Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page
When Bill Clinton was a university student during the late 1960s he organized pro-Viet Cong demonstrations. That may have been a very trendy thing to do in the pot-smoking, coke-snorting crowd to which Clinton belonged, but it wasn't a very farsighted thing to do for someone who even then had strong political ambitions. Even the most amoral and opportunistic person should have understood that publicly taking the side of your country's enemies during a war could become a serious liability for a political career in the future. Clinton figured he'd do what was trendy at the moment and lie about it later, if he figured at all.
When he was governor of Arkansas there were enough available women to satisfy any sexual appetite. All that was called for was a reasonable degree of discretion, but Bill Clinton lacked even that. His womanizing exceeded all reasonable bounds. Like a Third World potentate making the rounds of his subjects, he would spot a woman in a crowd who appealed to him and point her out to a member of his state police bodyguard, who then would approach the woman and escort her to Clinton's bedroom for a "quickie." The technique used with Paula Jones was standard operating procedure in Bill Clinton's Little Rock, as several of his former bodyguards have testified. Any prudent man, no matter how lustful, could have guessed that this sort of behavior eventually would lead to serious problems. But not Bill Clinton.
And Clinton was as reckless in his financial dealings and in his use of illegal drugs while he was in Arkansas as he was in his bimbo hunting. A number of witnesses have testified to his use of cocaine at Little Rock parties while he was governor of Arkansas. For the governor of a state to behave in such a manner, regardless of his lack of respect for the law, indicates a shocking deficit of judgment.
As for finances, let me remind you that one of his Arkansas friends, Susan McDougal, a former officer of the failed Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan, has been sitting in prison for more than six months now on a contempt charge because she refuses to tell a grand jury what she knows about Bill Clinton's involvement in Madison Guaranty's illegal operations. She has been granted immunity from prosecution in return for her testimony, but she refuses to talk. One can only suspect that someone in the Clinton crowd is making it worth her while to keep her mouth shut and stay in prison.
And there is the matter of the box of old bank records which turned up in the back of a former bank employee's car: a box of records everyone thought had been destroyed. Among the records was a $27,000 check from Madison Guaranty to Bill Clinton, which Clinton claims he doesn't remember receiving.
As with Susan McDougal, suspicions of "hush money" payments are associated with several other former Clinton associates: Webster Hubbell, an old Arkansas pal appointed associate attorney general by Clinton during his first term as President, later was indicted on felony fraud charges. He promised prosecutors to tell what he knew about Clinton's illegal activity in Arkansas in return for lenient treatment. But various Clinton associates, including Vernon Jordan, stepped in and arranged for Hubbell to receive $500,000 in so-called "consulting fees." After the payoff, Hubbell kept his mouth shut about Clinton and went to prison.
And there's the case of Monica Lewinsky, who traded her promise of silence in return for a high-paying job in New York, arranged by Vernon Jordan.
Well, the list goes on and on and on. It's really astounding that one man has gotten away with so much and managed to stay out of prison -- let alone to stay in the White House! As I said, Clinton's personality matches that of what the psychiatrists call a "constitutional psychopath": a person who not only lacks all moral scruples but also lacks the judgment and self-control necessary for normal social functioning.
Clinton, of course, grew up during the 1960s, a period of artificial social upheaval when the Jews were using the mass media to encourage young people to break all the rules, cut themselves loose from their roots, and adopt a hedonistic life-style. One of the Jewish instigators of this upheaval of the 1960s was Jerry Rubin, a leader of the Youth International Party. In his book titled Do It!, published in 1970 by the big New York Jewish company Simon and Schuster, Rubin explicitly urged the sort of behavior manifested by Clinton. He advocated free money, free drugs, sex whenever and wherever one felt the urge, no rules, and no responsibility.
Bill Clinton, however, wasn't the only American who grew up during the 1960s, and he really can't use the so-called "counter-culture" revolution promoted by Rubin and other Jews as an excuse for himself. Constitutional psychopaths are born, not made. What the 1960s did for Bill Clinton was provide him with a milieu in which he could operate without the social disapproval that ordinarily would be directed at a person like himself. It provided him with a constituency of people who had grown up with the notion that responsibility and discipline are "fascist" concepts. These are the sort of people he has surrounded himself with in Washington.
Gary Aldrich, the FBI agent who was assigned to the Clinton White House to do security checks on Clinton's staffers, has described these people in detail in his 1996 book, Unlimited Access. Aldrich tells of drug usage and semi-public homosexual activity encountered in the corridors and restrooms of the Clinton White House and of the shocking information uncovered in his background investigations of Clinton staffers. Not a 1960s person himself, Aldrich was distressed by the absence of moral and behavioral standards he observed among Clinton's associates. In Unlimited Access he relates a conversation he had with two other FBI agents. One of them asks him, "What the hell is going on at the White House, Gary?"
Aldrich replies that he has never seen anything like it. The third agent says: "Are you sure you haven't seen these people before? Think about it. 'Kill the pigs. Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, the Viet Cong are gonna win.' That's who they are, Gary. They're the people we used to arrest." So you see that my conclusions about Bill Clinton are shared by others who have acquainted themselves with him. Many rank-and-file people in the news media also understand Clinton's nature, but many of these media people are 1960s-style people themselves, and they were inclined not to be critical of his recklessly self-indulgent behavior, until it exceeded even their limits of tolerance.
The interesting thing about all of this is not that Bill Clinton is a constitutional psychopath. There are lots of constitutional psychopaths running loose in our society these days. The interesting thing is that a constitutional psychopath has become President of the United States through the democratic process, and he enjoys a high degree of popularity among the electorate even after his nature has been revealed by the recent scandals. That's what's interesting.
