Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: A Wider War is Coming

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Demigorgona's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, October 26th, 2004 @ 05:34 PM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Location
    canada
    Gender
    Age
    38
    Politics
    Creator
    Posts
    413
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post A Wider War is Coming

    The War Against Us, part 1: Living in the Present by Hadding Scott and Kevin Alfred Strom

    American Dissident Voices Broadcast of April 5, 2003

    Welcome to American Dissident Voices. Today we'll be beginning a
    new series by ADV researcher Hadding Scott, and yours truly,
    Kevin Alfred Strom, entitled The War Against Us, part 1: Living
    in the Present.


    A Wider War is Coming

    First, I want to remind you of a prediction we made a few weeks
    ago in our Cannon Fodder series and our other programs about the
    war: we predicted that Israel's proxy war in the Middle East
    would not stop with Afghanistan and Iraq. We predicted that Iran,
    Syria, and Saudi Arabia were next on the Zionist's hit list, and
    would be the next places where American cannon fodder would be
    sent to kill and to die. Now that prediction has been confirmed
    by no less than "Uncle Colin" Powell himself, in a saber-rattling
    speech he gave on Monday to the leading Jewish lobby group AIPAC,
    short for "American Israel Public Affairs Committee." Here's what
    Powell said about Syria there:

    "Syria can continue direct support for terrorist groups and the
    dying regime of Saddam Hussein, or it can embark on a different
    and more hopeful course. Either way, Syria bears the
    responsibility for its choices -- and for the consequences."
    [Wild applause and hooting from the audience, largely composed of
    powerful and well-connected establishment Jews.(Note that the
    sound byte cut off, I suspect that the cheering went on even
    longer.)]

    Now, exactly what "consequences" do you think Powell is
    threatening, as he prosecutes a war against Syria's neighbor
    Iraq? According to Lamis Andoni, a reporter for the Christian
    Science Monitor, it was a clear threat by Powell to "widen the
    war" and that "the U.S. will not tolerate any dissent in the
    region."

    And who, besides the influential Jews, do you think was sitting
    in the audience at the Israeli lobby's meeting? The AIPAC
    audience of 5,000 included not only Secretary Powell, but fellow
    speakers such as national security adviser Condoleezza Rice,
    political director Kenneth Mehlman, Undersecretary of State John
    R. Bolton and Assistant Secretary of State William Burns. And,
    hard as it may be for neophytes on the Jewish question to
    believe, this little-heralded meeting also included in its
    audience half of the United States Senate and one third of the
    United States Congress! Almost unbelievably, considering the
    important people in attendance, the Zionist conference was billed
    as being "off the record" and one of the important things
    discussed was the need for the AIPAC lobbyists not to publicly
    trumpet their push for war, for fear of a Gentile awakening to
    the Jewish nature of the war. In fact, conference participant
    Eyal Arad, who also happens to be Ariel Sharon's campaign
    advisor, explicitly stated that the Bush administration had
    requested that the Jewish lobby group "keep a low profile in this
    conflict." But conference moderator Steve Rosen let the cat out
    of the bag when he owned up to his possessive feelings about the
    war: "God willing, we're going to have a great victory in Iraq,"
    he said. Everyone knows what Jews mean when they use the word
    "we."
    [
    http://www.pacifica.org/programs/fla...ts_030331.html
    and
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Mar31.html
    ]

    And the United States Senate passed a resolution on March 12th,
    Senate Resolution 82, which has so far received little attention
    in the controlled media, which for all practical purposes calls
    for 'regime change' in Iran, Iraq's neighbor: "Expressing the
    sense of the Senate concerning the continuous repression of
    freedoms within Iran.... Iran is an ideological dictatorship
    presided over by an unelected Supreme Leader.... the Iranian
    Government has been developing a uranium enrichment program....
    It is the sense of the Senate that... it should be the policy of
    the United States to seek a genuine democratic government in
    Iran...." You know the drill. First Afghanistan, now Iraq, next
    Syria and Iran.
    [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...sr82is.txt.pdf
    ]

    As we predicted on American Dissident Voices, this is not a war
    on terror nor is it a war for American interests. It is a proxy
    war for Israel, and the Jews who now preside over the Bush
    administration laid out their plans to engage in a wide war of
    aggression to redraw the map of the Middle East several years
    ago. They're counting on us falling for the animated flags and
    synthetic violins playing on CNN or Faux News, and falling for
    their invocation of 9/11 every time they decide to start killing
    their perceived enemies in a new country. As you see the National
    Alliance's predictions coming true over and over again, I'm
    counting on you not to fall for these Jewish lies ever again.

    ***

    Living in the Past

    "Rachel Corrie was a leftist. She deserved to be killed by the
    Israelis. Leftists deserve whatever they get." People who listen
    to Limbaugh and Hannity actually say things like that.

    So many Americans are living in the past. They are still speaking
    and thinking as if the Cold War had never ended and Communism
    were still the chief enemy which our society faced.

