Saturday, November 9, 2013
The Conspiratorial Style in American Politics
Richard Hofstadter wrote a famous essay — followed by a book — on the ‘Paranoid Style of American Politics’. Of course, being a good Jewish liberal, his target was the American Right, but in reality, the ‘paranoid style’ was no less prevalent on the American Left as on the American Right. But the powers-that-be in the academia and media decide what is ‘extreme’ and ‘paranoid’ and what isn’t. One’s man paranoia is another’s truth, and vice versa. Though Hofstadter wasn’t wrong about problems of the American Right, the term ‘paranoia’, like ‘phobia’, has a way of shutting off than expanding debate. After all, who wants to be accused of ‘paranoia’ and ‘extremism’? When the powers-that-be in the academia and media label some people thus, most ‘respectable’ people distance themselves from the reviled group regardless of whether the charge is true or false. One might call this the ‘hysteric style of American politics’.
While there were undoubtedly elements of the American Right that were indeed paranoid and partial to outlandish theories of hidden international plots, it also needs to be asked why such mind-sets existed in the first place. Also, we must remind ourselves that the ‘paranoid style’ can accompany the telling of hard facts. Style isn’t the same thing as substance. After all, one can tell the truth hysterically and stupidly, and one can tell the lie soberly and intelligently. Within that context, Hofstadter’s essay hints as to why the American Right became so disreputable in intellectual circles in the post-war era. It wasn’t so much what they said but how — the style — with which they said it. And the posterboy of this style was Joseph McCarthy — and then the grumpy-looking Barry Goldwater. History would prove many of McCarthy’s allegations to have been true, but his style was so often boorish and extreme that he even made the truth sound ‘hysterical’ and outlandish, not to mention ugly. Style matters in politics as in boxing and dancing. Politics isn’t just about the what but the how. In contrast, many radical and extreme Jewish intellectuals of the post-war era tended to have an intelligent and sober styles. Though some were stooges of the USSR while others adopted all kinds of paranoid and conspiratorial stances against American society and power, they put forth the image of diligent and thoughtful intellectualism. And indeed, despite their radical ideologies, some of them were diligent and sober, at least in their role as cultural and social critics. The counterpart of such people in Britain was the Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm who was a hardline Stalinist radical but carried out his duty as professor and historian with great dedication and commitment. So, even when the substance of Jewish ideologues may be radical and extreme, they’ve earned great respect by playing the role of genuine thinkers and intellectuals. In contrast, many ideologues of the American Right in the post-war era seemed stupid and extreme because they lacked intellectual credentials and manners. Even if they were right about the communist threat, they came across as know-nothing philistines whose ideology was little more than Old Glory and Apple Pie. Their entire creed seemed to little more than ‘better dead than red’. (Of course, the 60s saw the rise of the firebrand radicals who turned off much of America. If not for the hippies and yippies in 1968, Humphrey probably would have won the election. The crazy style of leftist politics in the late 60s certainly offended Middle America and paved the wave of Republican victories for the Presidency until 1992. Carter won in 1976 — just barely — thanks only to Watergate and Ford’s pardoning of Nixon. Because of the mess created by the crazy style of leftist politics in the 60s, damage control had to be carried out by an older radical who believed in the effectiveness of the sober and respectable style. That man was. of course, Saul Alinsky, who was already middle aged when the young radicals of the 60s were calling the police ‘pigs’ and flashing the middle finger at Middle America. He taught the youngsters to stop acting crazy and to put on three piece suits and gradually normalize and mainstream-ize radicalism by wrapping socialism and anti-white-ism with the American flag. And he proved to be one of the architects of the revival of the Left in the late 80s through today. To be sure, the notion of the ‘long march through the institutions’ is somewhat misleading. Though traditional liberals didn’t see eye to eye with many boomer radicals, the fact remains that the liberal establishment in the media and academia were nevertheless more sympathetic to boomer radicals than to boomer conservatives. And so, boomer radicals didn’t have to struggle much to take over the institutional thrones in the 80s and 90s. Traditional liberals had long warmed the seats for them. A show like WILL & GRACE is pure Alinksyism mixed with Gramsci-ism in action. On the other hand, one can argue that the Left didn’t win the war either. As is so often the case, when something tries to take power by pretending to be something else, it essentially becomes that something else, though the synthesis is far from pure. A