Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page
Well, for one, they all have influential jobs in the Clinton administration. For another, they're, uhh. . .and I preface this, of course, with the qualifier that it doesn't really matter, it's just a little statistical anomaly we're about to examine here. . . they're all, ahem, er. . .and I would add that as civic-minded, true-blue American citizens, all of the above swear an oath to this and no other nation, and I'm sure they'll honor it, so not to worry, but OK, I'm getting to it, they're all. . .what's that you say? They're all Jewish? HEY PAL, YOU SAID IT, NOT ME! I DIDN'T BRING THIS UP, YOU DID! REMEMBER THAT! I WAS GOING TO SAY THEY'RE PROBABLY ALL MASONS!!!
But now that you've steered me to this somewhat touchy subject anyway, let's take a rational look at some figures and see if we can draw any conclusions from President Billary's choice of policymaking personnel.
His appointees, said the President, were going to be a "mirror of America," meaning a diverse group roughly commensurate to the ethnic and racial distribution of the American populace as a whole. I have problems from the start with this sort of giddy egalitarian nonsense, but for the sake of argument let's pretend that this goal is both worthwhile and possible. Did Clinton achieve it?
At the dog and pony show Cabinet level -- sort of. Clinton tagged just enough women and blacks for relatively unimportant slots to appease believers in the laughable fiction that most in either group know or care anything about politics; and he seated enough white European males to ensure that at least America will be ruined in a competent, intelligent, and well-ordered fashion. So far so good. But when we incorporate subcabinet positions, as did researcher Dr. Charles Weber, we find that of 71 positions, many in the economics, defense, and national security spheres, 40 - or some 53 percent - are occupied by Jews, who as an ethnic group comprise three to four percent of the American population. Whatever you might think of this, is amounts to a mathematical overrepresentation of about 1,800 percent.
So what? You may ask. Everyone knew Clinton would appoint a liberal team. What do Jewish liberals have that Gentile ones don't?
Primarily, a commitment to Israel that transcends the coffee shop patter of their paler and more timid Beltway brethren. Renewed U.S. Zionism could quickly erase any last vestige of American "impartiality" in the Middle East, at a juncture when Israel's Rabin administration is signaling a willingness for concessions.
Among Clinton's plans unadvertised in the U.S. (but reported in the Feb. 27 Jerusalem Post) is the eventual relocation of the U.S. Navy's 6th Fleet to Haifa from its present base in Italy. American ground troops a gangplank away from Megiddo or Beersheba, no doubt under United Nations control? Stranger things have happened.
Second, a well-documented history of Jewish leadership of U.S. organizations advocating wide-open immigration, criminals' rights, draconian gun-control laws, radical feminism, permissive social and cultural agendas, and "hate crime" statutes that would make this article, among others, illegal. Nothing that Bill and Hillary aren't already ga-ga for, but the added clout of zealous true believers and well-connected insiders could lock in these and other loony liberal policies faster than a bunch of idealistic but incompetent amateurs.
The silence of the mainstream press on this issue has also been deafening. Is the (Jewish-controlled) major media studiously avoiding this topic because it's vicious agitprop beneath mention? Gee, that's funny. They sure had the old pencil sharpeners smoking when Jimmy Carter's "Georgia Mafia" came to D.C., remember? Why is it alarming when Southerners govern America - from a Southern capital, I might add - but totally innocuous when Jews do?
Only hints of this Tel Aviv tilt can be gleaned from the major media, and the only by plowing through articles The Wall Street Journal calls DBIs (Dull But Importants). One such sedative recently pointed out various power grabs by "free-floating adviser" Magaziner, the NEC's Rubin, and Labor Secretary Reich. Cabinet ethnics O'Leary, Cisneros, and Pena are finding themselves "out of the loop," along with Defense Secretary Aspin. WSJ columnist Paul Gigot calls this administration "the most secretive and deeply political since Richard Nixon's."
Now, the Jewish press, here and abroad - meaning newspapers written for, not merely owned by, Jews - have been trumpeting Clinton's Hebraic hires as a significant advancement of Jewish interests. "While U.S. sub-cabinet employees are generally invisible to the broader public," said The Jerusalem Post, "they wield extraordinary influence in setting policy."
The American right-wing and "patriot" press, of course, shares with its Jewish counterparts a fascination with these appointments, warning that even more foreign policy decisions than usual will revolve around Israel's interests, and that domestic economic policy is sure to serve the disproportionately wealthy and powerful Jewish minority in the U.S.
Certainly they're right on the basics, because this has always been the case; but extracting the particular Jewish appointees is no solution. Even a purely Gentile policy team, not to mention Congress, would still have money from 124 different Jewish PACs being funneled to them by the same people who control Wall Street, the Federal Reserve Banks, the legal profession, the news media, television, and films.
So let's summarize. There are a helluva lot of Jews in Clinton's administration. It's routine to publish this as wonderful news in the Jewish-owned, Jewish-targeted press, forbidden to note it at all in the Jewish-owned, Gentile-targeted press, and despicable to mention it in the Gentile-owned, Gentile-targeted press.
But let's not waste any more ink on the patently obvious reasons for these disparities in emphasis. What does Clinton's unannounced Jewish tilt say about his administration and his style?
It says volumes about his duplicity and his actual as opposed to his advertised "roots," geographical, philosophical, and political. Never did I or anyone else in this country ever hear him say, during his evasive and mealy-mouthed campaign, "Ah promise to put this vast and pluralistic nation's entire policymaking apparatus, domestic and foreign, into the hands of a single ethnic group." Yet this is what he has done: delivered the polar opposite of the diverse spectrum of advisers he promised.
As for his, Hillary's, and Gore's actual "roots," they're no more Southern, or permanent, than Admiral Peary's tent stakes. A curious and sudden omission appeared in the media roughly two seconds after the votes were in. Ted Koppel, Dan Schorr and colleagues stopped saying, "Waal, mister political analyst, what does the ascent of this team of catfish-lovin' good ole boys say about America's desire for new leadership? Are these moderate Democrats riding a wave of populist discontent with President Bush's brand of patrician internationalism?"
Know why they aren't saying this anymore? Because they can't say it and keep a straight face, and all those retakes cost money. They knew it was crap then and they know it's crap now, but they no longer have to pretend it isn't crap. Their man is in, and spinning fables about "centrist Southerners" is no longer necessary.
So much, then, for Clinton's "mirror of America." It's a mirror, all right: a funhouse mirror. And the laughs are on us.
Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page