russia-insider--2020-07-04--Overwhelming Support for Putin's Constitution a Wake-Up Call for 'Experts' Who Claim Russia Is Bound

Overwhelming Support for Putin's Constitution a Wake-Up Call for 'Experts' Who Claim Russia Is Bound to Collapse

The outcome of Russia ’ s ‘ national vote ’ on a series of amendments to the constitution serves to reaffirm that most Russians want the country to plow its own furrow , regardless of what outsiders think .
In the end , the margin was huge .
Exit polls suggested around 70 percent of voters said ‘ yes ’ to 206 amendments to their constitution , and close to 30 percent rejected the changes .
Official results put the 'yes ' vote at over 78 percent , with 99 percent of ballots counted .
Even liberal political organizers in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ showed the capital had supported Vladimir Putin ’ s proposals .
What ’ s more , those tallies revealed how a majority of voters in numerous Moscow districts with opposition-controlled local councils had backed the ‘ yes ’ side .
One thing forgotten in almost all Western speculation about the process ( erroneously labeled a ‘ referendum ’ by some US/UK media ) was that it wasn ’ t strictly necessary at all .
The backing Putin obtained in spring from the Duma ( parliament ) , the Constitutional Court , and all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president decided to stage a ‘ confirmatory plebiscite ’ to obtain broad public legitimacy for his project .
Thus , the vote itself was mostly about establishing whether Putin still has a popular mandate to uphold his domination of Russian politics .
It had been a curious ‘ campaign , ’ with most prominent opponents of the Kremlin relatively muted .
Indeed , the half-inside-the-tent Communist Party was an outlier in being more vocal and forthright than usual , emphatically calling for a ‘ no ’ vote .
Veteran leader Gennady Zyuganov @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alexei Navalny had labeled the existing constitution “ disgusting ” in January , saying it contained “ the mechanisms used to usurp power ” and telling his supporters `` Do not defend it.
” That document dated back to 1993 , when then-president Boris Yeltsin introduced it – with Western support – to create a “ hyper-presidential ” system .
It came after the Communist-controlled parliament attempted to impeach the pro-Western leader , and he resorted to military force to hold onto power , which led to 187 people being killed and 437 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protest in downtown Moscow was so poorly attended and halfhearted that police handed out masks to the demonstrators , with Covid-19 in mind .
Hardly the rough arm of the state crushing resistance .
A handful of dissenters who gathered on Red Square , without permission , were detained and then swiftly released .
In truth , the Kremlin had left the opposition with a thankless task .
While they opposed the plan to nullify Putin ’ s term limits , a lot of popular measures included were difficult to oppose without offending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , civil servants being prohibited from holding foreign bank accounts and citizenship , a ban on giving away any Russian territory , and a guarantee that the minimum wage will not be lower than the cost of living .
Like it or not , some people were also attracted by the clause banning same-sex marriage and another one saying ethnic Russians are to be recognized as the founders of the state .
Another popular change was the provision recognizing the modern Russian Federation as the successor to the USSR and preserving its legacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sort of militarism many liberals find distasteful .
Another issue is that polls have consistently shown a majority of Russians actually want Putin to remain in power after the 2024 election .
Only last summer , Levada ( a Western-leaning pollster independent of the Kremlin ) found that 54 percent of Russians would like him to stay on until at least 2030 .
Only 38 percent wanted him out four years from now .
Western media coverage of the process has been rather bizarre , focusing almost solely on the Putin term-limits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact that the vast majority of Russians still clearly support his system .
Once upon a time , this was attributed to the power of ‘ state TV , ’ but today , when the internet is beginning to overtake the zombie box as the primary source of news , that unsophisticated trope is clearly redundant .
Russia is not a dictatorship , and Putin is not a dictator .
The setup is 'soft ' authoritarian and it relies on the consent of the majority to keep power .