I draw two important conclusions from this: one about the role of the mass media in the political process today, and one about the nature of the electorate and what that means for mass democracy.
How did a constitutional psychopath become President? To answer this we need to understand that Bill Clinton is not only a psychopath: he is a psychopath with charisma. He is a very manipulative psychopath. He is an intelligent psychopath. With his boyish smile and his "aw, shucks" manner, he has not only been able to charm countless women out of their panties, he also has been able to charm their husbands, fathers, and brothers into voting for him. It was perhaps forgivable for the local Democratic Party machine in Arkansas to adopt him as a candidate for governor. They saw in him a natural vote-getter. The trouble with this, of course, is that they also should have seen the constitutional psychopath in him and rejected him on that basis. Clinton's charm and his ability to win votes should not have been the only considerations.
Politics always has been a crooked business. But I believe that the people involved in it used to be a little more careful, a little more mindful of the consequences of their actions. This wasn't really indicative of any morality or patriotism on their part: just normal prudence. The standards seem to be down everywhere these days. The professional politicians always try to remain closely aware of public feeling, public attitudes, public tolerances. When they see that public standards are down, that the public will tolerate behavior today that it wouldn't have tolerated 20 or 30 years ago, then they are more likely to put forward someone like Clinton as a candidate. They won't be quite as discriminating in choosing a candidate as they were earlier.
They usually get away with this lack of discrimination. But they didn't get away with it in Clinton's case. Certainly the more prudent Democratic leaders are wishing now that they hadn't chosen Clinton as their candidate. They can see that he is still popular, but they also can see that he endangers the continued existence of the system from which all the politicians draw their sustenance. They can see that a system of constitutional democracy, of democracy with rules and standards, has been degraded to a mobocracy. The mob doesn't care about rules and standards. The mob cares only about its hero of the moment.
Did Clinton steal money from the public in his dealings with Madison Guaranty? "Who cares?" roars the mob. Did he use cocaine while he was governor of Arkansas? Has he broken laws in accepting money from Chinese gangsters? "Leave the poor man alone. We like him!" screams the mob. Has he committed perjury and obstructed justice by arranging payoffs to Susan McDougal, Webster Hubbell, and Monica Lewinsky? "That's not important!" shouts the mob. "Let him do his job!"
Now, the mob may not understand the danger in this sort of situation, but others do understand. There are many thoughtful and responsible Americans who accepted democracy only because of the safeguards designed to keep it from becoming a mobocracy: safeguards which obviously have failed. Until now democracy has been sort of a secular religion in the United States, but the intelligent and independent-minded segment of the public is becoming cynical about that religion. They are losing their faith in it. They will withdraw their consent to be governed by it. That may not worry the mob, because the mob is drunk with its own power, with its numbers. But mobs never rule for long, regardless of their numbers. There will be a revolution, and the mob will lose its power -- which is a good thing, of course, but we want to be very careful about who gets the power.
There's one more extremely important element in our situation, and that element is the power of the mass media. Before the rise of the mass media, candidates for office had more or less direct contact with the voters. The public's evaluation of candidates was guided by community standards and by local community leaders. Community leaders were usually a cut above the village idiots and the food-stamp recipients and the trendy airheads who always went chasing after the latest fad, and because they were a cut above the rabble in terms of judgment and sense of responsibility these local community leaders gave a degree of stability to democracy. As long as the voters took their lead from people in the community who were respected, democracy was not likely to become mobocracy.
During this century, however, American society has undergone profound changes. For all practical purposes, there no longer are communities or respected community leaders in most parts of America. During this century the mass media have risen to take the place of community contact and community guidance in the lives of most Americans. This has been especially the case since the Second World War and the advent of television. Now candidates for public office are presented directly to the voters through the mass media. The image of a candidate that a voter sees is the image shaped by the media, and the media are far from neutral. Of course, charisma and personal charm and likability are still important for a candidate's vote-getting ability, but the media make a big difference in the way these characteristics are perceived by the public. The types of questions that reporters ask during press conferences and interviews, the manner in which they ask questions, and the way in which the interviews are edited before being presented to the public make an enormous difference in the way the public perceives a candidate. There always are things in a candidate's background, in his past life, which are capable of influencing the public's attitude toward a candidate. The people who control the media scrutinize these things and decide which ones to present to the public and which ones to keep quiet about.
Did the candidate demonstrate on behalf of America's enemies during the Vietnam war, as Bill Clinton did? Not important, the media bosses decide. No need to remind the public of that. Did the candidate ever make a remark about limiting immigration or cutting back on welfare or eliminating affirmative action programs? Well, now, that's something the media bosses certainly will want to tell the public about; they'll want to tell the public that the candidate is a "racist," and they'll figure out the most damaging way to do it.
On top of this control of candidates' images by the mass media, there also is the more general effect that the media have on public attitudes. Two generations of Americans have been raised on television now. Television has been the baby-sitter and the teacher for two generations. And during these two generations Jews have had a vastly -- an enormously -- disproportionate role in controlling what television has taught to Americans. Jews, whether as scriptwriters, as producers, or as network bosses, have shaped much of the public's attitudes and values. And that fact is the key to understanding why Bill Clinton still has a very high public approval rating even after being exposed for what he is.
In summary: Bill Clinton did not make the political system in America what it is today. He did not change a constitutional democracy into a mobocracy. That change took place without his help, over a period of decades. Bill Clinton has simply made that change manifest -- and by making it manifest he has undermined the whole system. He has destroyed any remaining respect and support the system had among thoughtful and responsible and moral Americans. That is what history will remember Bill Clinton for.
Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page