good example of this would be modern Japan. Japanese originally Westernized to use Western ways to preserve and strengthen the Japanese way, but Japan become a Westernized, if not Western, nation. Even Japan’s mad efforts to ward off the West and ‘protect Asia’ was by Western means of aggressive imperialism, especially against China. In the 80s, Deng in China and Gorbachev in the Soviet Union sought to adopt elements of capitalism to strengthen their communist systems, but China eventually became more capitalist than communist, and the structures of Soviet Union buckled under the reforms and soon collapsed until communist ideology effectively became moot. Similarly, the American Left isn’t really truly leftist anymore. In attempting to use mainstream symbols and styles to take power, it took the power and merged far too much with the mainstream to effect revolutionary change in the name of the masses. Leftists who sought to practice and use capitalism against capitalism found themselves raking in so much cash, power, and influence via capitalism that they became addicted to capitalism. The ropes with which they were going to hang the capitalists were tailored into neckties by homos and hangs around their own necks. To be sure, the new mainstream isn’t the old mainstream, but the new-new ‘left’ isn’t the old left or even the New Left of the 60s. Do Jewish radicals with billions in cash really want a revolution to overthrow the capitalist class? Do they really want social-democracy that taxes them at 90%? Do affluent urban Jews and homos really want to see the masses of white poor & working class, black underclass, and Hispanic poor rise up in anger? Anyway, if the sober and respectable style did wonders for the Left in institutional circles — where drudgery and diligence are of great importance, as much of academics and bureaucratic culture is about grinding away through stacks of papers — , it didn’t suit the Liberals so much in national politics. Adlai Stevenson may have been more intelligent and knowledgeable than General Eisenhower, but Americans during the Cold War felt safer with a manly general than some egghead. Kennedy won in 1960 thanks to his freshness and charisma, and the memory of his passing won the election for Johnson in 1964. But as the Cold War heated up and American streets were on fire and filling up with criminal thugs, Americans wanted commanders, not nice guys. Humphrey was a nice guy. McGovern was a nice guy. Carter was a nice guy and just barely won in 1976 because of Nixon scandals and Ford being even a nicer guy than Carter. But Carter was handily defeated by Reagan the tough guy, who then easily defeated Mondale the super-nice guy. And Dukakis the nice guy got throttled by Bush the nasty guy. Clinton finally figured out that the nice style of national Democratic politics wasn’t a winner and played the tough guy, and he won twice. Gore was not a nice guy, but he made the same mistake that Nixon and Goldwater made respectively in 1960 and 1964. Americans like tough guys with nice smiles, not frigid frowns. Reagan, Clinton, and Obama perfected the tough-guy-with-the-nice-smile style. Gore was hampered in 2000 by Clinton fatigue and stock market slump, but he would have won if he didn’t come across as such a mean tough guy. His toughness seemed of a bullying kind, and people sympathized with Bush the nice guy. Bush won in 2004 because Kerry was even a nicer guy. By ‘nice’, of course we don’t mean that all these politicians are nice people. We are talking of styles. John Edwards is a sleazebag, but his problem was he came across as too nice and bland, rather like the Jack Tripper character on THREE’S COMPANY.)
Why is the paranoid style so appealing to large segments of the population? It is due to the nature of power in a complex system. If we all lived in a tribal-communal village, there would be little need for the paranoid style. Everyone would take part in and be part of the political process, which would be transparent in terms of why this guy is chief and that guy isn’t. Everyone would know everyone, and indeed they could all be related one way or another by blood. Even the lowest member of the village would greet the tribal chief everyday and even go on hunts with him. In such a world, paranoia would be useless. In such communities, there’s more likely to be paranoia about the mysterious forces of nature and diseases, about which primitive folks know little. In this sense, religions first arose as paranoia about nature. Why did earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, and etc. happen? Primitive man had no way of knowing, and so he imagined dark and mysterious forces governing the world around them. Since these forces were thought to be supernatural, paranoia turned to worship and plea for mercy.
Things are different in the modern world. While we still fear natural disasters, we don’t fear the mechanisms of nature(as dark mysterious forces) since we have a pretty good scientific understanding of why it rains and why volcanos sometimes erupt. It’s all due to the laws of nature, i.e. there is no mysterious force, almighty or sinister, behind them. Even religious people accept the facts of geology and the scientific understanding of hurricanes and the like.