The provisions in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for future presidents and immunity after leaving office – also suggest the president wants to continue with a form of representative government .
The Kremlin is clearly not trying to go down the Chinese or Soviet route , but also doesn ’ t want to embrace Western-style 'liberal democracy.
’ Much as Russia itself is both in Europe and Asia but truly ‘ of ’ neither , its government structure and electoral procedures are also clearly going to remain somewhat unique .
After Wednesday ’ s vote , it ’ s evidently what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the foreseeable future , anyway .
Nevertheless , expect the endless US/UK media headlines predicting Russia 's imminent collapse to keep coming .
For over 20 years , they have been consistently wrong , and they 'll almost certainly be inaccurate for at least 20 more .

The outcome of Russia’s ‘national vote’ on a series of amendments to the constitution serves to reaffirm that most Russians want the country to plow its own furrow, regardless of what outsiders think.
In the end, the margin was huge. Exit polls suggested around 70 percent of voters said ‘yes’ to 206 amendments to their constitution, and close to 30 percent rejected the changes. Official results put the 'yes' vote at over 78 percent, with 99 percent of ballots counted.
Members of a local electoral commission count ballots at a polling station following a seven-day nationwide vote on constitutional reforms, in Moscow, Russia, July 1, 2020. © REUTERS/Evgenia Novozhenina
Even liberal political organizers in Moscow conceded that their own exit polls showed the capital had supported Vladimir Putin’s proposals. What’s more, those tallies revealed how a majority of voters in numerous Moscow districts with opposition-controlled local councils had backed the ‘yes’ side.
One thing forgotten in almost all Western speculation about the process (erroneously labeled a ‘referendum’ by some US/UK media) was that it wasn’t strictly necessary at all. The backing Putin obtained in spring from the Duma (parliament), the Constitutional Court, and all 85 federal subjects sufficed. However, the president decided to stage a ‘confirmatory plebiscite’ to obtain broad public legitimacy for his project. Thus, the vote itself was mostly about establishing whether Putin still has a popular mandate to uphold his domination of Russian politics.
It had been a curious ‘campaign,’ with most prominent opponents of the Kremlin relatively muted. Indeed, the half-inside-the-tent Communist Party was an outlier in being more vocal and forthright than usual, emphatically calling for a ‘no’ vote. Veteran leader Gennady Zyuganov dubbed it “disappointing and depressing.”
Alexei Navalny had labeled the existing constitution “disgusting” in January, saying it contained “the mechanisms used to usurp power” and telling his supporters "Do not defend it.”
That document dated back to 1993, when then-president Boris Yeltsin introduced it – with Western support – to create a “hyper-presidential” system. It came after the Communist-controlled parliament attempted to impeach the pro-Western leader, and he resorted to military force to hold onto power, which led to 187 people being killed and 437 wounded.
On Wednesday evening, a protest in downtown Moscow was so poorly attended and halfhearted that police handed out masks to the demonstrators, with Covid-19 in mind. Hardly the rough arm of the state crushing resistance. A handful of dissenters who gathered on Red Square, without permission, were detained and then swiftly released.
Russian police give out protective masks at unauthorized rally against the constitutional amendments#Moscow #COVID19https://t.co/LMV1GhvxA5 pic.twitter.com/3HxjW7Q8xU — RT (@RT_com) July 1, 2020
In truth, the Kremlin had left the opposition with a thankless task. While they opposed the plan to nullify Putin’s term limits, a lot of popular measures included were difficult to oppose without offending large swaths of voters: for instance, civil servants being prohibited from holding foreign bank accounts and citizenship, a ban on giving away any Russian territory, and a guarantee that the minimum wage will not be lower than the cost of living.
