand; it's getting bad out there,' he said, pointing his forefinger back over his right shoulder. 'I pick it up everywhere I go. It's increasing like you wouldn't believe. I really wish you wouldn't do this book at all.' "

Even proper nouns are cause for hysteria:

"The syndrome operates when most Jews read their morning newspaper: as their glance flits across the headlines, they might over-look the word 'Jewish' in one. Not so with the word 'Jew.' The eye rivets to that word, as if it has goose-stepped off the page. To a non-Jew , the two words might seem interchangeable. But the short noun form is clipped and harsh and, when used by a non-Jew, is considered usually pejorative in itself, as if in other surroundings it might be followed by, say, bastard. Its use by a non-Jew almost automatically makes him suspect of being an anti-Semite...

"Jewish radar, the knot of fear, is a characteristic of many of the Jews in politics. At least while they are there, they can work to keep the system free from the terrors that almost all other systems before have meant for Jews. But along with this, the political Jews have, in the main, tried very hard to seem un-Jewish, as if to make themselves acceptable in the 'other' White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant world."

Such a reaction to correct nouns would be cause for psychiatric treatment if it occurred in any other ethnic group. If the British suddenly went into apoplectic fits every time they were called 'Britons' they would surely be regarded as suffering from a group psychological dysfunction. But, perhaps it is because the psychology industry is largely run by Jews, that such behavior among Jews is regarded as rational.

But Isaacs, who usually works as a journalist for the Washington Post and is therefore highly qualified to comment on power in high places, has highlighted two very important behavior patterns here. The Jewish paranoia simultaneously drives Jews into positions of political power and at the same time it makes them keep a low profile while they are about it. So we end up with the curious phenomenon of Jews scrambling to keep a tight control over the reins of power, while at the same time pretending to the rest of the world that they are doing nothing of the sort. Who – us? Nawww. As Isaacs points out:

"Thus, up until very recently, many Jews were pleased if someone told them they didn't look very Jewish. If they did look Jewish, they hastened to correct it with a 'nose job' and/or hydrogen peroxide. Even in an industry permeated by Jews as was (and is) the film industry, the Jewish movie stars enjoyed prominence – not under their richly European Jewish names but as WASPS. So one got the celluloid version of Issur Danielovitch as Kirk Douglas, and Bernie Schwartz as Tony Curtis, and Emmanuel Goldenberg as Edward G. Robinson, and Daniel Kaminsky as Danny Kaye and so on. Out in the real world Steins became Stones, Goldbergs became Golds, and Davidoviches became Davises."

Isaacs might also have pointed out that Jewish producers aid and abet in the masking of Jewish characteristics in Hollywood. For some curious reason, Jewish characters are often played by Goys and righteous-Gentile roles are played by Jews. At the time of writing, a patrician Swedish actress Ingrid Bergman has just been cast as Golda Meir, and the British Jew Michael Caine has just appeared on television as a German officer in a World War Two movie film, The Eagle Has Landed. Could it be that the producers are trying to confuse their audience's concepts of what a Jew looks like? Or are they acting out some psychological drive that tells them "this is what Jews should look like". Do Jews have such a low opinion of their physical image that they continually seek to upgrade it through celluloid flights of fantasy? We will return to those poignant questions later.

Isaacs opens up his fascinating little book with a detailed description of a 1970 fund raiser for Senator George McGovern. The private Manhattan hotel suite was rented by a group of politically astute Jewish businessmen, who were planning on financially supporting McGovern, since he was far-left Democrat and "right up their street". Everything went smoothly, with McGovern giving all the right answers until the $64,000 question: "Senator, just what is your position on Israel?"

With all the sophistication and urbane cosmopolitanism with which South Dakota anoints its favorite sons, McGovern answered that the United Nations should work out peace arrangements between the Israelis and the Palestinians. McGovern was obviously laboring under the illusion that the same rules which apply to the rest of the World are also to apply to Israel. Where U.S. intervention anyplace else is a Bad Thing, U.S. military intervention and support for Israel is a Good Thing. Whereas the United Nations was a Good Thing when it voted to establish the Israel entity in November 1947 it became a Bad Thing when it supported the rights of the Palestinians. A heated exchange took place between the assembled Jewish "philanthropists" and the shy, gentle plains man. It ended with one of the Jews reprimanding McGovern like a naughty school-boy who had not done his homework: "Let me ask you a question, Senator. What did you expect this group to ask you? Why are you so poorly prepared on a question of this importance?"

Isaacs sets the tone for his insightful book with this wonderful vignette of Jewish browbeating and string-pulling. Americans have to thank such political action groups for the humiliating defeat of an honest if absurdly naive McGovern, and the landslide victory of the criminal and hypocritical Richard M. Nixon.

The author provides list after list of prominent Jewish advisers, campaign managers, power-brokers, financiers, opinion-makers, lawyers, staff aides, and writers. He disarmingly points out that although in many fields Jews are not over-represented, their positions of importance ensure that they do not need to be. He cites Capitol Hill as being one place where the effectiveness of the Jewish staffers more than outweighs their numeric weakness. And although Jews do not own most of the newspapers or TV stations in America, their ownership of the major city newspapers and of the TV networks ensures that the smaller but more numerous Gentile media have to toe the line. He states that at one time the Jewish-owned newspapers like the New York Times would even avoid hiring too many Jews, for fear of this ploy seeming too obvious. But the stranglehold grip of the Jews over the media means that nowadays they can staff the entire building with Jews from editor to doorman, and no one in the rest of America would be the wiser. With the greater visual impact of television, it is a different story, says Isaacs. Although the networks are owned and run by Jews, they still insist on having a WASP as front-man or anchor-man on the air.