But if we no longer feel paranoia about the ways of nature, we experiences pangs of paranoia when it comes to the power of man because we live in complex social, economic, and political systems. Though we can see the official faces of power in the media, it’s only natural and even smart of us to wonder what is the real power behind those faces. Are the talking heads who read the news on TV the real controllers of the media? Are Hollywood movie stars the real power-holders in Hollywood? Are pop scientists like Neil Degrasse Tyson really the best scientists in the world? Are politicians and elected officials really the most powerful people in America? Is the American president really the most powerful man in the world? Of course, to some extent, the official faces of power wield real power and influence.
But is it foolish or wrong for us to wonder as to the real nature of power given that our socio-economic and political world is such a complex system of networks and associations? So, who has the real power in America? Though such query can lead to genuine paranoia and ridiculous theories, is the Naive or Gullible Style of American Politics what we really want? Do we really want to take at face value all the truisms and factoids fed to us by the official organs of the media and government? Was it really the modest summer heat that shut down the Oak Street beach a few yrs back as reported by Chicago Tribune and the Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s office? Or was it ‘youths’ attacking white people at random? Is it true that ‘youths’ and ‘teens’ — euphemisms for blacks thugs — are wreaking havoc on some streets all across America? Is it true that the KKK is lurking around Oberlin University? Is our system really meritocratic? What is the true nature and extent of Jewish power in America? Why do Jews seem so powerful but deny they are powerful? What was the truth about MLK and how did he become a sacred icon in American culture and politics, and who made it so?
Though many people still believe in God and His control over nature, the kind of power that most modern people are concerned about is the power of man, and the most powerful men happen to reside in the metropolises of the most advanced and complex societies. They are so complex that we can only learn of their true nature after years of study, but then, even study and research in the modern West are directed and guided by the powers-that-be, e.g. most top journalism students are taught by Liberal Jewish professors who prefer to push agendas than pursue any kind of ‘objective’ truth.
So, given all these complexities, everyone is bound to feel some degree of ‘paranoid style’ when it comes to his or her thoughts about the nature of power. In some systems, it’s pretty clear who had the real power. Stalin ruled the USSR, Hitler consolidated control of Nazi Germany by the late 30s, and Mao had a firm grip on China from 1949 to his death in 1976.
Of course, paranoia isn’t only what the people feel about the powers-that-be but what the powers-that-be feel about the people and other spheres of power. Stalin to his dying day was a paranoid, but his paranoia was as necessary as it was crazy. He often suspected the wrong people and had ‘innocent’ people killed, but he also never forgot that the Bolsheviks came to power through subversion, intrigue, and terror. And he knew that, in the absence of rule of law in the USSR, the power struggle had to be won largely through conspiracies and secret alliances and coalitions. He knew he had to outmaneuver those who might be trying to do the same thing to him. In this game, the most cunning and ruthless would win, and Stalin won. But he made a lot of enemies along the way and was surrounded by men who might potentially stab him in the back, just as Julius Caesar was killed by his ‘friends’. In a game of zero-sum power-struggle — where the losing side could be annihilated without mercy — , it was always better to be paranoid and safe than trusting and sorry. The mentality was that of gangsters, the kind we see in GOODFELLAS and CASINO where the various personalities outwardly act like they’re all friends but secretly make moves to gain an extra inch. Excessive paranoia can be paralytic — as with the case of Howard Hughes — , but no one survives or gets anywhere in a world of gangsters without being at least semi-paranoid. In a dog-eat-dog world, obsessive sniffing is as important as constant barking.
While the world of democratic politics and civil society may work according to the Rule of Law and the freedom of information, those factors can paradoxically lead to even more paranoia. Whether one likes Hitler, Stalin, and Mao or not, one could at least be sure in Nazi Germany, USSR of the 30s and 40s, and China of the 50s to mid 70s that, respectively, the Hitler regime, Stalin regime, and Mao regime were in power. But who’s really in power in America? The president and other politicians? Big businessmen? Big media? Academia and the intellectual class? The high-tech industry? Of course, there is no single locus of power in America. Instead, American power is the sum of all the networks and interconnections of various powers. So, all groups have some degree of power and influence, and they must all rely on alliances and coalitions with other groups. Even so, we know that not all groups are equally powerful or influential. American Buddhists aren’t as powerful as American Christians. There are many more Christians than Buddhists obviously. And there are many more white Americans than American Indians. But not all power is quantitative. Some groups, especially Jews and homos, have power far beyond their numbers. Jews control much of Wall Street, Big Media, top law firms, elite colleges, Washington, Silicon Valley, Big retail, and etc. Homos have their place in elite business circles, creative pursuits, and upper echelons of government as either bureaucrats or aids to big-name politicians. Whispering into the ears of a big time politician may be more of a penetrative act for a homosexual than buggering some guy in the ass.
