Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page
Let's look at the details. Samuel Dash gained his high profile 25 years ago, when he was the chief counsel of the Senate committee investigating the Watergate scandal. He had close ties to people at the Washington Post, and it has been widely assumed that he orchestrated the torrent of leaks from his investigating staff to the media. It was these leaks to the media day after day, for month after month, virtually all of them damaging to Nixon and his allies, which unraveled the Nixon presidency. In any case, Dash played a key role in the process which eventually forced Nixon to resign from office in 1974.
When Ken Starr hired Dash in 1994 as a member of his staff to investigate Clinton's criminal activity, the reasoning seemed to be that as a well-known Jewish Democrat, Dash would give "balance" to Starr's team and deflect charges from Clinton supporters that the investigation was a partisan effort by Republicans and Christian conservatives out to "get" Clinton. And Dash was not the only Jew working for Ken Starr. Starr, a naive, straitlaced preacher's son, really seems to have a blind spot where Jews are concerned -- as in fact, a great many other Christian conservatives do. In Starr's case, perhaps the fact that he is married to a Jewess has had something to do with his leaving himself open to Jewish sabotage.
Starr was paying Dash $3200 a week for four or five hours of work -- until Friday of last week. On Friday, the day after the opening of impeachment hearings by the House Judiciary Committee, Samuel Dash announced that he was resigning from Ken Starr's staff because Starr wasn't being fair to Mr. Clinton and had acted unethically in giving his opening statement to the Judiciary Committee on the previous day. Dash had given Starr no warning of what he intended to do, and it caught the special prosecutor completely by surprise. It didn't catch the media people by surprise, however, because rumors already had been buzzing among them that Dash was involved in secret meetings with Clinton's people in the days before his resignation last week, and so they were expecting some interesting developments. Other members of Starr's staff had exactly the same suspicions. One of them was quoted by Newsweek magazine this week saying that Dash had become a "traitor" who "willfully aligned himself with the other side." Starr was especially surprised, because he had showed to Dash the report he intended to give to the Congress, and Dash had agreed with all of Starr's conclusions.
What was really interesting was to see the Republicans backpedaling and the Clintonistas gloating after Dash sandbagged Starr. The Republicans already were nervous about continuing with the impeachment process against Clinton after the lemmings had shown in the election results earlier this month that they were more interested in getting back to their ball games and funny papers than in having the law enforced. When Dash denounced the prosecution of Bill Clinton as "unethical," many Republicans ran for cover. It's clear that they're looking for a quick and easy way out now, rather than giving Clinton the punishment he deserves.
Now, the really interesting question is, why did Dash do it? Why at this time torpedo the investigation that he had been a part of for four years? Why was he so eager to let Clinton off the hook that he would betray the man who had hired him as counsel and risk charges of unethical behavior himself?
Now I'll tell you what I think. I can't prove it, but if I am correct events soon will prove me right. I think that the bigshot Jew lawyer Samuel Dash made a secret deal with Bill Clinton on a matter of great importance to Dash's fellow Jews. Dash would launch a treacherous, surprise attack on his employer, Kenneth Starr, and take much of the steam out of the impeachment process if Bill Clinton would make a firm commitment to find any convenient excuse for getting the war against Iraq started quickly: any plausible excuse. As I prepare this broadcast, the war still hasn't started. It may have begun before I'm actually on the air. But if it hasn't I have a strong suspicion that Mr. Clinton soon will seize any pretext, no matter how flimsy -- he will invent a pretext -- for claiming that Saddam Hussein is defying the United Nations again. The Jewish media will back him up, of course, and the slaughter will begin.
Now, that's just my hunch, my suspicion, as to Samuel Dash's motive for doing something which is otherwise inexplicable. The Jews really do want this war. They desperately need this war. And they certainly don't want to have to fight it themselves. Well, we'll see. Meanwhile, we get to see that grinning piece of filth in the White House become cocky again in the knowledge that he's beat yet another rap -- probably.
You know, it's my belief that it behooves us always to try to find something good in our situation, no matter how bad it seems. We ought to look for an advantageous aspect in every disaster that befalls us and see what we can do to make it more advantageous. That's the only way for us to keep our courage up; it's our only hope for improving things. And certainly, if we assess our situation objectively today, it is a full-fledged disaster. We Americans -- we White Americans, we European Americans -- are largely a population of mindless, spineless lemmings with a government consisting entirely of criminals, and we are all -- people and government -- under the control of a tribe of alien, bloodsucking parasites who use us and abuse us at their pleasure.
