Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page
I said that the real reason for the war against Yugoslavia is that the Serbs refuse to let the New World Order and the United States tell them how to run their country. The New World Order wants the countries of the world, wherever possible, to be multi-ethnic -- except for Israel, of course. Multi-ethnic countries are easier to control, less likely to put up a solid front against the New World Order. But the Serbs don't want to be part of a multi-ethnic social experiment. They want to live among other Serbs. So, in the view of the New World Order, the Serbs must be punished. An example must be made of the Serbs so that other countries won't be tempted to disobey the New World Order. We discussed all of that last week.
Now we'll discuss it some more. We'll look at some of the details. But first let's orient ourselves, so that we can understand how the details fit together. Here's Orientation Rule Number One: If the Jews are all on one side of any issue, then the chances are very good that it behooves us to be on the other side. A corollary to Orientation Rule Number One is that if the media are in general agreement that a certain policy or program is a good thing, then we ought to be suspicious that it is in fact bad for us.
And it is a fact that the Jews are solidly on the side of Madeleine Albright and her murderous policy in Yugoslavia. I have in front of me an April 3 report from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. It says: "The organized Jewish community has . . . declared unwavering support for U.S. intervention in Kosovo." And if you read the whole Jewish Telegraphic Agency report you understand that by "intervention" the Jews mean all means necessary for a Jewish victory over the Serbs, all means necessary to insure that the New World Order beats the Serbs into submission, even if that means bombing the 2300-year-old Belgrade, one of the most beautiful and historic cities in Europe, into rubble and then sending in U.S. ground forces to kill the last Serb. Another Jewish Telegraphic Agency report from April 3 tells of Jews with Yugoslav citizenship running from Belgrade, where nearly all of them were concentrated, like rats leaving a sinking ship. Draft-age Jewish males, in particular, are clearing out and heading for Israel, so that they won't be drafted into the Serbian army. That sounds familiar, doesn't it?
So let's keep that detail in mind as we look at all the other details: the Jews are solidly in favor of this war, and they've let everyone in Washington know it -- which is why the Republicans are just sitting on their hands and not raising a whisper of protest against Clinton's war. They're not afraid to oppose Clinton, but they're all scared to death of displeasing the Jews.
One doesn't even have to go to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency to learn of the solid backing of the Jews for this war; they're saying the same thing in various ways in the newspapers that they publish for us to read, and the Jews in the Congress are saying it too. And of course, they've got their man in the White House justifying the war in Jewish terms. Clinton has been saying that we're doing now what we should have done back before the Second World War. We should have attacked Germany sooner, Clinton has been saying, and we would have saved many lives.
Now, that's an interesting way of looking at it: You see someone in another country whose policies or ideas you don't approve of, and so you kill him before he has a chance to become stronger and actually do something with his ideas. The notion is that if we had declared war on Germany in 1933, as soon as Hitler told the Jews that they no longer were welcome in Germany -- that they no longer could own German newspapers, German radio stations, or German film studios -- we could have saved many Jewish lives. So why didn't we attack the Soviet Union in 1920, when the communists started butchering Russian and Ukrainian farmers? Why didn't we kill the communists before they had a chance to kill 60 million of the best Europeans?
You will never hear Mr. Clinton making that argument, of course, and you will never read that argument in the New York Times or the Washington Post. And the reason you won't is that in the Soviet Union Jews weren't being killed, just our people -- and our people don't count. So let's not just listen quietly and let them get away with their phony argument that we learned our lesson when we didn't attack Germany in 1933 and many people died as a result, so that's why we're attacking Yugoslavia now. Just tell them, "Hey, we should have attacked the Soviet Union in 1920, before Kaganovich and all of the other Jewish commissars had a chance to kill millions of Ukrainian and Russian farmers. That's why we should attack Israel now, before Netanyahu has a chance to acquire more weapons of mass destruction, kill more Palestinians, and do anything else to destabilize the Middle East."
You see, life becomes a lot trickier when you decide to worry about everyone else's business in the world instead of just your own. And if you are going into the business of other people's business, then you ought to be sure that you really know what you're getting into: you need to be well informed. And if you're getting your news only from the Jewish media, then you'd better be very careful how you interpret it. News about Yugoslavia's Kosovo province, for example, which comes to us from the controlled media over here would have us believe that Albanians are innocent victims and Serbs are murderous aggressors, and that's all there is to it, and so we're morally justified in going over there to kill Serbs.