Paranoids see conspiracies everywhere, and oftentimes, they fantasize about conspiracies that simply don’t exist and never existed. But, in a way, it’s natural for us to imagine being surrounded by conspiracies since we live a complex world that seems, on the one hand, so atomized and alienated, and on the other hand, so united and harmonic. The rise of modern individualism and self-centrism has cut many or even most of us from our roots, from a sense of organic community. We are all strangers, especially in big cities. But non-stop stream of popular culture and much hyped ideological causes bring masses of people together to push for ‘gay marriage’ and participate in ‘gay pride’ — even if they are not homos themselves. Fans of a movie star will flock to the same place to catch a glimpse of him or her. Many people watch the same TV shows and feel part of the same community, and fictional characters can seem almost like real friends. This accounts for the success of HARRY POTTER, TWILIGHT, and other such series. Social networking has greatly expanded this sense of shared community. Facebook, for example, has redefined the meaning of ‘friend’ and has even turned it into a verb. A friend is no longer a fixed person you know personally but a cyber-presence that can slip in and out of your circle of networks. The atomized and alienated part of us feels paranoid because we wonder, as Joseph K did in THE TRIAL, about the true nature of the system that we live in. But the united and harmonic side of us is also liable to feel bouts of paranoia because we know that the entire communities formed by popular culture and social networking can’t really be real. There’s something weird about so many people so obsessed with celebrities who don’t know them or care about them. And as those celebrities ‘perform stunts’ in music and movies — strutting around as sexy thugs or running around with big guns — , we know it’s all fantasy. Yet, many people really seem to be taken in by this power of fantasy, and there are many devious social scientists and psychologists who eagerly tap into this facet of mass psychology to formulate more effective means of social and public manipulation. Thus, there is a conspiratorial nature to power in America.
Of course, we need to be careful about what we mean by ‘conspiracy’. If it means small groups of ‘sinister’ people coming together secretly behind closed doors to hatch an ‘evil’ plot, we know such things happen all the time in business and politics(and also within religious organizations), but we also know that it’s not always easy to define what is and isn’t a conspiracy. Must conspiracies violate the Rule of Law? Or can conspiracies be perfectly legal? After all, one can argue that there was a hidden and concerted effort on the part of the MSM to vilify Sarah Palin and lionize Barack Obama. Since such bias was perfectly legal, was it or wasn’t it a conspiracy? Also, people can also conspire to do what they believe to be goo(though others may disagree as to the goodness of the objective in question). In a way, the Rosa Parks story was a conspiracy. The official narrative was that a tired black woman just wanted a seat on the bus but a white redneck harassed her, and she proudly stood, or sat, her ground. But in fact, Rosa Parks had planned the whole incident ahead of time with MLK and members of the communist party. One can say it was morally justified, but the real story was something other than what many people were led to believe. And MLK phenomenon could also said to have been a conspiracy. He was favored by liberal and leftist professors who overlooked his plagiarism. He was put on the fast-track to lead the Civil Rights Movement. His boorish and thug-like ways were suppressed and hidden by the big media, indeed even by the government that had the dirt on him, which was considerable. He was used as a Trojan or Brojan Horse to fool the white public into thinking that blacks only wanted peace and harmony. It was rather like the Peace Movements in the West that was secretly funded by the Soviet Union in order to disarm Western resistance against communist aggression; notice that while US was condemned for its ‘aggression’ in Vietnam, the peace-mongers applauded the aggression of North Vietnam and the Khmer Rouge. While promoting communist agitation and revolution around the world, the Soviets used Western front groups to spread the message of Peace. So, even though communists were being aggressive in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, the liberal and ‘progressive’ people of the West were used as useful idiots marching for Peace. So, if communists come charging, don’t fight back but just throw flowers at the conquerors. This culminated in the communist victory in Vietnam. Though North Vietnam and its sponsor nation China and USSR were the aggressors while US was trying to defend South Vietnam and Cambodia, the narrative of the Peace Movement made Americans the aggressors and the Vietnamese people, of North and South, as hapless victims of ‘American Imperialism’. And in the 80s, the so-called Peace Movement groups in the US marched for reducing military spending and hands-off approach in Latin America where Marxist rebels were planning to topple governments. Again, the Peace Movement overlooked the aggression of the Marxists and placed all the burden of Peace on America. After the fall of the Soviet Union, it finally came to light that most of these Peace groups had indeed been fronts for the USSR. Of course, the issue was complicated by the possibility that most people who joined the movement were sincere in their support. Indeed, not everyone involved in a conspiracy are IN on the conspiracy. Consider the movie