A man wearing a protective face mask receives a ballot at a polling station during a seven-day nationwide vote on constitutional reforms in Russian embassy in Minsk, Belarus July 1, 2020. © REUTERS/Vasily Fedosenko
Like it or not, some people were also attracted by the clause banning same-sex marriage and another one saying ethnic Russians are to be recognized as the founders of the state. Another popular change was the provision recognizing the modern Russian Federation as the successor to the USSR and preserving its legacy as the victor in WWII, fueling the sort of militarism many liberals find distasteful.
Another issue is that polls have consistently shown a majority of Russians actually want Putin to remain in power after the 2024 election. Only last summer, Levada (a Western-leaning pollster independent of the Kremlin) found that 54 percent of Russians would like him to stay on until at least 2030. Only 38 percent wanted him out four years from now.
Western media coverage of the process has been rather bizarre, focusing almost solely on the Putin term-limits issue while ignoring or glossing over the fact that the vast majority of Russians still clearly support his system. Once upon a time, this was attributed to the power of ‘state TV,’ but today, when the internet is beginning to overtake the zombie box as the primary source of news, that unsophisticated trope is clearly redundant.
Russia is not a dictatorship, and Putin is not a dictator. The setup is 'soft' authoritarian and it relies on the consent of the majority to keep power. The provisions in the new constitution – most notably term limits for future presidents and immunity after leaving office – also suggest the president wants to continue with a form of representative government.
The Kremlin is clearly not trying to go down the Chinese or Soviet route, but also doesn’t want to embrace Western-style 'liberal democracy.’ Much as Russia itself is both in Europe and Asia but truly ‘of’ neither, its government structure and electoral procedures are also clearly going to remain somewhat unique. After Wednesday’s vote, it’s evidently what most Russians themselves want. At least for the foreseeable future, anyway.
Nevertheless, expect the endless US/UK media headlines predicting Russia's imminent collapse to keep coming. For over 20 years, they have been consistently wrong, and they'll almost certainly be inaccurate for at least 20 more.


russia-insider--2020-07-07--The Beast That Has Controlled America for 150 Years - Jewish-Owned Media

Editor 's Note -This excellent article accurately describes the state of the US today , but was written in 1970 !
William Luther Pierce was a brilliant essayist and speaker whose message did n't get through to most Americans because of the media monopolies of the time , but who saw clearly what was happening to America .
What is the Establishment ?
Why , that ’ s easy , you say : the Establishment is those persons , taken collectively , who run the System .
But who are “ those persons ” ?
What are their names ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have in common ?
How did they get into the Establishment in the first place ?
Is one born into it ?
Is it something like a fraternity or a secret society ?
Is great wealth a prerequisite for admission ?
Or is membership in the Establishment a prerequisite for owning great wealth in America ?
There is a great deal of confusion on these questions because of the sloppy but prevalent tendency to equate prestige and status — i.e.
, social rank — with power in our society .
Things don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is clear that the one meaningful criterion for distinguishing members of the Establishment from non-members is power — power to make independent decisions which directly affect the operation of the System .
In applying this criterion , however , it is essential to distinguish between apparent power , or power of a purely formal sort , and real power .
As an example , consider the oft-mentioned “ military-industrial complex.
” The standard rhetoric on the subject would lead one to the conclusion that the brass hats — the generals and the admirals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the complex — are powerful men and , hence , part of the Establishment .
But , as a matter of fact , this conclusion is false .
Most generals and admirals exercise virtually no influence on the System .
The average general may have a lot of tanks and guns to play with .
An admiral may command a mighty aircraft carrier or a whole fleet of secretaries and typists in the Pentagon .
But one thing these men may not do is make independent decisions .
All their gold braid does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mere pawns in the game — and rather rigidly restricted pawns , at that .
Being allowed to decide whether next Tuesday ’ s mission will be to blow up village “ A ” instead of village “ B ” in Viet-Nam does not constitute real power , in the System sense .
Neither does having the authority to write a purchase order for one million mess kits , aluminum , collapsible .
This is not to say that there is no truth in the Colonel Blimp caricatures of the military bureaucrat or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in public life today is not exemplified in the Pentagon hierarchy .