    This thinking-in-the-past is apparent in arguments like this:
    "you well-meaning patriots who are opposed to waging war against
    Iraq are in agreement with some leftists; therefore you are dupes
    of those leftists and are unwittingly helping the left." Notice
    the underlying assumptions, (1) that the left per se is the chief
    enemy, and (2) that a good patriot must always disagree with the
    left. This is a gross oversimplification of the sort that appeals
    to limited intellects, much like George W. Bush's "Either you're
    with us or you're against us." No place is left for the
    expression of a loyal opposition that says, "I am with you but
    let me show you where you are making a mistake."

    There was a time when the pretense of loyal opposition was indeed
    a sham used by the enemies of our country and our race, but those
    people have now completely changed their tactics. Now they are in
    the driver's seat, and they want to stifle opposition.

    Some examples are David Horowitz and Michael Savage, and the rest
    of the "neoconservative" Jews. Horowitz was once a Marxist
    theoretician, a Jew intimately involved in the affairs of the
    Black Panthers. Horowitz's goal back then was to break down
    racial barriers in our society to make it more "tolerant" and
    therefore hospitable to Jews. Now that race-mixing is officially
    condoned throughout the United States, Horowitz has wrapped
    himself in the American flag and is promoting policies that will,
    he thinks, make the Middle East more hospitable to Jews. (And of
    course, additional race-mixing is also a likely result of any
    prolonged occupation of Iraq, if the example of Vietnam is any
    clue.)

    It is the fact that our enemies have made such great progress in
    accomplishing their destructive aims, which causes them to
    condemn anti-war protests instead of leading them. It is now
    their war, and protestors are in their way.

    This change has gone unnoticed not only by the Right but
    generally by the Left as well, who seem to protest the war
    against Iraq for reasons that are like comfortable old mantras
    for them. To justify their anti-war position they fall back on
    traditional leftist complaints: it is a "racist" war, or, it is
    "blood for oil"; that is to say, a war motivated by capitalism.
    In a sense it is a racist war, insofar as one can admit that
    Zionism is a Jewish racial supremacist movement. Many on the
    Left, however, balk at facing this. They generally stay with the
    less risky "no blood for oil" slogan instead of confronting the
    Jewish agenda that really motivates the whole project. Certainly,
    not all of the old-time leftist Jews have crossed over to become
    "neoconservatives," and the influence that they exert in
    distorting leftist approaches to this issue is no doubt
    considerable.

    There's an old saying that it's very hard to cheat an honest man.
    If either the Right or the Left were morally and intellectually
    consistent, the Jews would be unable to get their way as much as
    they have.

    Even people who disagree about values can agree about not wanting
    to be lied into a war, if they at least have some integrity. But
    to party-loyalists, Democrat and Republican, all of politics is a
    contest between opposing teams of shysters. Integrity is not a
    factor. Most politically oriented talk shows amount to nothing
    more than places where the two teams can shout each other down.
    It is really sickening.

    It was exactly this failure to be concerned about principles
    which allowed George W. Bush to become the presidential nominee
    of the Republican party.

    A Reasonable Facsimile of a President

    Bush was chosen because he is a weak-willed, manipulable man. In
    June of 1999, seventeen months before the presidential election
    of 2000, a political commentary in Business Week magazine
    described George W. Bush's approach to politics as "to sit back
    with his finger to the wind." "Bush will soon have to decide
    which wing of the Republican party he's from," observed Richard
    S. Dunham. ["The Fence is getting Uncomfortable for Bush,"
    Business Week June 7, 1999: 135] And Bush still hadn't made that
    choice months later. James Carney, writing in Time magazine of
    December 6, 1999, stated: "Bush's broad appeal to voters of all
    stripes is still his biggest asset. But it takes a lot of energy
    to maintain. Bush has stretched himself so thin to span the
    issues that his support tends to be shallow; voters who like him
    often can't say why." [James Carney, "Feeding Both Sides," Time,
    December 6, 1999: 48] Yes, it takes a lot of energy to keep up
    the kind of media-hoopla that is necessary so that people will
    support you without even knowing why. You cannot do that if you
    do not have the mass-media on your side. Strictly speaking, the
    Jewish-owned news-media and the Jewish neoconservative machine
    within the Republican party created the George W. Bush campaign
    on the basis of nothing more than name-recognition.

    In July of 1999, a report in the Canadian magazine MacLean's
    stated, with evident amazement: "In the early summer of the year
    before [italics in original] the election, Republican
    officeholders are tripping over themselves to jump on his
    bandwagon. Twenty governors and 126 congressmen have endorsed
    Bush. He has raised more money in a shorter time than anyone
    before him.... His rivals are withering on the vine, and Bush
    seems to be fighting the general election already." [MacLean's,
    July 12, 1999:23] What this means is that the fix was in as to
    who the next Republican nominee -- and most probably the next
    president, given the stain of impeachment on the Democrats --
    would be.

    Now, it is actually questionable whether Al Gore himself would
    have taken a different position from that of George W. Bush
    regarding the Zionist-Jews' war-agenda, given that Gore's family
    is intermarried with Jews, and that Paul Wolfowitz praised Gore
    for condemning Bush Senior's "moral blindness" for not taking
    more aggressive steps against Saddam Hussein in 1991. There is
    generally more of a pacifist streak in the Democratic than in the
    Republican party, but somehow this did not prevent the Clinton
    administration from bombing the hell out of Serbia in 1999
    following several years of Jewish agitation, and very possibly it
    would not have stopped Al Gore from doing the Jews' bidding
    against Iraq.