That's the news today, when the Jews are solidly in favor of a war against the Serbs. Now I'll read you an article from the New York Times of November 1, 1987. That was nearly 12 years ago, before the Jews had decided that the destruction of Serbia suited their interests. Here's what the New York Times said in 1987:
"Portions of southern Yugoslavia have reached such a state of ethnic friction that Yugoslavs have begun to talk of the horrifying possibility of civil war . . . . The current hostilities pit ethnic-minded Albanians against the various Slavic populations of Yugoslavia and occur at all levels of society, from the highest officials to the humblest peasants. A young Army conscript of ethnic Albanian origin shot up his barracks, killing four sleeping Slavic bunkmates and wounding six others. The Army has uncovered hundreds of subversive ethnic Albanian cells in its ranks. Some arsenals have been raided. Ethnic Albanians in the government have manipulated public funds and regulations to take over land belonging to Serbs. . . . Slavic Orthodox churches have been attacked, and flags have been torn down. Wells have been poisoned and crops burned. Slavic boys have been knifed, and some young ethnic Albanians have been told by their elders to rape Serbian girls.
"Ethnic Albanians comprise the fastest growing nationality in Yugoslavia and are expected soon to become its third largest, after the Serbs and Croats. The goal of the radical nationalists among them, one said in an interview, is an ethnic Albania that includes western Macedonia, southern Montenegro, part of southern Serbia, Kosovo, and Albania itself. That includes large chunks of the republics that make up the southern half of Yugoslavia.
"The principal battleground is the region called Kosovo, a high plateau ringed by mountains that is somewhat smaller than New Jersey. Ethnic Albanians make up 85 per cent of the population of 1.7 million. The rest are Serbs and Montenegrins. As Slavs flee the protracted violence Kosovo is becoming what ethnic Albanian nationalists have been demanding for years, and especially strongly since the bloody rioting by ethnic Albanians in Pristina in 1981: an ethnically pure Albanian region . . . . The violence, a journalist in Kosovo said, is escalating to the worst in the last seven years."
Remember, I have been reading from the November 1, 1987, issue of the New York Times, and the violence I'm reading about has been Albanian violence directed against Serbs. Now I'll continue reading from the New York Times news story:
"Last summer the authorities in Kosovo said they documented 40 ethnic Albanian attacks on Slavs in two months. . . . In one incident, Fadil Hoxha, once the leading politician of ethnic Albanian origin in Yugoslavia, joked at an official dinner in Prizren last year that Serbian women should be used to satisfy potential ethnic Albanian rapists. . . . While 200,000 Serbs and Montenegrins still live in the province, they are scattered and lack cohesion. In the last seven years 20,000 of them have fled the province, often leaving behind farmsteads and houses for the safety of the Slavic north."
Well, that's the end of the 1987 New York Times article, and you can see that it puts quite a different light on things than the current news coverage. Twelve years ago the Albanians in Kosovo were terrorizing the Serbs and threatening a civil war not only to ethnically cleanse Kosovo by driving out all the Serbs, but also to take large chunks of land away from the Serbs in other provinces. That's when Slobodan Milosevic entered the picture. In the last 12 years he's turned the situation in Kosovo around. He's made Kosovo safe for Serbs again and broken the back of an Albanian rebel army of 25,000 armed terrorists and guerrillas. What Milosevic did was hardly the one-sided Serb aggression against defenceless, peace-loving Albanians that the Jewish gang around Clinton and the New York Times today would have you believe.
The April 5 issue of Newsweek magazine calls Milosevic "the Balkans bully," but a more accurate name would be "the savior of Yugoslavia." His aim is to protect his people, not to persecute Albanians -- although he's willing to persecute Albanians if that's necessary to keep Kosovo safe for Serbs. The huge masses of cold and hungry Albanian refugees we have been seeing on television are real enough, but the primary blame for their misery is Mr. Clinton's war, not Mr. Milosevic's policy. The mopping up of the last of the Albanian terrorists by the Serbian army was causing relatively few Albanian refugees until Mr. Clinton began bombing nearly three weeks ago.
And when the New World Order gang around Clinton discovered that the Serbs are a tougher bunch than the other people they're accustomed to pushing around and aren't going to be intimidated by a few cruise missiles and smart bombs, the Clintonistas began blowing up historic buildings in Belgrade. They've deliberately switched from military to civilian targets; they've been bombing the bridges across the Danube. And now they're hinting that the United States will send ground troops into Serbia after all. The head Jew in the Senate, Joseph Lieberman, has been calling for U.S. ground troops to go into Kosovo, and the Gentile politicians who always follow the Jewish party line have been echoing Lieberman. They really do not care how many Americans they cause to be killed, and certainly not how many Serbs. All they care about is enforcing Jewish policy on the Serbs.
