Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page
I'm sure that most of our readers have been observing with some interest the Republican primaries these past few months. And I'm sure that you've noticed, as I have, the most interesting feature of these primaries: namely the frantic attacks by the controlled media and by the other Republicans on candidate Patrick Buchanan.
The controlled media keep telling us that their polls show that most voters believe Buchanan is "too extreme." That is simply the media's way of trying to move the herd toward that view. They want people to think, "Pat Buchanan can't win, because he's too extreme. We know he's too extreme, because we heard it on TV." And, of course, the other Republican candidates are echoing the same line: Buchanan is an extremist, they say.
Now, just what is it about Buchanan that's extreme?
Is it his statement that if he becomes President he'll stop the flood of illegal immigration from Mexico? Is it now considered "extreme" for a Presidential candidate to be in favor of enforcing U.S. law and protecting our borders? Some people apparently think so.
Or is it Buchanan's position on foreign trade which makes him an extremist? Is he an extremist because he believes that American workers should not be forced to compete for jobs with Chinese coolies or Mexican mestizos? Is he an extremist for pointing out the simple truth that Washington's present policy of uncontrolled foreign trade is destroying one basic American industry after another and is exporting hundreds of thousands of American jobs overseas? Is that "too extreme"? The people who slant our television news programs say it is. Mr. Dole and the other Republicans say it is.
Well, we know that many wealthy businessmen welcome both the flow of cheap labor across our border with Mexico and also the opportunity to build their factories in Indonesia or elsewhere in the Third World, where labor is so inexpensive. And we know that Republican politicians traditionally receive much of their financial support from wealthy businessmen. Is that why the Republican Party bosses are so worried that Buchanan may become the Republican candidate? Is that why the other Republicans are saying that they'll support any Republican candidate chosen by the voters except Pat Buchanan?
No, that's not the reason. If Robert Dole and the other Republican candidates really believed that Pat Buchanan's views were too extreme for most people, they wouldn't worry about him at all. They'd just let him lose in the primaries, and then they'd have less competition. And as for the Republican Party bosses, don't they understand the purpose of primaries? Primaries are to give the voters a chance to choose the candidate they want. The party bosses should be happy to have the most popular candidate, instead of trying to frighten voters into accepting a less-popular candidate. And as for the wealthy businessmen, Buchanan is running without campaign money from them. If he can win without their money, who cares what they think about his views on immigration and trade?
No, Buchanan's policies certainly aren't extreme. The other Republicans aren't worried that the voters will reject those policies. Instead they're afraid that the voters will approve of those policies. They're afraid that Pat Buchanan will be able to build mass support for protecting our borders, for enforcing our immigration laws, for bringing back American jobs and rebuilding American industries which have been exported to the Third World.
The real key to understanding the attacks on Patrick Buchanan by other Republicans and by the controlled media is not extremism at all. It's something else that we're beginning to hear in the attacks on Buchanan, as his attackers become more worried about his popularity. That something else is what they're calling "anti-Semitism." Pat Buchanan is an anti-Semite, they're whispering, and so we must stop him at all costs.
If you look at some of the Jewish community newspapers, the ones we aren't supposed to see, they're not whispering about Buchanan's supposed anti-Semitism, they're screaming about it. They're calling him a "neo-Nazi," a "racist," a "Jew baiter," "hatemonger," and an "anti-Semite."
Now, is any of that true? Is Patrick Buchanan really an anti-Semite?
Let's look at the evidence, at the facts. What is true is that Buchanan is a traditional Roman Catholic, a conservative Roman Catholic, and he takes his religion seriously. A few years ago a mob of homosexual demonstrators, most of them Jews, invaded a Catholic church in New York City and desecrated the church, pouring blood on the altar and performing lewd acts inside the church in order to express their displeasure with the local bishop's opposition to homosexuality. The local media treated the whole affair as if it were a lark, a sort of boyish prank. The local politicians and the police had a similar attitude. Buchanan was enraged. He wrote in his own newspaper column that if it had been a synagogue which had been desecrated instead of a Christian church, and if the invaders had been Gentiles instead of Jews, the media and the authorities would have taken it much more seriously. The desecrators would all be in prison on "hate crime" charges.
Hey, we all know that's true. The Jews do get special treatment from the media and from the authorities and from the courts. They expect special treatment, and they get it -- especially in places like New York. But Buchanan had the guts to actually say it. And when the Jews jumped all over him and accused him of being "insensitive" for saying it and began wailing about the "Holocaust" and "anti-Semitism" in an attempt to make him back down, Buchanan didn't back down. Politicians are supposed to grovel and apologize when the Jews accuse them of being "insensitive." But Buchanan is a fighter. He denied being an anti-Semite, but he didn't grovel and apologize.