MEET JOHN DOE where so many people sincerely come to embrace the virtues of Doe-ism and are utterly ignorant of the machinations of the whole thing by a rich fat guy. Capra also worked in paranoid anti-conspiracy mode in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON. Of course, one could also argue that those films themselves were part of the conspiracy by the powers-that-be in order to assure the American public that America is indeed a good nation when push comes to shove, i.e. the good guys do finally win in the end, and America is saved from tyranny and corruption. It’s possible that most people — especially at the lower levels — who worked for Bernie Madoff had no idea of what was really happening. And all of this happened for so long in the cultural and financial capital of America and the ‘free world’. Madoff got away with so much for so long in partnership with so many famous and respected people while running what was nothing more than a massive ponzi-pyramid scheme; as long as he was stuffing billions into Jewish pockets and causes, he was a much-liked guy. And there was the Enron scandal in which many Republicans were involved. If Enron crooks finally ended up behind bars, it seems most Wall Street crooks — many of them Jews — got off the hook. We’ve all heard the phrase, ‘Too big to fail’. But isn’t such a rationale part of the conspiracy? Could it mean ‘too Jewish to fail’? Doesn’t it mean that Jewish Wall Street has its claws so deeply inside Washington that there is nothing the latter can do about it? Worse, especially pertaining to the collapse of the housing/financial bubble, it seems that the legal, extra-legal, and illegal are so closely bound together in Wall Street and Washington that it’s no longer possible to tell which is the healthy tissue, which is the cancerous tumor; what is the conspiracy and what is the clean-up operation?
In most movie conspiracies, there is a specific cabal of evildoers with fiendish smirks who need to be defeated in order for the system to be restored to health. But in reality, we are no longer sure what is good and what is bad, what is truth and what is a lie. When Wasps held much of the upper echelons of power and Jews were rapidly making their climb, the tension between Wasp power/privilege and Jewish ambition/ferocity may have produced the golden age of journalism and intellectual seriousness. Not that people in the 60s and 70s were all a bunch of shining idealists, but Jews and their allies really did ask big questions about the nature of power in America. Wasps held sway over much of the government and even academia whereas Jews had control of much of the media and was gaining in academia. But today, it’s Jews controlling Wall Street, law firms, big media, Washington, high-tech, big pharma, Hollywood, and much else. Long ago, Jews were anxious about rocking the boat(at least too hard) because they didn’t want to stir up ‘antisemitism’. But Jews gained the courage in the 60s and made a lot of noise, much of it obnoxious and crazy but much of it informative, insightful, and necessary. Today, Jews again don’t wanna rock the boat, but this time, because they themselves have most of the power. Is this a kind of conspiracy? Not in the strict technical sense, but when there’s a wink-wink understanding among the various power centers in America networked along tribal lines, we can’t help but suspect a kind of low-burner world of secret power all around us. Indeed, when a group holds so much power, even silence and lack of action can be part of the coordination if not of an outright conspiracy. For example, suppose Rick Sanchez was attacked as a ‘communist’ and fired from his job. The mass media would have gone into a tizzy and brought up the ghosts of McCarthyism, and there would have been a massive counter-red-baiting campaign. But when Rick Sanchez was accused of ‘antisemitism’ for speaking truth to Jewish power and lost his job, much of the mass media just gave him the cold shoulder, the silent treatment. The media have the power to both stir up controversies and to bury them. Rick Sanchez was effectively blacklisted, and there was a minor controversy, but the story gained no ‘traction’ because the media just decided to forget that he was gone. He was ‘disappeared’, as if without a trace, as if he’d never worked for MSM and been one of the big ‘brown’ hopes. The current climate of blacklisting and ‘disappearing’ people is far more dangerous than the so-called ‘red scare’ during the McCarthy Era. Joe McCarthy at least openly declared war on communists and over-extended his reach. Though McCarthy didn’t always play fair and made some outlandish accusations, he never hid what he was trying to do. In contrast, Jews who silence, demote, fire, and blacklist politically incorrect voices never declared a war on free speech, free inquiry, and controversy. They just stick in the knife and bleed their victims in silence. Or, they orchestrate outrage in such a way that the demand to have someone fired or blacklisted materializes from the ‘good people with good conscience’ than from the actual powers that be. This is where punditocracy is very useful, indeed more so than politicians in some cases. If you don’t wanna seem the tyrant by acting nasty, train the dogs to do the barking for you. McCarthy was a politician who barked, so it seemed as if the government itself was going after free speech and civil liberties. In contrast, when powerful Jews shame someone via their control of punditocracy and celebrity culture, what is generated is popular outrage among the masses of sheep and barking/running dogs, and the overall public impression will be that the fallen(the blacklisted) was rejected by the People.