But the example of Douglas MacArthur should serve to illustrate what can happen when a general begins to get ideas too big for his brass hat .
Similar considerations apply to much of the industrial side of the military-industrial complex — although the industrialists , because they have money , must be scrutinized more carefully than the generals .
There is no denying the fact that any man with $ 500 million in the bank — provided he is also moderately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calling the tune .
Nevertheless , it is surprising how little correlation there is between personal wealth and real power — in most cases .
In the first place , the manufacturer who owns a $ 100 million dollar tire factory by no means necessarily has $ 100 million in financial weight to throw around .
His liquid assets , available for buying politicians , silencing critics , influencing elections , etc.
, will generally be much smaller than his fixed assets , such as land , buildings , and machinery .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his employees ’ union bought off , the IRS off his back , and his yacht afloat .
The average Industrialist makes his contribution to the System not so much by pulling the strings as merely by playing along with it through his own money-grubbing self-interest .
His control over our lives is largely mechanical — the filth his factories pour into the air we breath and the water we drink , the honking , flashing , screeching asphalt and neon jungle he has built for us to live in .
The control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — and , thus , by the men of the Establishment — is much more profound .
It reaches into our minds and our souls and twists our wills to its own ends ; it manipulates us and subtly persuades us ; it corrupts us and robs us of our strength and our virtue ; and , when its purpose is so served , it coldly snuffs out our lives by the millions .
The military-industrial complex may glory in wars and it may profit from them , but it is the Establishment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owners — which makes the basic decisions as to whether there shall be a war and when and against whom .
American involvement in both World Wars gives us an excellent example of how the Establishment works .
Neither in World War I nor in World War II were the interests of the American people served by intervention in European conflicts .
Yet , in 1917 Wilson dragged a reluctant America into a European war , and 24 years later Roosevelt managed the same thing .
In both cases the principal actors had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a platform of pacifism and nonintervention .
And in both cases the mass media — principally the press , in that pre-TV era — had played the vital role of swinging public opinion into line behind the newly elected instant warriors .
But neither Wilson nor Roosevelt were the ultimate decision-makers .
Nor was it the generals or the industrialists .
In both cases the decision-makers — the men of the Establishment — worked behind the scenes to further their own vital interests at the expense of the American people .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ System to prevail .
In World War I those whose interests were served were the Zionists , who received England ’ s pledge , as later expressed in the Balfour Declaration , to deliver Palestine to them .
In return they brought about U.S. intervention in the war on the side of England .
Their agents in this were Louis Brandeis , the Zionist Supreme Court justice , who exerted his influence directly on Wilson , and a number of Jewish newspaper publishers who controlled a substantial portion of the American press .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ faced with its most serious crisis in centuries as National Socialist Germany moved to destroy Jewish power and influence in Europe .
Again , the media played an enormously important role in conditioning the American people to accept the necessity of a European war .
In the war hysteria generated after the fortuitous — but not unforeseen — Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor , Roosevelt and the press were able to sweep the public along on a monumentally destructive and murderous “ Crusade in Europe.
” We can again see the same process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is concerned today .
It is not the generals and it is not the industrialists who are responsible for the U.S. backing Israel .
Between them they couldn ’ t begin to talk the American people into another war now .
But the media could — and are .
The generals and the munitions makers have clearly recognizable spheres of self-interest .
Thus , even the most credulous elements of the public immediately discount anything they say .
Unfortunately , the same is not true of the media .
First , most people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because of the tightly knit nature of the group which controls them , have a definite sphere of self-interest .
Second , the media are truly ( and inherently ) Oriental in their subtlety .
The average American thinks “ propaganda ” is what a plainly labeled spokesman for the System tells the people in order to keep them happy , win their support for a new government program , etc .
He simply doesn ’ t think anyone would be devious enough to try to accomplish the same thing with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ O ’ Clock News , or an Associated Press release , or the Sunday supplement in his morning paper .