    According to reporter Andrew Austin, Bush had neither sought nor
    expected this sudden prominence: "The people who know him are
    full of stories. How he never really thought about the big job.
    How he was genuinely surprised -- 'dumbfounded' in the words of
    one old friend -- that folks were thinking of him like that."
    [ibid.]

    George W. Bush is a very ordinary man who was in effect dragged
    in off the street, set up on a podium, and told: Here, we need
    you to pretend to be the President of the United States. Just
    read what you see on the teleprompter and try not to stutter or
    mispronounce the big words too much.

    But I don't know anything about being President, protests the
    presidential draftee.

    That's okay, they assure him, we will run everything for you. You
    just learn to repeat what we tell you. It would be funny if it
    weren't so serious.

    The Puppetmasters

    Already in 1999, the Zionist Jew Paul Wolfowitz had George W.
    Bush's puppet-strings in hand. A New York Times story of December
    23, 1999, was titled, "A Cadre of Familiar Foreign Policy Experts
    is putting its Imprint on Bush." The reporter, one Eric Schmitt,
    commenced by noting that foreign policy was an area in which
    George W. Bush apparently had no clue, "a subject that has caused
    him the most trouble in his presidential campaign," and to help
    him to have a clue Bush had "eight hawkish advisers," who were
    said to be "led by Condoleeza Rice ... and Paul D. Wolfowitz." It
    is pretty far-fetched to say that an affirmative-action appointee
    like Condoleeza Rice had any significant influence next to the
    pushy, agenda-driven Wolfowitz. That seems to be just a
    politically correct pretense. To be realistic, read that the
    "eight hawkish advisers" were "led ... by Paul D. Wolfowitz."
    This New York Times story amounted to an announcement to the
    Zionist Jews of the world that if George W. Bush were elected,
    there would be trouble for Iraq, because Paul D. Wolfowitz had
    been agitating for the destruction of Iraq, not only since the
    days of George "Pappy" Bush, but since the days of Jimmy Carter.

    The New York Times Magazine of September 22, 2002 bears the cover
    story: "Stalking Saddam: How Paul Wolfowitz' agenda became the
    Bush agenda." An article that is generally flattering to
    Wolfowitz reveals the Jew as -- surprise, surprise -- by no means
    a conservative on domestic matters, and we receive confirmation
    of his motivation in foreign affairs as follows:
    "You hear from some of Wolfowitz's critics, always off the
    record, that Israel exercises a powerful gravitational pull on
    the man. They may not know that as a teenager he spent his
    father's sabbatical semester in Israel or that his sister is
    married to an Israeli, but they certainly know that he is
    friendly with Israel's generals and diplomats and that he is
    something of a hero to the heavily Jewish neoconservative
    movement." [Bill Keller, "How Paul Wolfowitz' agenda became the
    Bush agenda," New York Times Magazine, Sep 22, 2002: 96]

    Wolfowitz's agenda has filled what was essentially the vacuum of
    George W. Bush's mind; Eric Schmitt was observing already in
    1999: "...the advisers' influence over Mr. Bush has become more
    evident with every speech, news conference, and debate. Indeed...
    it is not unusual to hear the advisers' words coming out of
    Bush's mouth."

    Of course, it has not been Wolfowitz calling all the shots all
    the time. Our affirmative-action Secretary of State Colin Powell,
    back when he was showing a tiny bit of independence, had
    apparently gotten some sound advice from the former Marine Corps
    General Anthony Zinni, who was opposed to overthrowing Saddam
    Hussein in years past and has also spoken out against the current
    war. There were also other people with some modicum of practical
    sense who advised George W. Bush against this war. Wolfowitz and
    his neoconservative cronies however, whose combined
    media-presence is considerable, used pressure to get the Bush
    administration to see things their way.

    The resulting policy toward Iraq has been just what you would
    expect when you have a weak, vacillating man in charge, with
    warmongering Jews talking into one ear and pragmatists with no
    real vision of their own talking into the other. The Jews of
    course got their way in the end by pushing, but we can thank the
    pragmatists for gaining enough temporary concessions to diplomacy
    along the way to make this Zionist war even more embarrassing for
    the United States than it might otherwise have been.

    Bush disingenuously demanded that Saddam Hussein readmit weapons
    inspectors.
    Saddam Hussein unexpectedly complied, which made attacking him
    more difficult, and also, by showing that he is anxious to avoid
    war, made it harder to believe that he is really a menace to the
    U.S.

    As soon as Bush sent the troops over there, to many observers it
    seemed a foregone conclusion that he would have to find an excuse
    to attack, regardless of whatever Saddam Hussein might do. Bush
    gave his "48 hours" ultimatum, which has nothing to do with WMDs,
    but may have been intended to provoke a pre-emptive strike by
    Iraq. Unlike the Japanese in World War II, however, Saddam
    Hussein kept his cool and did not attempt any pre-emptive attack,
    leaving Bush to be the victim of his own words, having either to
    eat his ultimatum or proceed with a totally unprovoked attack.
    Then Bush tried to kill Saddam Hussein with a missile attack. And
    the rest you know.