Perhaps that summary of our situation sounds too harsh, too extreme -- but I believe that it's pretty accurate. Just back off for a minute and look at what already has happened to us. At the beginning of this century we were the undisputed masters of all we surveyed. There was no possibility of Black thugs terrorizing White children in our public schools, no possibility of mestizos pouring across our southern border and taking over the southwestern United States while we did nothing to stop them, no possibility of Jews using our popular media to blatantly persuade our trendy young women that it's fashionable to go to bed with Negroes, no possibility of having someone like Bill Clinton in the White House. And today we have all of these things.
That's a very crude summary of the transformation in our situation which has occurred in this century, but it's accurate. Every one of these changes actually has occurred. I've spoken with you on many broadcasts about how these changes occurred. I've spoken with you about the gradual takeover of our mass media by Jews, about the way in which they consolidated their control of Hollywood and of Madison Avenue and of our most influential newspapers and magazines. I've spoken with you about the way in which this Jewish control of our media has been used to change our attitudes and values, to weaken us, to make us more tolerant of every sort of evil; I've spoken with you about the effects of the media, the effects of propaganda on our people. I've spoken with you about how the American electorate has been degraded as it was extended to broader and broader segments of the population during this century. I've spoken with you about the fundamental flaws in democracy itself. And it's important to understand all of these things, to understand this disaster. But, hey, I promised you a bright spot we could focus on.
So how's this for a bright spot: Clinton, after being exposed for what he is, after having the incontrovertible proof of his criminality displayed for all to see, gets to remain President. This lying draft dodger gets to become a war hero by being our fearless commander-in-chief while we use our cruise missiles and smart bombs to wipe out all of those camel jockeys and towel-heads in the Middle East -- and their women and children too, of course: little towel-heads will grow up to be big towel-heads who will then be a new problem for those nice, democratic, Jewish allies of ours in Israel. Clinton gets to stay in the White House for two more years, begins getting good press again, and then gets honorably discharged with all of the perquisites the system provides for ex-presidents.
That ought to knock some wind out of those who think the system is still basically sound and we ought to give it a chance to work. That ought to wake up some of the wishful thinkers who still believe we can vote our way out of this disaster. Seeing Clinton get away with everything he's done and watching his popularity rating with the lemmings shoot back up ought to help us straighten out our thinking about political matters.
Those Americans who still think of themselves as patriots -- those who still think -- ought to learn something valuable from this obscene circus we have been witnessing in Washington. They ought to stop believing that the Republicans or any other political party can rescue them from the Democrats. So if we can't vote our way out of our current disaster, what can we do?
Well, one thing that we cannot do at this time is shoot our way out. I just don't believe that any scheme based on illegal activity or on a violent confrontation with the government can succeed at this time or in the near future. The Pentagon's cruise missiles and smart bombs can be used against us just as easily as against Iraqi women and children. I know that there are some Christian patriots who believe that their faith will give them an advantage over Washington's forces of godless democracy, but that'll work about as well as the faith that many Blacks in Africa have that their witch doctors can make them immune to bullets. And there are some militia people who are looking forward to a major disruption of Washington's forces in the year 2000, when, they believe, the government's computers will stop working. But that's also wishful thinking. Any disruption of government capabilities in 2000 will be very minor and ultimately inconsequential.
The best thing that one can hope for in that direction is that there may be a few leaders in our armed forces who have some sense of honor left and who will decide that they cannot simultaneously obey Bill Clinton as their commander-in-chief and also satisfy their obligations to their country. In fact, a few lower-ranking officers already have said as much in public statements recently. But you know, the Jews and the democrats began worrying about that sort of thing a long time ago, and they've pretty well done the same sort of wrecking job on our military leadership that they've done on our universities. Ever since the end of the Second World War the only way one could rise in the leadership ranks of our armed forces was to be a paragon of Political Correctness. If we had a few top generals today of the George Patton stripe -- and 60 years younger, of course -- Clinton and his whole crew of Jews, lesbians, and sniveling, 1960s-style trendies would have been dragged out of the White House, put up against a wall, and shot long before now. And then a similar cleansing operation would have been repeated at the Capitol and then at the Justice Department and at a dozen other government buildings. As it is, I'm not confident that there's a general left on active duty who still has a sense of honor. They're all politicians these days: all Eisenhower types. When a country decays, all of its institutions decay.
I'll repeat what I've already said: the biggest benefit to America to come out of the Clinton affair is the clear and forceful demonstration that it is not just Clinton but the system itself which is rotten and which must be replaced. That demonstration has had no effect on the lemmings, of course, other than persuading a few more of them that there's no point in voting, but in the long run the lemmings don't really count anyway. What the patriots should have learned -- what the independent thinkers should have learned -- is that we must stop wasting our time on various reform schemes and instead prepare for revolution.