The pride of the media is their ability to create the illusion of a marketplace of diverse ideas and opinions , while in reality always representing only their own interests .
Consider , for example , the spectrum of views presented by the media on the Middle East conflict .
Some editorial writers are hot for all-out U.S. military support of Israel , while others feel a little less commitment would be more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fedayeen as “ terrorists ” , while some use the more neutral term “ guerrillas.
” And while some columnists rage about “ Arab aggression , ” others gently remind us of the miserable conditions in the Palestinian refugee camps .
But can you name a single major newspaper in America which advocates that we back the Arabs rather than the Jews ?
And when was the last time you heard David Brinkley refer to Israeli commandos as “ terrorists ” ?
Indeed , we never get both sides of an issue from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the same side .
We are given the same sort of “ choice ” in forming our opinions that the Democrats and Republicans present to us every four years .
In today ’ s world many things are important and represent power : money , the military… but the most important and powerful of all in a modern democracy is the mechanism for creating and controlling public opinion .
The group which has this mechanism in its hands wields the ultimate authority .
That group is the Establishment — or , at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Establishment .
And , in 20th-century America , that group is predominantly Jewish .
This may be hard to accept for those who have convinced themselves that the Establishment is Standard Oil and the Pentagon .
In the world of 100 years ago that would have been the case .
But today Mr. Rockefeller , despite all his millions and all his talent for deceit and all his conniving , grasping , unprincipled ambition , wields less power than say , Sam Newhouse , of whom most Americans have never heard .
Mr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immigrants from Russia , doesn ’ t own Standard Oil .
But he does own 28 big-city daily newspapers , with a combined circulation of more than five million .
The slanted news in one day ’ s printing of the Washington Post or the New York Times carries more weight than all the memoranda ever issued by all the generals in the Pentagon .
Needless to say , both these papers are in the hands of Jewish families .
If one considers not only direct ownership but also indirect control through advertising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any newspaper — virtually every major daily newspaper in America is subject to the dictates of the Jewish Establishment .
We are living in the age of the mass media .
It is an age in which new rules apply .
No longer is it necessary , in order to control a nation , for a ruling clique to have a monopoly on the capital assets and the firepower of that nation .
These days control is exercised more subtly , but all the more surely , by manipulating the thoughts and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which makes every American a newspaper reader , and unprecedented prosperity , which has put a TV receiver in every home , insure that the control will be all-pervasive .
There is only one way to fight it , and that is to understand what it is and who exercises it – and then to go after them tooth and nail .

Editor's Note -This excellent article accurately describes the state of the US today, but was written in 1970! William Luther Pierce was a brilliant essayist and speaker whose message didn't get through to most Americans because of the media monopolies of the time, but who saw clearly what was happening to America.
What is the Establishment? Why, that’s easy, you say: the Establishment is those persons, taken collectively, who run the System. But who are “those persons”? What are their names? What, if anything, do they have in common? How did they get into the Establishment in the first place? Is one born into it? Is it something like a fraternity or a secret society? Is great wealth a prerequisite for admission? Or is membership in the Establishment a prerequisite for owning great wealth in America?
Dr. William Luther Pierce
There is a great deal of confusion on these questions because of the sloppy but prevalent tendency to equate prestige and status — i.e., social rank — with power in our society. Things don’t necessarily work that way. It is clear that the one meaningful criterion for distinguishing members of the Establishment from non-members is power — power to make independent decisions which directly affect the operation of the System. In applying this criterion, however, it is essential to distinguish between apparent power, or power of a purely formal sort, and real power.