Perhaps, there is a need for us to think paranoid-istically since so much of power is carried out conspiratorially. We cannot be entirely free of ‘paranoia’ since the powers-that-be can never be free of conspiratoriality. In a democracy, it’s foolish for us to stupidly and naively trust the power-that-be. Nor can we simply rely on the mainstream media, which should really be called the Jewish media, to report the news honestly. When Jews rule finance and government and when Jews control the media, why would Jews air out their dirty Jewish laundry? If US were 90% to 100% Jewish, I suppose angry Jews in the media would call foul on rotten Jews in government and finance. But Jews are only 2% of the US population. Even or especially because of all the power they have, they feel anxious and vulnerable as an elite minority. Even if some Jews in the media want to blow the whistle on rotten Jews in Wall Street and Washington, they are afraid that such a revelation will lead to the rise of ‘antisemitism’ and lend fuel to masses of goyim who might finally wake up and boldly challenge Jewish power. Even decent and idealistic Jews are Jews first and idealists second. (Charles Lindbergh led an organization called America First. Jewish power might as well be called Jews First.) And even the most liberal Jew is tribally proud of the fact that his/her kind has come to own and control the most powerful nation in the world. They are so stunned by their achievement that they don’t wanna do anything to undermine it. And they still see the white majority as their main rival.
Thus, more than ever, much of the power machinations in this nation happens conspiratorially. In the past, when Wasps had the power, Jews were heavily into investigative journalism mode and trying to dig out as much dirt on wasps as possible. Jews are no longer in that mode, and this change can be seen in a film like LINCOLN by Steven Spielberg and Tony Kushner. Though I haven’t seen it yet — having only read about it — , it seems that Spielberg and Kushner are relishing the fact that Lincoln acted in conspiratorial mode. It’s as if Jews feel that most Americans don’t know what is good for them and that most politicians have to be bought and sold like whores or horses. And this is what Lincoln is shown to be masterly at. There is the ‘paranoid style’ in American politics, but there has also been the ‘subversive’ and ‘conspiratorial’ style. Andrew Jackson lost his first bid at the presidency due to a conspiracy of sorts in the inner circles of power held by the heirs of the Founding natural aristocracy. Lincoln was a very devious figure who used all sorts of tricks to manipulate public opinion, form coalitions, betray allies, wage war, and etc. But he got things done. And the same could be said for FDR, a man whose deviousness was much written about by Gore Vidal.
And of course, Obama has been a lying machine who made all the Alinsky-ite promises that appealed to Middle America, only to make the switch in government and hand over economic policy to Wall Street Jewish sharks, nominate people like Sotomayor and Kagan who hate the Constitution, come out for ‘gay marriage’, and maneuver to take guns away from white people. Indeed, Obama is himself a conspiratorial tool of the Jews. When we consider the number of political scandals and the media’s silence about them, we have to ask as to what is really going on — or otherwise, we will become like the Japanese or Russian public who’ve become politically and socially docile. Whom can we trust? How could the media have been asleep all those years when Jesse Jackson Jr. was stuffing his own pocket? How did Blagojevich win governorship twice though it was clear as day that he was a lousy crook from day one? We can understand political crooks making deals, but what good are the media if they can’t even blow the whistle on government rot? And what about lies about having achieved racial parity in New York schools a few years back? And the conspiracy of black teachers to mess with student scores in Philadelphia and Atlanta? Granted, some of these stories eventually came to light, but how could so many people get away with so much before it finally became news? And will most of the people involved get what they deserve? We blame Blagojevich, but who were the enablers of Blagojevich? Who were the sponsors and patrons? Where did all the money come from that Obama was able to spend over a billion dollars in 2012? Where are the media on this issue when, not long ago, they were all for campaign finance reform to clean up electoral politics? To what extent have Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama have brought into Chinese influence? What are the Chinese doing to undermine the US, and vice versa? And what are the Jewish moves in this game? All these questions need to be asked. But we must be careful to ward off the crazy paranoid style, the kind that has the government planting micro-chips into our butts or Pentagon blowing up in 9/11 from the inside.