In government, Jews percolate toward those departments most suited to their skills. Thus federal departments of justice, welfare, finance, labor, science and health all have large numbers of Jews under their roofs. (Isaacs tells us that the vast number of Jews in the Department of Justice is because "justice coincides with the oldest of Jewish ethics". In a curious Freudian slip, the author has set us thinking which Jewish ethic it is that coincides with "justice" since it is not "justice" itself. Perhaps the Jewish concept of "justice" is: Is it good for Jews?)

In another chapter, dealing with Jewish political donations, Isaacs does indeed spell it out:

".. most Jews are paying to put into power the kind of men who will neither confiscate Jews' assets, wall them into ghettos, nor annihilate them. Most donations have been, at bottom, motivated by fear – fear that what happened in England, France, Spain, Germany, could and may, indeed, happen in the United States too, unless America's Jews are vigilant and insure that the 'right' men get into office. And, since 'right' has many meanings, the money has gone to a wide variety of candidates and causes ... These contributors, by far the largest number of Jewish political givers, have tended to talk in code: they say they invest in 'good government' when they are in fact-paying tribute for survival."

Isaacs goes on to show how Jews have traditionally supported liberalism or even socialism, because such philosophies favored Jewish survival. But things start to get awry when liberal policies are taken too far – i.e. are practiced universally. Jews fully supported the civil rights movement of the 1950s and '60s. They supported affirmative action programs for Blacks. They supported integration of Black and White Gentile schools. But when all of this "progress" started to directly affect Jews, then they began to have second thoughts. When affirmative action would become a quota system, then that would surely mean that Jews would be thrown out of, or kept out of, many jobs, since Jews are grossly over-represented in many professions. The expansion of busing programs and public housing schemes would now mean that – heaven forbid – Jewish children might be integrated, and Jewish neighborhoods might be plagued with Black crime. Simultaneously, in the outside world, the extreme left, the Third World, and the United Nations – all of whom had previously danced to the Zionists' tune – were now turning bitterly anti-lsrael. A massive turnaround came about in Jewish thinking, and one-time leftist – even Marxist – Jews almost overnight became "neo-Conservatives". The New York Jewish intelligentsia switched positions so quickly it was almost dizzying. Yet, still we are continually told that the Jews have almost a copyright on ethics, righteousness, justice and honor. In reality, the Jews are concerned only with what is perceived as being good for Jews. Whether the candidate belongs to the elephant party or the jackass party matters not at all.

But if that were all there was to it the phenomenon might be considerably easier to understand. Almost every ethnic group that is conscious of its ethnic identity will vote for candidates who "pitch" for its interests. (The notable exception to the ethnic rule is of course the majority White Anglo-Saxon group, which has little sense of its own identity; and if it does, suffers from a "guilt complex" brought about by decades of liberal brainwashing. Many otherwise rational White, people will vote for Black, Mexican or Jewish candidates on the basis that "it's time the minorities had their chance". Non-Whites find this practice hilarious in the extreme, and take fullest advantage of it in their efforts to become top dog.)

The wrinkles to the Jewish behavior pattern are several. First of all, Jews will vigorously push candidates who represent Jewish interests, while at the same time protesting loudly that there is no such thing as a powerful Jewish lobby and that they are purely interested in "humanity", or "justice" or "good government". In truth, all they are interested in is Jewish humanity, Jewish justice and Jewish government.

But secondly, and perhaps more significantly, as Isaacs points out: the chief motivation for Jewish political power is fear: fear of "it" happening again. Even when the Jews are in total control, and have never had it so good, such as in the United States today, still there is as much fear of being Holocausted as there ever was. This cannot be explained in terms of the empirical evidence. No anti-Semitic policies are part of the platform of any major political party. The Jewish stranglehold over communications means that only philo-Semitic views are broadcast. Candidates representing various American Nazi parties have never garnered more than a handful of votes. Therefore, the intense fear suffered by Jews must be generated inside themselves. It must be psychological in origin.

If we ask why it is that Jews spend a large part of their time acting out their fear of being Holocausted we must conclude that Jews inwardly feel that they deserve to be Holocausted. No one has come up to them and announced to them that they ought to be Holocausted; they have imagined that this is what is going on – consciously or subconsciously – in the Gentile's mind. But in reality it is going on in the Jewish mind. The Jews are projecting their fantasies, their fears, onto the rest of us.

Why is it so? We will explore this area in greater detail in a later chapter. But for now, let us just note that much Jewish behavior in politics can be explained in terms of self-hate. Name-changing, nose jobs, Gentile wives, assimilation, are all declarations by Jews that they do not like being Jewish. They hate themselves so much that they wish they were something they are not. The guilt and anxiety inculcated into them by their religion, by their culture and by their mothers is a guarantee of an end-product psyche that is loaded with self-hate and low self-esteem. Jews wish to be in control of political affairs (and everything else of any importance) precisely because they feel that if they themselves hate being Jewish, then it stands to reason that everyone else will hate Jewishness also, and will seek to eradicate it. But if Jews are in charge of society, then they will be in a position to quickly knock on the head any manifestation of this possibility. The irony of course is that by over-compensating and over-reacting in this way they may very well create the kind of anti-Semitism that they set out to suppress. As more and more citizens become aware of, and resentful of, Jewish control of American society, then those same citizens may well begin to strenuously seek the overthrow of that control and the restoration of democratic majority rule.