Military-Industrial Complex
As an example, consider the oft-mentioned “military-industrial complex.” The standard rhetoric on the subject would lead one to the conclusion that the brass hats — the generals and the admirals who make up the military side of the complex — are powerful men and, hence, part of the Establishment. But, as a matter of fact, this conclusion is false. Most generals and admirals exercise virtually no influence on the System. The average general may have a lot of tanks and guns to play with. An admiral may command a mighty aircraft carrier or a whole fleet of secretaries and typists in the Pentagon. But one thing these men may not do is make independent decisions.
All their gold braid does not change the fact that they are mere pawns in the game — and rather rigidly restricted pawns, at that. Being allowed to decide whether next Tuesday’s mission will be to blow up village “A” instead of village “B” in Viet-Nam does not constitute real power, in the System sense. Neither does having the authority to write a purchase order for one million mess kits, aluminum, collapsible. This is not to say that there is no truth in the Colonel Blimp caricatures of the military bureaucrat or that much of what’s wrong in public life today is not exemplified in the Pentagon hierarchy. But the example of Douglas MacArthur should serve to illustrate what can happen when a general begins to get ideas too big for his brass hat.
Similar considerations apply to much of the industrial side of the military-industrial complex — although the industrialists, because they have money, must be scrutinized more carefully than the generals. There is no denying the fact that any man with $500 million in the bank — provided he is also moderately clever — has a definite potential for calling the tune. Nevertheless, it is surprising how little correlation there is between personal wealth and real power — in most cases.
In the first place, the manufacturer who owns a $100 million dollar tire factory by no means necessarily has $100 million in financial weight to throw around. His liquid assets, available for buying politicians, silencing critics, influencing elections, etc., will generally be much smaller than his fixed assets, such as land, buildings, and machinery. He may find himself hard pressed just keeping his employees’ union bought off, the IRS off his back, and his yacht afloat.
The average Industrialist makes his contribution to the System not so much by pulling the strings as merely by playing along with it through his own money-grubbing self-interest. His control over our lives is largely mechanical — the filth his factories pour into the air we breath and the water we drink, the honking, flashing, screeching asphalt and neon jungle he has built for us to live in.
The control exercised over our lives by the System — and, thus, by the men of the Establishment — is much more profound. It reaches into our minds and our souls and twists our wills to its own ends; it manipulates us and subtly persuades us; it corrupts us and robs us of our strength and our virtue; and, when its purpose is so served, it coldly snuffs out our lives by the millions.
The War-Makers
The military-industrial complex may glory in wars and it may profit from them, but it is the Establishment — not the generals and the factory owners — which makes the basic decisions as to whether there shall be a war and when and against whom. American involvement in both World Wars gives us an excellent example of how the Establishment works.
Neither in World War I nor in World War II were the interests of the American people served by intervention in European conflicts. Yet, in 1917 Wilson dragged a reluctant America into a European war, and 24 years later Roosevelt managed the same thing. In both cases the principal actors had been re-elected to the Presidency immediately beforehand on a platform of pacifism and nonintervention. And in both cases the mass media — principally the press, in that pre-TV era — had played the vital role of swinging public opinion into line behind the newly elected instant warriors.
But neither Wilson nor Roosevelt were the ultimate decision-makers. Nor was it the generals or the industrialists. In both cases the decision-makers — the men of the Establishment — worked behind the scenes to further their own vital interests at the expense of the American people. And they exercised the necessary control over the System to prevail.
In World War I those whose interests were served were the Zionists, who received England’s pledge, as later expressed in the Balfour Declaration, to deliver Palestine to them. In return they brought about U.S. intervention in the war on the side of England. Their agents in this were Louis Brandeis, the Zionist Supreme Court justice, who exerted his influence directly on Wilson, and a number of Jewish newspaper publishers who controlled a substantial portion of the American press.