In all of their party publications, all of their New World Order house organs, we see the same hatred of the Serbs for defying them, the same determination to either make the Serbs submit or to kill them. In the April 5 issue of the New York Observer, for example, we can read:
"Even if the United States had no humanitarian interest in stopping the destruction of the Kosovar Albanians; even if the NATO alliance were not in jeopardy; and even if the flow of refugees did not create the peril of a wider war, we would still have a compelling reason to defeat the Serbian dictatorship. That reason is to discourage potential Milosevic imitators who could pose a far greater threat in the future. . . . The nature of that peril is most obvious in Russia, where foreign policy is influenced by ultranationalists and ex-Communists with an increasingly fascistic tinge. Should those forces ever come to power, they must not think that NATO would countenance atrocities like those committed repeatedly in the Balkans."
Well, really, that's what it's all about: making an example of the Serbs, so as to intimidate everyone else into line -- and to prepare NATO for a really big project: attacking Russia if the Russians ever get around to trying to get even with the Jewish minority there which has caused the Russians so much grief throughout this century.
Those of you who have been listening to my broadcasts for the last couple of years may remember my prediction in my broadcast of December 21, 1996, that the batch of Jews who had just taken over all of the key military and foreign policy posts in the Clinton government, right after Clinton's re-election, were planning to take us into a war before the end of Clinton's second term. I was wrong on just one thing: I figured they would start their war in the Middle East. I thought that it would be Iraq. But it was the Balkans instead. I knew it would be somewhere. There had to be some reason for all of those Jews coming out of the closet and taking over the reigns of power from a soon-to-be-crippled President. And of course, the Balkans will serve their purpose just as well as the Middle East -- if we let them get away with it.
And we really must focus on this one fact -- that this is a Jewish war to strengthen the grip of the New World Order -- because the Jews are throwing up a lot of smoke to confuse people who might not be ready to get on their New World Order bandwagon yet. And I am indeed gratified by the evidence that there are a great many such people who are refusing to let the Jews take them for a ride, even here in America, the land of the lemming. I never have had a stronger or more positive response to any of my radio broadcasts than I did to last week's broadcast on Yugoslavia. Hundreds of people I had never before heard from wrote to express their agreement. I'll read you just one letter from a listener, who is a military man:
"Your 'Hands Off Yugoslavia' broadcast was well done and, as usual, right on the mark. However, although there is some truth in stereotypes, I think your constant reference to VFW and American Legion types as 'yahoos' is just a bit off the mark. Take it from this American Legionnaire and current member of our glorious imperial military forces, in my American Legion post there is not a great wave of support for Mr. Clinton's current example of international thuggery. Far from it.
"In fact, when I awoke on the day after the bombing started I felt ashamed to put my uniform on and report for duty. What has this nation become? All those who gave their lives and blood for our ideals must be turning in their graves over this. History teaches us the following: America shall not remain the dominant economic and military power forever. And when we fall they will come and slaughter us, and we will have deserved it. I don't want this for my country. I don't want it in any other country. I want peace in my nation and in theirs."
Well, perhaps I have been unfair to the VFW and the American Legion. I certainly hope I have. I certainly hope there are many, many more active-duty military people who agree with the soldier whose letter I just read. The April 5 issue of Newsweek magazine says that its latest poll shows 53 per cent of the American people support Clinton's undeclared war against Yugoslavia and 47 per cent support using U.S. ground troops to invade Yugoslavia. I suppose that's not really out of line with Mr. Clinton's popularity polls during the recent Bill and Monica show. About half of the American public will support mindlessly anything their government does -- so long as the ball games and the "entitlement" checks keep coming and Mr. Clinton keeps telling them he feels their pain.
The encouraging part of the Newsweek poll is that 36 per cent of the people said they don't approve of bombing Yugoslavia. Newsweek and the other Jewish media will be showing us lots of suffering Albanian refugees in the next few days in an effort to bring that last figure down. Meanwhile, what should those of us who are part of that 36 per cent do? What can we do?
You know, we are in a rather extreme situation. We have a totally irresponsible, criminal head of state, a Jewish cabinet hell-bent on pursuing a Jewish rather than an American agenda, Jewish media to back them up, and an electorate consisting largely of yahoos who never should have been permitted to vote on anything, including the local dogcatcher, and who can be counted on to approve anything the Clinton government does. And this criminal coalition has the world's most powerful armed force at its disposal. It's a situation which calls for an armed revolution and a thorough cleansing of the population. I mean, the situation is not theoretical: the criminals in Washington are murdering our people in Europe. Every day that the Clinton government remains intact the criminals will murder hundreds more of our people.
Well, of course, we are not able to mount an armed revolution. About all we can do at this time is express our moral outrage at what the criminals are doing. Expressing moral outrage may sound like a pretty anemic response to cruise missiles and B2 bombers, but it can have an effect. Thirty-six per cent of the U.S. population is a lot of people. So let's express ourselves. Call in to every radio talk show you can hear. Call in repeatedly. Write letters to every publication that has a letters section. Write five or six letters every day, and keep writing them. Let's make ourselves heard. Now!
Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page