As long as the powers-that-be work ever more in conspiratorial mode — and journalism has become mostly a politically correct exercise in enforcing taboos, pushing Jewish and gay agendas, and trading celebrity news for real news, indeed so much so that journalists should now be called propagandists — , we need to be wary and suspicious of what is going on, and we need ever more channels of information, and we need to be ever more vigilant. How did the Iraq War happen? Were Bush and the rest of the gang merely mistaken about WMD? Even if they really thought WMD would be found, surely that wasn’t the reason US was dragged into war. It’s very likely that neocon Jews used George W. Bush the way Liberal Zionists are using Obama. No people are more conspiratorial than Jews and for good reason. Having survived for 1000s of years as a ‘hostile minority’ in gentile lands, Jews have learned how to be secretive, subversive, devious, and cunning. In a way, Richard Hofstadter was worried about the ‘paranoid style’ because it stood in the way of the Jewish subversive style. Whenever cunning and sneaky Jews sought to push an agenda that would favor their kind, the ‘paranoid’ right would sound the alarm and say Jews were up to no good. Jews wanted to fool the American public that they were working in good faith, with good will, and with the purest of intentions, i.e they weren’t hiding anything. But it’s natural for adults to question the ulterior motives of a people who are pushing certain agendas. Only stupid children accept at face value what they hear from politicians, public intellectuals, and other men of power and influence. Jews had ulterior motives in pushing leftist politics, Civil Rights Movement, Holocaust Cult, Open Immigration, and the Peace Movement. And the ‘paranoid’ right suspected that something was up, and this suspicion is what the likes of Hofstadter were trying to neutralize. They wanted Middle America to totally accept at face value the notion that Jews were working only for the good of all Americans and in accordance with the Constitution. Jews wanted Middle America to see the American Right as a hotbed of paranoids who saw ‘conspiracies’ everywhere. But from the perspective of 2013, what has become of this country thanks to the machinations of Jewish power? What did massive immigration do to America? What happened to our economy with the Jewish takeover of Wall Street? What happened to academic freedom once Jews consolidated their hold on the universities? What have become of the free media that now do little but serve as propaganda machines for AIPAC and GAYPAC?
Jews cherished William. F. Buckley Jr. because he promised to do away with the ‘paranoid style’ of American politics and accept professed Jewish intentions at face value. So, Buckley opened up American conservatism to neoconservatives, whose real agenda was nothing more than to use dimwit gentiles to support Israel. Also, even though Buckley disagreed and debated with Liberal Jews, he accepted the assertion that Liberal Jew, even if benighted and misguided, had the best intentions of the nation at stake and weren’t secretively working to boost Jewish power uber alles. If anything, Buckley became one of the biggest whores for Zionism. To be sure, in his own personally conspiratorial way, being so pro-Jewish masked his own ‘crypto-Nazism’ as Gore Vidal put it, i.e. how can he be ‘racist’ when some of his best friends are the People of the Holocaust? Anyway, with the benefit of hindsight, he was outplayed by the Jews. Jews were aiming for Jewish Supremacism all along, and they achieved it at the expense of white power, white interests, and white America.
But then, the ‘paranoid’ style of American politics in the 50s and 60s did have serious problems. McCarthy was a drunken boor who made anti-communism look stupid — and he unwittingly played right into the hands of the liberal establishment. And the John Birch Society could only come across as cuckoo with its Eisenhower-is-a-communist nonsense. There is smart ‘paranoia’ and dumb ‘paranoia’, just like there is smart conspiracy — what Jews pulled off with Obama — and there is dumb conspiracy — what Blagojevich tried to profit from Obama’s vacated Senate seat.