    I think this record shows that our own "democratically elected"
    leader is not a very good advertisement for the democracy that we
    are allegedly bringing to Iraq!

    The talking heads on TV have been saying that the generals just
    did not plan on having to fight a guerrilla war. It is a big
    surprise, they say. But all they really had to do to know that
    guerrilla warfare would be a main tool of opposition was to do a
    little research. They could have inferred it from the Time
    magazine interview of Hussein Kemal in 1995, where the defector
    explicitly stated that guerrilla warfare would have been the main
    peril for a drive to Baghdad in 1991, or they could have gotten
    some inkling of it from the various news reports showing Iraqi
    civilians buying firearms -- no background check required, by the
    way -- so that they could shoot the American invaders.
    [http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middl...ing_03-11.html
    ] Or, failing all that, they could have just listened to the
    final segment of American Dissident Voices' "Cannon Fodder"
    series which aired only a few weeks ago. It's amazing that just
    using the Internet and old magazines, I can predict an
    eventuality that George W. Bush's Jewish chickenhawks have
    supposedly missed.

    What was sold to us as a quick and easy war of liberation, with
    glory for the soldiers and for the U.S.A. as a whole, is turning
    out to be a very dirty war where our troops are fighting an
    entire people and find themselves shooting innocent women and
    children because of fear.

    British and U.S. government sources believed, or said that they
    believed, that the government of Saddam Hussein would be toppled
    by a coup as soon as the fighting started. The Bush
    administration's repeated statements that the "evil leader" of
    Iraq was the real problem were clearly intended to drive a wedge
    between the Iraqi people and their leader, so that some among
    them would arrange to jettison their jinxed leader the way
    Slobodan Milosevic was jettisoned by Yugoslavia a few years ago
    as a result of intense U.S. pressure. The creation of a popular
    revolution against Saddam Hussein was also understood to be the
    purpose of the economic sanctions which Iraq has endured since
    1991, but that never worked. The siege of Basra -- not especially
    a stronghold of support for the Baath party -- was supposed to
    cause such misery that it would explode in rebellion and welcome
    the invaders, but once again that method has failed and there is
    talk about taking Basra "the hard way."

    Apparently the soldiers were also misled into thinking that this
    would be a very quick and easy war. Several times I have seen
    reports that the soldiers were eager to get on the road to
    Baghdad because this was the way to go home.

    People make the excuse that, although there have been setbacks,
    the United States and Britain are "not losing the war." It is
    true that Iraqi forces are not on the verge of forcing all the
    invading troops back into Kuwait, but when you represent a
    military campaign as "Operation Iraqi Freedom," and find yourself
    fighting mostly civilian militias, you have in a sense already
    lost, because the entire premise and alleged point of your
    campaign has been proven wrong. Can you imagine George W. Bush
    distributing night-vision equipment and rocket-propelled grenades
    to U.S. citizens so that we could defend our country as the
    Iraqis are doing? In terms of the right to keep and bear arms, a
    fundamental freedom, it seems that the Iraqis should be
    liberating us. It has never been in doubt that the United States
    of America could squash the entire country of Iraq and reduce
    Baghdad to rubble, in the event that the Iraqis don't want to
    accept our "gift," but that could hardly be called victory for a
    campaign called "Operation Iraqi Freedom."

    It will be a victory in name only, much as the election of George
    W. Bush was a false victory for all the people who thought only
    about defeating the Democrat and gave no consideration to the
    quality of what they were installing in the Democrat's place, as
    long as it claimed to be "conservative." There was a rush into
    this war, much as the Republicans rushed into making George W.
    Bush their candidate, and in both cases the foolhardy
    conservatives gained an apparent victory that that will be worse
    than a defeat.
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    The text above is based on a broadcast of the American Dissident
    Voices radio program sponsored by National Vanguard Books.
    It is distributed by e-mail each Saturday to subscribers of
    ADV-list.

  2. #2
    Account Inactive
    goidelicwarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, August 3rd, 2010 @ 02:37 PM
    Ethnicity
    Galiza
    Ancestry
    Galicia
    Subrace
    Atlantomed
    Country
    Other Other
    Location
    Europe
    Gender
    Age
    55
    Occupation
    manager
    Politics
    extreme right
    Posts
    572
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post Re: A Wider War is Coming

    Originally posted by Demigorgona
    The War Against Us, part 1: Living in the Present by Hadding Scott and Kevin Alfred Strom

    American Dissident Voices Broadcast of April 5, 2003

    Welcome to American Dissident Voices. Today we'll be beginning a
    new series by ADV researcher Hadding Scott, and yours truly,
    Kevin Alfred Strom, entitled The War Against Us, part 1: Living
    in the Present.