And how does one prepare for revolution in our situation? I have been told by people who should know, by trained psychologists, professors of psychology, that everyone acts in accord with his perceived self-interest. Perceived self-interest is what motivates people, whether they are professors or generals or businessmen or office workers or housewives.
And for a long time I resisted believing that. I wanted to believe that there was something else in our people, something finer, something nobler. I wanted to believe that a patriot, for example, is a person who is motivated by a sense of history and tradition and a deep love for his people and for what is right. But I now accept the view of the psychologists that patriots are pretty much like the rest of the population, just with different opinions. They say patriotic things, but when decisions must be made about what to do, they act in accord with their perceived self-interest -- in most cases. Undoubtedly there still are a few zealots among us, a few Eric Rudolphs and Timothy McVeighs, who will do what they believe is right rather than what seems advantageous. But one cannot make a revolution with a handful of zealots. What we must do is persuade a substantial number of patriots -- and more generally, a substantial number of thinking people -- that their self-interest will be better served by revolution than by supporting the system or by sitting on their hands.
I'm not talking about persuading a majority. We're not looking for votes. But we must persuade a few hundred thousand thinking people -- a few hundred thousand people who now are involved in keeping the system going in one way or another -- we must help them understand that their interests really lie in getting rid of the present system and building something new and fundamentally different.
How does one persuade a general who is receiving a salary of $120,000 a year plus really a lot of very nice perks from this system that it will be to his advantage to do away with it? How does one persuade a university professor who has a secure and comfortable position in a system that demands only Political Correctness from him that he should turn against that system? How does one persuade a businessman who has learned how to turn the system to his advantage, despite its corruption, and to make a good profit from it that he should begin rocking the boat? How does one persuade the office worker or factory worker, who despite everything is still living pretty comfortably, that he should bite the hand that is feeding him?
We have observed over and over again in history that strong governments are not overthrown from within, no matter how immoral and oppressive they are. Only weak governments are overthrown from within; only weak governments are susceptible to revolution. Unfortunately, there's not much that you or I can do to weaken this government at this time. Bill Clinton is doing a much better job of that than we can. Our job now is simply to help people see the system's weakness, to help them understand that continuing to put their faith in a weak system will not serve their interests well. That job is more difficult when people are feeling comfortable and secure, easier when they are uncomfortable or frightened.
This is a difficult time, despite all of the help Bill Clinton is giving us. This is a time when it is very difficult to persuade people who have a short-range perception of where their interests lie. This is a time when we are able to persuade only those who have a fairly long-range view of things, those who include in their own self-interest the interests of their children and their grandchildren: those who really care what sort of world their children must live in. And you know, there still are a fair number of our people out there who do care about things like that, people who do think beyond what's in the refrigerator and how much they can charge on their credit card this month.
Even among our political generals, there are those who deeply resent having to take orders from a slimeball like Bill Clinton -- of that I am certain -- and I suspect that among these there are a few who do think ahead to the long-range implications of our situation. Among our most Politically Correct professors, who with their careers in mind always remember to genuflect to the campus feminists and homosexuals and diversity-mongers, there is a great deal of cynicism -- of that I am certain, because I speak privately with some of them -- and I also am certain that some of these cynical professors do understand where this society is headed in the long run and are not happy with that prospect. And I could make a similar comment about even the most profit-hungry of our businessmen, who are now going along in order to get along.
And so we don't want to write these people off, no matter how disappointing their performance may be to us today. Perceptions change as conditions change, and we should be doing whatever we can to help these people extend their perceptions and understand what the future holds. More than that, however, we can reach out even now to the people in our society who already have a broader sense of self-interest, a sense of self-interest which already comprehends the interests of their grandchildren and which considers more than credit-card balances. There are people now who still judge their self-interest in aesthetic terms and spiritual terms as well as financial terms.
The lemmings may be able to listen with equanimity to Bill Clinton pontificate from the White House or to look at his smiling face on television for two more years as he tells us even more lies, but that prospect really grates on people who have any sort of aesthetic sense. The world these more sensitive people live in is diminished, their lives are diminished, by having to share their world with Bill Clinton. And that's good, because that puts them in a more receptive frame of mind when we try to persuade them that we need to organize the best of our people and do something fundamental about the system of which Bill Clinton is a part. Perhaps we ought to be grateful to the Jew lawyer Samuel Dash for that.
Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page