This Andy Warhol advertisement for a Jewish nose job, titled “Before and After”was auctioned off in New York last month. An “art” collector paid $21,000 for it[More about this painting here: http://williamlutherpierce.blogspot.com/2012/04/andy-warhols-jewish-nose-job.html]
In World War II world Jewry was faced with its most serious crisis in centuries as National Socialist Germany moved to destroy Jewish power and influence in Europe. Again, the media played an enormously important role in conditioning the American people to accept the necessity of a European war. In the war hysteria generated after the fortuitous — but not unforeseen — Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt and the press were able to sweep the public along on a monumentally destructive and murderous “Crusade in Europe.” We can again see the same process at work where the Middle Eastern war is concerned today.
The Omnipotent Media
It is not the generals and it is not the industrialists who are responsible for the U.S. backing Israel. Between them they couldn’t begin to talk the American people into another war now. But the media could — and are. The generals and the munitions makers have clearly recognizable spheres of self-interest. Thus, even the most credulous elements of the public immediately discount anything they say.
Unfortunately, the same is not true of the media. First, most people do not recognize that the media also, because of the tightly knit nature of the group which controls them, have a definite sphere of self-interest. Second, the media are truly (and inherently) Oriental in their subtlety. The average American thinks “propaganda” is what a plainly labeled spokesman for the System tells the people in order to keep them happy, win their support for a new government program, etc. He simply doesn’t think anyone would be devious enough to try to accomplish the same thing with the Wednesday Night Movie, or the Six O’Clock News, or an Associated Press release, or the Sunday supplement in his morning paper.
The pride of the media is their ability to create the illusion of a marketplace of diverse ideas and opinions, while in reality always representing only their own interests. Consider, for example, the spectrum of views presented by the media on the Middle East conflict. Some editorial writers are hot for all-out U.S. military support of Israel, while others feel a little less commitment would be more appropriate. Most commentators refer to the fedayeen as “terrorists”, while some use the more neutral term “guerrillas.” And while some columnists rage about “Arab aggression,” others gently remind us of the miserable conditions in the Palestinian refugee camps. But can you name a single major newspaper in America which advocates that we back the Arabs rather than the Jews? And when was the last time you heard David Brinkley refer to Israeli commandos as “terrorists”?
No Choice
Indeed, we never get both sides of an issue from the media, but only various views of the same side. We are given the same sort of “choice” in forming our opinions that the Democrats and Republicans present to us every four years. In today’s world many things are important and represent power: money, the military… but the most important and powerful of all in a modern democracy is the mechanism for creating and controlling public opinion. The group which has this mechanism in its hands wields the ultimate authority.
That group is the Establishment — or, at least, the vital core of the Establishment. And, in 20th-century America, that group is predominantly Jewish. This may be hard to accept for those who have convinced themselves that the Establishment is Standard Oil and the Pentagon. In the world of 100 years ago that would have been the case. But today Mr. Rockefeller, despite all his millions and all his talent for deceit and all his conniving, grasping, unprincipled ambition, wields less power than say, Sam Newhouse, of whom most Americans have never heard.
Mr. Newhouse, the publicity-shunning son of Jewish immigrants from Russia, doesn’t own Standard Oil. But he does own 28 big-city daily newspapers, with a combined circulation of more than five million. The slanted news in one day’s printing of the Washington Post or the New York Times carries more weight than all the memoranda ever issued by all the generals in the Pentagon. Needless to say, both these papers are in the hands of Jewish families. If one considers not only direct ownership but also indirect control through advertising revenue — which is the lifeblood of any newspaper — virtually every major daily newspaper in America is subject to the dictates of the Jewish Establishment.
“Minitru”
We are living in the age of the mass media. It is an age in which new rules apply. No longer is it necessary, in order to control a nation, for a ruling clique to have a monopoly on the capital assets and the firepower of that nation. These days control is exercised more subtly, but all the more surely, by manipulating the thoughts and the opinions of the populace. Universal literacy, which makes every American a newspaper reader, and unprecedented prosperity, which has put a TV receiver in every home, insure that the control will be all-pervasive. There is only one way to fight it, and that is to understand what it is and who exercises it – and then to go after them tooth and nail.