    A Wider War is Coming

    First, I want to remind you of a prediction we made a few weeks
    ago in our Cannon Fodder series and our other programs about the
    war: we predicted that Israel's proxy war in the Middle East
    would not stop with Afghanistan and Iraq. We predicted that Iran,
    Syria, and Saudi Arabia were next on the Zionist's hit list, and
    would be the next places where American cannon fodder would be
    sent to kill and to die. Now that prediction has been confirmed
    by no less than "Uncle Colin" Powell himself, in a saber-rattling
    speech he gave on Monday to the leading Jewish lobby group AIPAC,
    short for "American Israel Public Affairs Committee." Here's what
    Powell said about Syria there:

    "Syria can continue direct support for terrorist groups and the
    dying regime of Saddam Hussein, or it can embark on a different
    and more hopeful course. Either way, Syria bears the
    responsibility for its choices -- and for the consequences."
    [Wild applause and hooting from the audience, largely composed of
    powerful and well-connected establishment Jews.(Note that the
    sound byte cut off, I suspect that the cheering went on even
    longer.)]

    Now, exactly what "consequences" do you think Powell is
    threatening, as he prosecutes a war against Syria's neighbor
    Iraq? According to Lamis Andoni, a reporter for the Christian
    Science Monitor, it was a clear threat by Powell to "widen the
    war" and that "the U.S. will not tolerate any dissent in the
    region."

    And who, besides the influential Jews, do you think was sitting
    in the audience at the Israeli lobby's meeting? The AIPAC
    audience of 5,000 included not only Secretary Powell, but fellow
    speakers such as national security adviser Condoleezza Rice,
    political director Kenneth Mehlman, Undersecretary of State John
    R. Bolton and Assistant Secretary of State William Burns. And,
    hard as it may be for neophytes on the Jewish question to
    believe, this little-heralded meeting also included in its
    audience half of the United States Senate and one third of the
    United States Congress! Almost unbelievably, considering the
    important people in attendance, the Zionist conference was billed
    as being "off the record" and one of the important things
    discussed was the need for the AIPAC lobbyists not to publicly
    trumpet their push for war, for fear of a Gentile awakening to
    the Jewish nature of the war. In fact, conference participant
    Eyal Arad, who also happens to be Ariel Sharon's campaign
    advisor, explicitly stated that the Bush administration had
    requested that the Jewish lobby group "keep a low profile in this
    conflict." But conference moderator Steve Rosen let the cat out
    of the bag when he owned up to his possessive feelings about the
    war: "God willing, we're going to have a great victory in Iraq,"
    he said. Everyone knows what Jews mean when they use the word
    "we."
    [
    http://www.pacifica.org/programs/fla...ts_030331.html
    and
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Mar31.html
    ]

    And the United States Senate passed a resolution on March 12th,
    Senate Resolution 82, which has so far received little attention
    in the controlled media, which for all practical purposes calls
    for 'regime change' in Iran, Iraq's neighbor: "Expressing the
    sense of the Senate concerning the continuous repression of
    freedoms within Iran.... Iran is an ideological dictatorship
    presided over by an unelected Supreme Leader.... the Iranian
    Government has been developing a uranium enrichment program....
    It is the sense of the Senate that... it should be the policy of
    the United States to seek a genuine democratic government in
    Iran...." You know the drill. First Afghanistan, now Iraq, next
    Syria and Iran.
    [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...sr82is.txt.pdf
    ]

    As we predicted on American Dissident Voices, this is not a war
    on terror nor is it a war for American interests. It is a proxy
    war for Israel, and the Jews who now preside over the Bush
    administration laid out their plans to engage in a wide war of
    aggression to redraw the map of the Middle East several years
    ago. They're counting on us falling for the animated flags and
    synthetic violins playing on CNN or Faux News, and falling for
    their invocation of 9/11 every time they decide to start killing
    their perceived enemies in a new country. As you see the National
    Alliance's predictions coming true over and over again, I'm
    counting on you not to fall for these Jewish lies ever again.

    ***

    Living in the Past

    "Rachel Corrie was a leftist. She deserved to be killed by the
    Israelis. Leftists deserve whatever they get." People who listen
    to Limbaugh and Hannity actually say things like that.

    So many Americans are living in the past. They are still speaking
    and thinking as if the Cold War had never ended and Communism
    were still the chief enemy which our society faced.

    This thinking-in-the-past is apparent in arguments like this:
    "you well-meaning patriots who are opposed to waging war against
    Iraq are in agreement with some leftists; therefore you are dupes
    of those leftists and are unwittingly helping the left." Notice
    the underlying assumptions, (1) that the left per se is the chief
    enemy, and (2) that a good patriot must always disagree with the
    left. This is a gross oversimplification of the sort that appeals
    to limited intellects, much like George W. Bush's "Either you're
    with us or you're against us." No place is left for the
    expression of a loyal opposition that says, "I am with you but
    let me show you where you are making a mistake."

    There was a time when the pretense of loyal opposition was indeed
    a sham used by the enemies of our country and our race, but those
    people have now completely changed their tactics. Now they are in
    the driver's seat, and they want to stifle opposition.