And there have been other instances where Buchanan has clashed with the Jews. When he was an adviser to President Ronald Reagan, and the Jews told Reagan that he mustn't lay a wreath at a certain military cemetery in Germany -- the cemetery at Bitburg -- because some of the soldiers buried there were members of the SS, Buchanan advised him to go ahead and lay the wreath anyway. The war had been over for nearly 50 years, and Buchanan thought it was time for reconciliation. But the Jews' motto is "never forget and never forgive," and so again they called Buchanan an "anti-Semite" for not yielding to their pressure.
Five years ago, when the Jews decided that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were becoming a danger to Israeli hegemony in the Middle East and had to be crushed, George Bush and the other Republicans were eager to do their bidding, as were the Democrats, and so we launched the Gulf War and bombed Baghdad into submission. But Patrick Buchanan spoke out and said, "Hey, we don't need this war. This war doesn't serve America's interests. The only people who need this war are the Israelis." All of the politicians knew that was true, but Buchanan was the only one who would say it publicly.
And then there was the case of John Demjanjuk. Jewish leaders decided a few years ago that it was time for another crucifixion, and they accused Ukrainian-American John Demjanjuk, a retired Cleveland auto-worker, of war crimes which he supposedly had committed 50 years ago, during the Second World War. This is Ivan the Terrible, the Jews claimed; he killed thousands of Jews during the war. And so they had one of their bought Federal judges strip him of his citizenship and ship him off to Israel for a show trial designed to generate sympathy for Jews and increase foreign aid to Israel.
Pat Buchanan again spoke out against this outrage. The other politicians, Democrat and Republican, politicians like Bob Dole, knew enough to look the other way and keep their mouths shut, but Buchanan said, "Hey, what about the Constitution? What about due process? What about this man's rights?" And Buchanan generated enough public interest in the fate of John Demjanjuk that the Jews' plans for a crucifixion were derailed. They weren't able to cover up the evidence that proved Demjanjuk was innocent, and public opinion eventually forced them to turn him loose. That's something else they've never forgiven Buchanan for.
But does any of these things make Buchanan an "anti-Semite"? Do these things justify the Jews' claims that he is a "hatemonger," a "Jew baiter," and a "neo-Nazi"? I doubt it. What do you think?
Now if I were the candidate instead of Pat Buchanan, the Jews would have something to scream about. Because if I were elected I'd declare a national emergency, and I'd immediately take the control of our news and entertainment media away from them. I'd root them out of Hollywood. I'd weed them out of our universities. I'd remove them from the courts. I'd clean house. But I really don't believe that Buchanan would do that. He's certainly never said or written anything to indicate he'd do that. He's not a revolutionary. He's a conservative. He's a Republican. He's a Christian. He's simply a fellow with old-fashioned values, and he's a fighter. He has no particular grudge against the Jews, but when some of them desecrate his church, he becomes angry and says something about it. When he sees an injustice taking place, as in the persecution of John Demjanjuk, he may or may not speak out, but his decision as to whether or not to speak out isn't based on what the Jews might think about it. He has other considerations.
And basically that's why the Jewish media are attacking him so viciously. They can't tolerate a politician who has any considerations other than what the Jews might think. Basically they can't tolerate a politician who doesn't jump when they whistle. If he won't apologize and grovel now, there's no telling what he might not do if he's in the White House. He might not send all of those billions of dollars from American taxpayers to Israel every year. He might not appoint Jews to half of his cabinet positions and to the head of the CIA and to every Supreme Court vacancy, the way Clinton has. He might not send U.S. troops when and where he's told to send them. He might not base his policies on what's good for the Jews instead of on what's good for America. That's why they hate him. That's why they're trying to convince the voters that he's an extremist.
And that's also the reason that Bob Dole and the other Republicans are attacking him. That's why the Republican Party bosses are saying that they can accept any candidate except Buchanan. Bob Dole has based his career on being a step'n'fetchit for the powerful Jews who control the American political system. He's a boring, lackluster, unimaginative politician, who's never had an original idea, but the media bosses keep backing him for reelection, because he does what he's told. He votes for billions of dollars in aid to Israel every year. He kept his mouth shut when the Jews grabbed John Demjanjuk and put him on trial in Israel on phony charges. He went along with the bombing of women and children in Baghdad. He votes for every so-called "free trade" bill and other piece of New World Order legislation the Jews want enacted. Dole is dependable.
And Dole in turn depends on the system of which he is a part, a system in which everyone jumps when the Jews whistle. Without the system, Dole would have to go out and find himself a job. He would have to work for a living.
And Buchanan is not part of the system. Buchanan is an outsider. A Buchanan win would severely damage the prestige of the system. It would upset the Republican applecart. That's why Dole and the party bosses are afraid of Buchanan. That's why they keep calling him an "extremist," when in fact his views are anything but extreme. God, I wish that he were an extremist! We need more extremists.
What's important for us to remember, though, is that extremism isn't the issue here. Extremism is just a smoke screen. The real issue is refusing to take orders from the Jews, refusing to follow the Jewish party line. That's what the Jews call "anti-Semitism." That's what they call "hate." That's what they call "neo-Nazism." And the really important and interesting thing about these Republican primaries is that they may give the American people a chance to face this fact. The big media bosses, the top Jewish leaders, would like to keep the issue confined to "extremism." They would like for the general public not to know about the charges of "anti-Semitism" and "neo-Nazism" that they're throwing around so freely in their Jewish publications that we're not supposed to see. But if Patrick Buchanan keeps doing even reasonably well in the primaries, the Jewish bosses will have a hard time keeping the lid on. They will have a hard time keeping some of their more excitable brethren from screaming in public that Buchanan is an "anti-Semite" because he won't take orders from the Jews. That will be very illuminating for Buchanan's supporters and for the public generally.
Actually that sort of thing already is happening to a small degree. Some of the really excitable Jews, the really hateful Jews, already are finding it impossible to keep their mouths shut. One of these is Rabbi Avi Weiss, a very intense little Jew who heads a Hebrew outfit called "Amcha." Rabbi Weiss and his followers have made a habit of trying to disrupt Buchanan's election rallies. They jump up on the speaker's platform with signs saying, "Buchanan Is a Jew Hater," and wave them in front of the TV cameras. Of course, they get tossed out of the rallies, and some of the Buchanan supporters who are there tell them what they think about their antics. To Weiss, this is proof that he is right: Buchanan and his supporters are Jew-haters, because they call Weiss and his fellow disrupters nasty names when they toss them out of rallies. Weiss is accustomed to politicians who grovel and apologize. Anyone who doesn't grovel and apologize must be an "anti-Semite" -- especially anyone who dares to say nasty things to one of God's Chosen People. And so Rabbi Weiss, who writes in general circulation newspapers as well as in strictly Jewish papers, is loudly calling Buchanan an "anti-Semite."
And I believe that other Jews will begin doing the same before the campaign is over. That will allow Buchanan supporters to understand who their real enemy is, to understand who's behind the propaganda campaign against Buchanan, to understand who's pulling Bob Dole's strings.
Of course, the trendy liberal elements will follow the Jewish lead, as they always do, and they also will step up the intensity and viciousness of their own attacks on Buchanan. But still, the general public will have a chance to see that the reason the media and the party bosses don't like Buchanan isn't extremism at all. It's what his enemies will call "anti-Semitism" and what is really just a reluctance to let the Jews tell him what to think and what to say and lead him by the nose the way they lead the other politicians. And at least some members of the public will gain a bit of understanding of the nature of the Republican/Democrat political charade in Jew-ridden America. They'll understand that if the Jews don't like you, then the media won't like you. And if the media don't like you, you won't get elected.
That alone will make these ongoing Republican primaries an enormously rewarding experience for America. It'll be a rewarding experience for me too. Sometimes I feel a bit awkward, talking week after week about the Jewish control of the news and entertainment media, the Jewish control of the American political process, the Jewish control of the U.S. government.
People should be able to see these things for themselves. I shouldn't have to tell them the same things over and over again. The evidence is everywhere. It's obvious. But most people don't pay attention to it. They don't want to come to conclusions that might be considered "extremist." So they pretend that everything is all right, even when they know that it isn't. And they hope that someone like Pat Buchanan will come along and fix things.
And now they see Buchanan being attacked, first as an "extremist" and then as an "anti-Semite," for saying that we ought to restore the integrity of our borders, that we ought to enforce our immigration laws, that we ought to protect American workers from competition with Chinese and Mexican workers, that we ought not to start wars unless America's vital interests are threatened.
For that he's an "anti-Semite"?
Buchanan supporters should be able to draw their own conclusions. I hope that they will.
Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page