Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page

Free Speech - March 1998 - Volume IV, Number 3

Bill, Monica, and Saddam

by Dr. William Pierce

As we all watch the U.S. government deliberately move closer day by day to the war I predicted a year ago -- when Clinton appointed his all-Jewish foreign policy, national security, and defense team -- the question must come to many minds: Why do the American people permit this? Why do they vote for a government which clearly doesn't care at all about American interests? Why do they tolerate a government which plunges them into unnecessary wars?

Well, of course, we already know part of the answer. An electorate which will put a creature like Bill Clinton into the White House twice clearly doesn't care much about American interests. All most of them care about is the size of their welfare checks. But there's more to the war mania in Washington than an irresponsible lumpen electorate. There is the conviction on the part of those pushing for war against Iraq that they can get away with it, that no one will call them to account for it, because the controlled media will cover for them. In fact, the controlled media are at the forefront of those insisting on a war. Which is why virtually every political prostitute in Washington, Republican as well as Democrat, is beating the war drums and calling for the bombing of Iraq to begin.

But the American people -- the decent, level-headed, responsible portion of the electorate that didn't vote for Clinton -- what about them? Why are so few of them speaking out against the government's warmongering? I mean, when our government goes in and tears up another country and massacres thousands of its citizens for no good reason, it reflects on all of us. Why do we not at least speak out against it?

For an answer we must examine in more detail the role of the controlled mass media in this affair. They are not just telling the politicians of both parties that if they want media support at the next election they had better rattle their sabers at Saddam Hussein; they also are deceiving the American people about all of the issues involved.

The situation is almost as bad as it was back in the days before the Second World War, when the controlled media were trying to work up a war fever against Germany by telling the American people that Hitler intended to invade and conquer the United States, that our government had discovered a secret plan Hitler had to conquer Brazil first and then to send his Panzers up through Central America and across the Rio Grande. As crazy as that story sounds, I've met American Legion and VFW types who still cite that as a justification for having gone to war against Germany. We had to do it to keep Germany from invading us by way of Brazil.

The media can get away with peddling such whoppers to the public because they have almost no competition. There's almost no one to contradict them and point out their lies to the public, almost no one to challenge their claims of secret plans for invasions by way of Brazil and explain to the public why that doesn't make sense. And in 1940 and 1941 no prominent politician wanted to anger the Jews by pointing out to the public that the idea of a German invasion of the United States by way of Brazil was simply ridiculous. Even then the Jews had a virtual deathgrip on the flow of information to the general public, and with that deathgrip they lied us into the bloodiest and cruelest war in history, in which we not only killed millions of the best people of our own race but then turned half of Europe over to Communist slavery at the end of the war. But of course, it gained for the Jews what they wanted, which was the destruction of the one man in the whole world with both the will and the ability to free Europe from their grip. And if they got what they wanted, nothing else mattered.

Today the official media line is that Saddam Hussein is the new Hitler. He is a menace to the world, they say, because he has chemical and biological weapons and wants to produce nuclear weapons as well, and the United Nations hasn't given him permission to do so.

Actually, Saddam Hussein is no menace at all to the world, but he is a threat to Israel's ambitions in the Middle East, because a strong Iraq under a strong leader could make it too costly for Israel to continue bullying and robbing her Arab neighbors. So the Jews would like to have us get rid of Saddam Hussein and cripple Iraq for them. It's better for us to take the losses involved, they figure, than to risk Jewish casualties. So Saddam Hussein's refusal to take orders from the United Nations is portrayed by the media as an intolerable affront to us. I mean, who does he think he is, refusing to abide by United Nations resolutions and thumbing his nose at Mr. Clinton's all-Jewish defense and foreign policy team? Let's teach him a lesson! Let's punch him in the nose!

Of course, no one in the mass media portrays as intolerable Israel's flaunting of United Nations resolutions. No one in the media urges a military strike against Israel to take out that country's nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons facilities. The United Nations has never given Israel permission to develop any of those weapons, but it went ahead and developed them anyway. Should we condemn Iraq for wanting to develop equivalent weapons when it has a paranoid, megalomaniac neighbor like Israel? Clearly all of the media talk about the need to control weapons of mass destruction and to enforce the rule of law in international affairs is crooked. It is sham and pretense. It is aimed solely at deceiving the American people so that the Jews can get what they want, which is a war to destroy Iraq, with us taking the casualties instead of Israel. The Jewish mass media, with their treatment of the Middle East situation in general and the U.S. government's war plans against Iraq in particular, are doing for the rule of law in international affairs what Bill Clinton is doing for morality in government.

Let me emphasize my point about the utter crookedness and treason of the mass media in America by backing off from the Iraq situation for a minute and talking about a quite different media topic. I spoke in an earlier broadcast about Steven Spielberg's new Hollywood film, Amistad, but since then I've looked into the subject further and learned a few more interesting things about the way in which the American public is being deceived.

Steven Spielberg, everyone must admit, is certainly one of the most influential of the Jewish media bosses. He's not some eccentric taking a course separate from that of the other media bosses, but is a mainstream figure respected and praised by his fellow media tycoons -- and by the whole Jewish community, in fact. He's made two very important propaganda films which have had a large impact on the consciousness of the American public and have been heavily promoted and praised by the other media bosses. Those two films are Schindler's List and Amistad. The first is about how the Jews were mistreated by White people -- specifically by Germans -- and the second is about how Blacks were mistreated by White people -- specifically by 19th-century White Americans who were insufficiently sympathetic to the Abolitionist position. And both films are filled with lies, distortions, and pure invention masquerading as historical truth. They are propaganda films, with no regard for the truth: films which were designed purely as psychological weapons for keeping White people off balance and feeling guilty, so that Jews can manipulate and exploit them more easily.

Schindler's List left the theaters long ago, but Amistad is still being shown and reviewed, and it is being treated by the controlled media as almost a historical documentary, just like Schindler's List was. The fact of the matter is that all of the dialogue in Amistad, several of the characters, and much of the plot were invented by Spielberg's scriptwriters and have no basis in fact. Yet Spielberg's Hollywood production company actually has had the brass to produce a so-called "film study guide and learning kit" which has been mailed out to thousands of high school teachers and principals with the suggestion that it be used to bring the so-called "lessons" of Amistad into their school curricula. Nowhere in Spielberg's material for high school students is there any hint that the film is not historically accurate.

What his "learning kit" for students does contain, however, is a statement by one of his associates in the production of the film, Debbie Allen. She condemns the history texts used in American schools as "racist," because they fail to give an account of the achievements of Blacks, and she blames this "racism" on Whites' refusing to acknowledge "the contributions of a culture that was far beyond and centuries ahead."

Spielberg's Amistad associate wants White high school students to be taught that Black African culture is "far beyond and centuries ahead" of European culture, of White culture. Now that is brassy, even for a Jewess. But how many White teachers and principals who receive Spielberg's "learning kit" do you believe will have the courage to point out to students that her statement is sheer nonsense -- and risk being called "racists" for their honesty? How many, in this age of cowardice, official lies, and Political Correctness?

Let me tell you something about the hero of Spielberg's film, the Black leader named Cinqué. He is portrayed as a person of noble character who has been terribly wronged by being enslaved, as a person who is morally offended by the notion of slavery and therefore is morally superior to the Whites who are not offended.

Well, in the 19th century there actually was a mutinous Black slave named Cinqué who instigated a mutiny and the murder of the White captain and crew of a Spanish ship, was captured by the U.S. Navy, was tried and acquitted -- for political rather than legal reasons -- by a U.S. court, and then was sent back to Africa. This all really happened. And here's something else that really happened: when Cinqué got back to Africa, back to Sierra Leone where his home was, he went into business -- as a slave dealer, buying and selling his fellow Blacks.

Oh, did Mr. Spielberg forget to tell you that? Did his colleague Debbie fail to mention that? Did all of those film reviewers writing so learnedly about Cinqué and his adventures in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other Jewish mass media not have enough room for that little detail?

Well you can read about it in some of those "racist" history books Debbie was complaining about. For example, there is The Oxford History of the American People by the late Samuel Eliot Morison, a very distinguished author and historian -- probably the most distinguished American historian -- who taught American history for many years at Harvard. The information about Cinqué's slave-dealing will be found on page 520 of the 1965 edition of Morison's book. You'll find it in many college libraries or larger public libraries.

So what does Steven Spielberg's crookedness have to do with Mr. Clinton's campaign to drag America into another war in the Middle East? I'll tell you. The connection is the media. The same Jewish media bosses who gave us Amistad and who reviewed it without telling us about its deceptions and lies and misrepresentations and who now are trying to convince White high school students that African culture was and is centuries ahead of European culture, and we should feel guilty for not having acknowledged that -- these same Jewish media bosses who warned us that Germany was planning to invade the United States by way of Brazil -- more recently have been explaining to us why we must go to war to destroy Saddam Hussein. Should we trust them? Should we believe them when they tell us that Iraq is our enemy and Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States? Well, about as much as we should believe them when they tell us what a high-minded fellow Cinqué was and how much further advanced Black culture is than ours.

What can we believe from the bunch of liars who control our news and entertainment media? I'll tell you what news from them we cannot believe, what news we dare not take at face value, and that is any news that has a bearing on Jewish interests or concerns -- which means that reading a newspaper or listening to a newscast has become a very tricky business these days. You really have to be able to read between the lines, you have to know about hidden motives, you have to understand a lot of things they don't tell you in order to interpret what they do tell you.

Take as an example the Bill and Monica story we've been getting so much of recently. They're really doing a good job of tearing up their former best pal Bill Clinton, of exposing every sordid bit of his thoroughly rotten private life to public scrutiny. The New York Times and other big Jewish newspapers even reported the comments of Clinton's Jewish buddy and former White House adviser Dick Morris, when he suggested during a radio interview a few days ago that the reason Clinton drops his trousers for various female government employees so often is that Hillary "isn't into regular sex with men." Wow! That must have really hurt.

Now, Dick Morris, as a former Clinton intimate and confidant, was in a position to know things like that, but the interesting aspect of this is that the Jewish media are now reporting such details. Why? After all, they've spent years covering for Clinton, protecting him, and suppressing unfavorable news about him. Have they suddenly decided to go straight, to become honest and tell us the truth about Clinton?

No. In fact, they tried at the beginning of the current scandal to cover it up. Newsweek magazine, which is owned by the Jewish Washington Post Company, was sitting on the story and hoping it would go away, but an independent reporter put the story on the Internet, and eventually Newsweek realized that the news about Bill and Monica was just too hot to be suppressed. And then at some point early in this affair the collective decision was made by the Jewish media bosses to stop protecting Clinton, to abandon him to the fate he so richly deserves. He had screwed up so many times that he had become a liability for them. They had enjoyed the luxury of having a totally subservient, totally corrupt President who would do whatever they told him to do -- but the jerk just couldn't keep his zipper up. Why keep embarrassing themselves with Clinton when Al Gore would do what he was told just as eagerly as Clinton would?

Now as one reads the Newsweek stories about Bill and Monica, one can sense the underlying sarcasm and the exasperation of the reporters and editors. The February 16, 1998, issue of Newsweek reported: ". . . there is an unmistakable sense in Washington that the protective wall around Clinton is beginning to crack." Indeed it is. That sentence from the February 16 Newsweek is just an understated way of saying, the insiders have decided that the bum is finished, despite his approval by the rabble.

So, yes, if one is able to distinguish truth from falsehood, one can sometimes find truth in the controlled media -- but not because the media bosses have any honesty in them; it's just because they sometimes change their minds about what suits their interests; they sometimes change their strategy. Sometimes they decide to stop protecting people that they had been protecting earlier, and then you may be able to learn something about a person that you couldn't learn the truth about earlier. And that's where we are with Bill Clinton now.

In this regard, I was in Germany a few days ago, and the Germans were really curious about the Clinton situation. It didn't seem real to them. They thought there must be some trick to it. They just couldn't believe that the most powerful and dangerous country on earth is being led by an irresponsible clown like Clinton. I assured them that it isn't: that the United States is a democracy, and therefore it is led by the people who control the mass media.

Now, this is the sort of thing that's embarrassing to the media bosses. They like to maintain the illusion that the puppets they put up for public office in the United States are the ones who are really in control. Clinton has completely blown their cover -- at least in places like Germany, where the average citizen is a bit more alert than over here. So that's why they've decided to abandon Clinton and let him stew in his own juice.

But the Jewish media bosses still believe that destroying Iraq's ability to wage war against their kinsmen in Israel suits their interests. Forcing America to go to war against Iraq on their behalf is still very much a part of their strategy. Remember that when our military people start killing Iraqi women and children with their "smart" bombs and missiles, and the media bosses try to make you feel heroic about it and tell you that we had to do it, because Saddam was a threat to the American way of life.

© 1998 National Vanguard Books · Box 330 · Hillsboro ·WV 24946 · USA

A cassette recording of this broadcast is available for $12.95 including postage from:
National Vanguard Books
P.O. Box 330
Hillsboro, WV 24946

Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page