    Some examples are David Horowitz and Michael Savage, and the rest
    of the "neoconservative" Jews. Horowitz was once a Marxist
    theoretician, a Jew intimately involved in the affairs of the
    Black Panthers. Horowitz's goal back then was to break down
    racial barriers in our society to make it more "tolerant" and
    therefore hospitable to Jews. Now that race-mixing is officially
    condoned throughout the United States, Horowitz has wrapped
    himself in the American flag and is promoting policies that will,
    he thinks, make the Middle East more hospitable to Jews. (And of
    course, additional race-mixing is also a likely result of any
    prolonged occupation of Iraq, if the example of Vietnam is any
    clue.)

    It is the fact that our enemies have made such great progress in
    accomplishing their destructive aims, which causes them to
    condemn anti-war protests instead of leading them. It is now
    their war, and protestors are in their way.

    This change has gone unnoticed not only by the Right but
    generally by the Left as well, who seem to protest the war
    against Iraq for reasons that are like comfortable old mantras
    for them. To justify their anti-war position they fall back on
    traditional leftist complaints: it is a "racist" war, or, it is
    "blood for oil"; that is to say, a war motivated by capitalism.
    In a sense it is a racist war, insofar as one can admit that
    Zionism is a Jewish racial supremacist movement. Many on the
    Left, however, balk at facing this. They generally stay with the
    less risky "no blood for oil" slogan instead of confronting the
    Jewish agenda that really motivates the whole project. Certainly,
    not all of the old-time leftist Jews have crossed over to become
    "neoconservatives," and the influence that they exert in
    distorting leftist approaches to this issue is no doubt
    considerable.

    There's an old saying that it's very hard to cheat an honest man.
    If either the Right or the Left were morally and intellectually
    consistent, the Jews would be unable to get their way as much as
    they have.

    Even people who disagree about values can agree about not wanting
    to be lied into a war, if they at least have some integrity. But
    to party-loyalists, Democrat and Republican, all of politics is a
    contest between opposing teams of shysters. Integrity is not a
    factor. Most politically oriented talk shows amount to nothing
    more than places where the two teams can shout each other down.
    It is really sickening.

    It was exactly this failure to be concerned about principles
    which allowed George W. Bush to become the presidential nominee
    of the Republican party.

    A Reasonable Facsimile of a President

    Bush was chosen because he is a weak-willed, manipulable man. In
    June of 1999, seventeen months before the presidential election
    of 2000, a political commentary in Business Week magazine
    described George W. Bush's approach to politics as "to sit back
    with his finger to the wind." "Bush will soon have to decide
    which wing of the Republican party he's from," observed Richard
    S. Dunham. ["The Fence is getting Uncomfortable for Bush,"
    Business Week June 7, 1999: 135] And Bush still hadn't made that
    choice months later. James Carney, writing in Time magazine of
    December 6, 1999, stated: "Bush's broad appeal to voters of all
    stripes is still his biggest asset. But it takes a lot of energy
    to maintain. Bush has stretched himself so thin to span the
    issues that his support tends to be shallow; voters who like him
    often can't say why." [James Carney, "Feeding Both Sides," Time,
    December 6, 1999: 48] Yes, it takes a lot of energy to keep up
    the kind of media-hoopla that is necessary so that people will
    support you without even knowing why. You cannot do that if you
    do not have the mass-media on your side. Strictly speaking, the
    Jewish-owned news-media and the Jewish neoconservative machine
    within the Republican party created the George W. Bush campaign
    on the basis of nothing more than name-recognition.

    In July of 1999, a report in the Canadian magazine MacLean's
    stated, with evident amazement: "In the early summer of the year
    before [italics in original] the election, Republican
    officeholders are tripping over themselves to jump on his
    bandwagon. Twenty governors and 126 congressmen have endorsed
    Bush. He has raised more money in a shorter time than anyone
    before him.... His rivals are withering on the vine, and Bush
    seems to be fighting the general election already." [MacLean's,
    July 12, 1999:23] What this means is that the fix was in as to
    who the next Republican nominee -- and most probably the next
    president, given the stain of impeachment on the Democrats --
    would be.

    Now, it is actually questionable whether Al Gore himself would
    have taken a different position from that of George W. Bush
    regarding the Zionist-Jews' war-agenda, given that Gore's family
    is intermarried with Jews, and that Paul Wolfowitz praised Gore
    for condemning Bush Senior's "moral blindness" for not taking
    more aggressive steps against Saddam Hussein in 1991. There is
    generally more of a pacifist streak in the Democratic than in the
    Republican party, but somehow this did not prevent the Clinton
    administration from bombing the hell out of Serbia in 1999
    following several years of Jewish agitation, and very possibly it
    would not have stopped Al Gore from doing the Jews' bidding
    against Iraq.

    According to reporter Andrew Austin, Bush had neither sought nor
    expected this sudden prominence: "The people who know him are
    full of stories. How he never really thought about the big job.
    How he was genuinely surprised -- 'dumbfounded' in the words of
    one old friend -- that folks were thinking of him like that."
    [ibid.]

    George W. Bush is a very ordinary man who was in effect dragged
    in off the street, set up on a podium, and told: Here, we need
    you to pretend to be the President of the United States. Just
    read what you see on the teleprompter and try not to stutter or
    mispronounce the big words too much.

    But I don't know anything about being President, protests the
    presidential draftee.

    That's okay, they assure him, we will run everything for you. You
    just learn to repeat what we tell you. It would be funny if it
    weren't so serious.

    The Puppetmasters

    Already in 1999, the Zionist Jew Paul Wolfowitz had George W.
    Bush's puppet-strings in hand. A New York Times story of December
    23, 1999, was titled, "A Cadre of Familiar Foreign Policy Experts
    is putting its Imprint on Bush." The reporter, one Eric Schmitt,
    commenced by noting that foreign policy was an area in which
    George W. Bush apparently had no clue, "a subject that has caused
    him the most trouble in his presidential campaign," and to help
    him to have a clue Bush had "eight hawkish advisers," who were
    said to be "led by Condoleeza Rice ... and Paul D. Wolfowitz." It
    is pretty far-fetched to say that an affirmative-action appointee
    like Condoleeza Rice had any significant influence next to the
    pushy, agenda-driven Wolfowitz. That seems to be just a
    politically correct pretense. To be realistic, read that the
    "eight hawkish advisers" were "led ... by Paul D. Wolfowitz."
    This New York Times story amounted to an announcement to the
    Zionist Jews of the world that if George W. Bush were elected,
    there would be trouble for Iraq, because Paul D. Wolfowitz had
    been agitating for the destruction of Iraq, not only since the
    days of George "Pappy" Bush, but since the days of Jimmy Carter.

    The New York Times Magazine of September 22, 2002 bears the cover
    story: "Stalking Saddam: How Paul Wolfowitz' agenda became the
    Bush agenda." An article that is generally flattering to
    Wolfowitz reveals the Jew as -- surprise, surprise -- by no means
    a conservative on domestic matters, and we receive confirmation
    of his motivation in foreign affairs as follows:
    "You hear from some of Wolfowitz's critics, always off the
    record, that Israel exercises a powerful gravitational pull on
    the man. They may not know that as a teenager he spent his
    father's sabbatical semester in Israel or that his sister is
    married to an Israeli, but they certainly know that he is
    friendly with Israel's generals and diplomats and that he is
    something of a hero to the heavily Jewish neoconservative
    movement." [Bill Keller, "How Paul Wolfowitz' agenda became the
    Bush agenda," New York Times Magazine, Sep 22, 2002: 96]

    Wolfowitz's agenda has filled what was essentially the vacuum of
    George W. Bush's mind; Eric Schmitt was observing already in
    1999: "...the advisers' influence over Mr. Bush has become more
    evident with every speech, news conference, and debate. Indeed...
    it is not unusual to hear the advisers' words coming out of
    Bush's mouth."

    Of course, it has not been Wolfowitz calling all the shots all
    the time. Our affirmative-action Secretary of State Colin Powell,
    back when he was showing a tiny bit of independence, had
    apparently gotten some sound advice from the former Marine Corps
    General Anthony Zinni, who was opposed to overthrowing Saddam
    Hussein in years past and has also spoken out against the current
    war. There were also other people with some modicum of practical
    sense who advised George W. Bush against this war. Wolfowitz and
    his neoconservative cronies however, whose combined
    media-presence is considerable, used pressure to get the Bush
    administration to see things their way.

    The resulting policy toward Iraq has been just what you would
    expect when you have a weak, vacillating man in charge, with
    warmongering Jews talking into one ear and pragmatists with no
    real vision of their own talking into the other. The Jews of
    course got their way in the end by pushing, but we can thank the
    pragmatists for gaining enough temporary concessions to diplomacy
    along the way to make this Zionist war even more embarrassing for
    the United States than it might otherwise have been.

    Bush disingenuously demanded that Saddam Hussein readmit weapons
    inspectors.
    Saddam Hussein unexpectedly complied, which made attacking him
    more difficult, and also, by showing that he is anxious to avoid
    war, made it harder to believe that he is really a menace to the
    U.S.

    As soon as Bush sent the troops over there, to many observers it
    seemed a foregone conclusion that he would have to find an excuse
    to attack, regardless of whatever Saddam Hussein might do. Bush
    gave his "48 hours" ultimatum, which has nothing to do with WMDs,
    but may have been intended to provoke a pre-emptive strike by
    Iraq. Unlike the Japanese in World War II, however, Saddam
    Hussein kept his cool and did not attempt any pre-emptive attack,
    leaving Bush to be the victim of his own words, having either to
    eat his ultimatum or proceed with a totally unprovoked attack.
    Then Bush tried to kill Saddam Hussein with a missile attack. And
    the rest you know.

    I think this record shows that our own "democratically elected"
    leader is not a very good advertisement for the democracy that we
    are allegedly bringing to Iraq!

    The talking heads on TV have been saying that the generals just
    did not plan on having to fight a guerrilla war. It is a big
    surprise, they say. But all they really had to do to know that
    guerrilla warfare would be a main tool of opposition was to do a
    little research. They could have inferred it from the Time
    magazine interview of Hussein Kemal in 1995, where the defector
    explicitly stated that guerrilla warfare would have been the main
    peril for a drive to Baghdad in 1991, or they could have gotten
    some inkling of it from the various news reports showing Iraqi
    civilians buying firearms -- no background check required, by the
    way -- so that they could shoot the American invaders.
    [http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middl...ing_03-11.html
    ] Or, failing all that, they could have just listened to the
    final segment of American Dissident Voices' "Cannon Fodder"
    series which aired only a few weeks ago. It's amazing that just
    using the Internet and old magazines, I can predict an
    eventuality that George W. Bush's Jewish chickenhawks have
    supposedly missed.

    What was sold to us as a quick and easy war of liberation, with
    glory for the soldiers and for the U.S.A. as a whole, is turning
    out to be a very dirty war where our troops are fighting an
    entire people and find themselves shooting innocent women and
    children because of fear.

    British and U.S. government sources believed, or said that they
    believed, that the government of Saddam Hussein would be toppled
    by a coup as soon as the fighting started. The Bush
    administration's repeated statements that the "evil leader" of
    Iraq was the real problem were clearly intended to drive a wedge
    between the Iraqi people and their leader, so that some among
    them would arrange to jettison their jinxed leader the way
    Slobodan Milosevic was jettisoned by Yugoslavia a few years ago
    as a result of intense U.S. pressure. The creation of a popular
    revolution against Saddam Hussein was also understood to be the
    purpose of the economic sanctions which Iraq has endured since
    1991, but that never worked. The siege of Basra -- not especially
    a stronghold of support for the Baath party -- was supposed to
    cause such misery that it would explode in rebellion and welcome
    the invaders, but once again that method has failed and there is
    talk about taking Basra "the hard way."

    Apparently the soldiers were also misled into thinking that this
    would be a very quick and easy war. Several times I have seen
    reports that the soldiers were eager to get on the road to
    Baghdad because this was the way to go home.

    People make the excuse that, although there have been setbacks,
    the United States and Britain are "not losing the war." It is
    true that Iraqi forces are not on the verge of forcing all the
    invading troops back into Kuwait, but when you represent a
    military campaign as "Operation Iraqi Freedom," and find yourself
    fighting mostly civilian militias, you have in a sense already
    lost, because the entire premise and alleged point of your
    campaign has been proven wrong. Can you imagine George W. Bush
    distributing night-vision equipment and rocket-propelled grenades
    to U.S. citizens so that we could defend our country as the
    Iraqis are doing? In terms of the right to keep and bear arms, a
    fundamental freedom, it seems that the Iraqis should be
    liberating us. It has never been in doubt that the United States
    of America could squash the entire country of Iraq and reduce
    Baghdad to rubble, in the event that the Iraqis don't want to
    accept our "gift," but that could hardly be called victory for a
    campaign called "Operation Iraqi Freedom."

    It will be a victory in name only, much as the election of George
    W. Bush was a false victory for all the people who thought only
    about defeating the Democrat and gave no consideration to the
    quality of what they were installing in the Democrat's place, as
    long as it claimed to be "conservative." There was a rush into
    this war, much as the Republicans rushed into making George W.
    Bush their candidate, and in both cases the foolhardy
    conservatives gained an apparent victory that that will be worse
    than a defeat.
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    The text above is based on a broadcast of the American Dissident
    Voices radio program sponsored by National Vanguard Books.
    It is distributed by e-mail each Saturday to subscribers of
    ADV-list.
    its awful.. but sometimes I wish Adolf had finnished what he started...this plague is going to plunge the world into a world conflict, hope fully these insects perish this time!

  3. #3
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Thursday, March 30th, 2017 @ 05:01 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    German and English
    Subrace
    Nordid
    mtDNA
    H
    Country
    Prussia Prussia
    State
    Teutonic Order Teutonic Order
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Aquarius
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Ethnocentrism
    Religion
    Asatru
    Posts
    1,822
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    12
    Thanked in
    11 Posts

    Post

    Triskel, can I get you to shorten your quote and just only post the name or the first few opening words? Such a long quote is pretty annoying.

  4. #4
    Account Inactive
    goidelicwarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, August 3rd, 2010 @ 02:37 PM
    Ethnicity
    Galiza
    Ancestry
    Galicia
    Subrace
    Atlantomed
    Country
    Other Other
    Location
    Europe
    Gender
    Age
    55
    Occupation
    manager
    Politics
    extreme right
    Posts
    572
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post

    Originally posted by NordicPower88
    Triskel, can I get you to shorten your quote and just only post the name or the first few opening words? Such a long quote is pretty annoying.
    OKx_p

Similar Threads

  1. Arab Awakening Pretext for Wider War?
    By Roderic in forum Strategic Intelligence
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Monday, June 6th, 2011, 05:24 PM
  2. Your Thoughts on the Coming War with China
    By Windsor in forum The United States
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: Monday, August 30th, 2010, 04:35 PM
  3. Next War is Coming
    By Ocko in forum The United States
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: Monday, July 5th, 2010, 04:58 AM
  4. Race War Coming
    By Ralf in forum Southern Africa
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: Thursday, May 6th, 2010, 10:45 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •