The War Against Us, part 1: Living in the Present
by Hadding Scott and Kevin Alfred Strom
American Dissident Voices Broadcast of April 5, 2003
Welcome to American Dissident Voices. Today we'll be beginning a
new series by ADV researcher Hadding Scott, and yours truly,
Kevin Alfred Strom, entitled The War Against Us, part 1: Living
in the Present.
A Wider War is Coming
First, I want to remind you of a prediction we made a few weeks
ago in our Cannon Fodder series and our other programs about the
war: we predicted that Israel's proxy war in the Middle East
would not stop with Afghanistan and Iraq. We predicted that Iran,
Syria, and Saudi Arabia were next on the Zionist's hit list, and
would be the next places where American cannon fodder would be
sent to kill and to die. Now that prediction has been confirmed
by no less than "Uncle Colin" Powell himself, in a saber-rattling
speech he gave on Monday to the leading Jewish lobby group AIPAC,
short for "American Israel Public Affairs Committee." Here's what
Powell said about Syria there:
"Syria can continue direct support for terrorist groups and the
dying regime of Saddam Hussein, or it can embark on a different
and more hopeful course. Either way, Syria bears the
responsibility for its choices -- and for the consequences."
[Wild applause and hooting from the audience, largely composed of
powerful and well-connected establishment Jews.(Note that the
sound byte cut off, I suspect that the cheering went on even
Now, exactly what "consequences" do you think Powell is
threatening, as he prosecutes a war against Syria's neighbor
Iraq? According to Lamis Andoni, a reporter for the Christian
Science Monitor, it was a clear threat by Powell to "widen the
war" and that "the U.S. will not tolerate any dissent in the
And who, besides the influential Jews, do you think was sitting
in the audience at the Israeli lobby's meeting? The AIPAC
audience of 5,000 included not only Secretary Powell, but fellow
speakers such as national security adviser Condoleezza Rice,
political director Kenneth Mehlman, Undersecretary of State John
R. Bolton and Assistant Secretary of State William Burns. And,
hard as it may be for neophytes on the Jewish question to
believe, this little-heralded meeting also included in its
audience half of the United States Senate and one third of the
United States Congress! Almost unbelievably, considering the
important people in attendance, the Zionist conference was billed
as being "off the record" and one of the important things
discussed was the need for the AIPAC lobbyists not to publicly
trumpet their push for war, for fear of a Gentile awakening to
the Jewish nature of the war. In fact, conference participant
Eyal Arad, who also happens to be Ariel Sharon's campaign
advisor, explicitly stated that the Bush administration had
requested that the Jewish lobby group "keep a low profile in this
conflict." But conference moderator Steve Rosen let the cat out
of the bag when he owned up to his possessive feelings about the
war: "God willing, we're going to have a great victory in Iraq,"
he said. Everyone knows what Jews mean when they use the word
And the United States Senate passed a resolution on March 12th,
Senate Resolution 82, which has so far received little attention
in the controlled media, which for all practical purposes calls
for 'regime change' in Iran, Iraq's neighbor: "Expressing the
sense of the Senate concerning the continuous repression of
freedoms within Iran.... Iran is an ideological dictatorship
presided over by an unelected Supreme Leader.... the Iranian
Government has been developing a uranium enrichment program....
It is the sense of the Senate that... it should be the policy of
the United States to seek a genuine democratic government in
Iran...." You know the drill. First Afghanistan, now Iraq, next
Syria and Iran.
As we predicted on American Dissident Voices, this is not a war
on terror nor is it a war for American interests. It is a proxy
war for Israel, and the Jews who now preside over the Bush
administration laid out their plans to engage in a wide war of
aggression to redraw the map of the Middle East several years
ago. They're counting on us falling for the animated flags and
synthetic violins playing on CNN or Faux News, and falling for
their invocation of 9/11 every time they decide to start killing
their perceived enemies in a new country. As you see the National
Alliance's predictions coming true over and over again, I'm
counting on you not to fall for these Jewish lies ever again.
Living in the Past
"Rachel Corrie was a leftist. She deserved to be killed by the
Israelis. Leftists deserve whatever they get." People who listen
to Limbaugh and Hannity actually say things like that.
So many Americans are living in the past. They are still speaking
and thinking as if the Cold War had never ended and Communism
were still the chief enemy which our society faced.
This thinking-in-the-past is apparent in arguments like this:
"you well-meaning patriots who are opposed to waging war against
Iraq are in agreement with some leftists; therefore you are dupes
of those leftists and are unwittingly helping the left." Notice
the underlying assumptions, (1) that the left per se is the chief
enemy, and (2) that a good patriot must always disagree with the
left. This is a gross oversimplification of the sort that appeals
to limited intellects, much like George W. Bush's "Either you're
with us or you're against us." No place is left for the
expression of a loyal opposition that says, "I am with you but
let me show you where you are making a mistake."
There was a time when the pretense of loyal opposition was indeed
a sham used by the enemies of our country and our race, but those
people have now completely changed their tactics. Now they are in
the driver's seat, and they want to stifle opposition.
Some examples are David Horowitz and Michael Savage, and the rest
of the "neoconservative" Jews. Horowitz was once a Marxist
theoretician, a Jew intimately involved in the affairs of the
Black Panthers. Horowitz's goal back then was to break down
racial barriers in our society to make it more "tolerant" and
therefore hospitable to Jews. Now that race-mixing is officially
condoned throughout the United States, Horowitz has wrapped
himself in the American flag and is promoting policies that will,
he thinks, make the Middle East more hospitable to Jews. (And of
course, additional race-mixing is also a likely result of any
prolonged occupation of Iraq, if the example of Vietnam is any
It is the fact that our enemies have made such great progress in
accomplishing their destructive aims, which causes them to
condemn anti-war protests instead of leading them. It is now
their war, and protestors are in their way.
This change has gone unnoticed not only by the Right but
generally by the Left as well, who seem to protest the war
against Iraq for reasons that are like comfortable old mantras
for them. To justify their anti-war position they fall back on
traditional leftist complaints: it is a "racist" war, or, it is
"blood for oil"; that is to say, a war motivated by capitalism.
In a sense it is a racist war, insofar as one can admit that
Zionism is a Jewish racial supremacist movement. Many on the
Left, however, balk at facing this. They generally stay with the
less risky "no blood for oil" slogan instead of confronting the
Jewish agenda that really motivates the whole project. Certainly,
not all of the old-time leftist Jews have crossed over to become
"neoconservatives," and the influence that they exert in
distorting leftist approaches to this issue is no doubt
There's an old saying that it's very hard to cheat an honest man.
If either the Right or the Left were morally and intellectually
consistent, the Jews would be unable to get their way as much as
Even people who disagree about values can agree about not wanting
to be lied into a war, if they at least have some integrity. But
to party-loyalists, Democrat and Republican, all of politics is a
contest between opposing teams of shysters. Integrity is not a
factor. Most politically oriented talk shows amount to nothing
more than places where the two teams can shout each other down.
It is really sickening.
It was exactly this failure to be concerned about principles
which allowed George W. Bush to become the presidential nominee
of the Republican party.
A Reasonable Facsimile of a President
Bush was chosen because he is a weak-willed, manipulable man. In
June of 1999, seventeen months before the presidential election
of 2000, a political commentary in Business Week magazine
described George W. Bush's approach to politics as "to sit back
with his finger to the wind." "Bush will soon have to decide
which wing of the Republican party he's from," observed Richard
S. Dunham. ["The Fence is getting Uncomfortable for Bush,"
Business Week June 7, 1999: 135] And Bush still hadn't made that
choice months later. James Carney, writing in Time magazine of
December 6, 1999, stated: "Bush's broad appeal to voters of all
stripes is still his biggest asset. But it takes a lot of energy
to maintain. Bush has stretched himself so thin to span the
issues that his support tends to be shallow; voters who like him
often can't say why." [James Carney, "Feeding Both Sides," Time,
December 6, 1999: 48] Yes, it takes a lot of energy to keep up
the kind of media-hoopla that is necessary so that people will
support you without even knowing why. You cannot do that if you
do not have the mass-media on your side. Strictly speaking, the
Jewish-owned news-media and the Jewish neoconservative machine
within the Republican party created the George W. Bush campaign
on the basis of nothing more than name-recognition.
In July of 1999, a report in the Canadian magazine MacLean's
stated, with evident amazement: "In the early summer of the year
before [italics in original] the election, Republican
officeholders are tripping over themselves to jump on his
bandwagon. Twenty governors and 126 congressmen have endorsed
Bush. He has raised more money in a shorter time than anyone
before him.... His rivals are withering on the vine, and Bush
seems to be fighting the general election already." [MacLean's,
July 12, 1999:23] What this means is that the fix was in as to
who the next Republican nominee -- and most probably the next
president, given the stain of impeachment on the Democrats --
Now, it is actually questionable whether Al Gore himself would
have taken a different position from that of George W. Bush
regarding the Zionist-Jews' war-agenda, given that Gore's family
is intermarried with Jews, and that Paul Wolfowitz praised Gore
for condemning Bush Senior's "moral blindness" for not taking
more aggressive steps against Saddam Hussein in 1991. There is
generally more of a pacifist streak in the Democratic than in the
Republican party, but somehow this did not prevent the Clinton
administration from bombing the hell out of Serbia in 1999
following several years of Jewish agitation, and very possibly it
would not have stopped Al Gore from doing the Jews' bidding
According to reporter Andrew Austin, Bush had neither sought nor
expected this sudden prominence: "The people who know him are
full of stories. How he never really thought about the big job.
How he was genuinely surprised -- 'dumbfounded' in the words of
one old friend -- that folks were thinking of him like that."
George W. Bush is a very ordinary man who was in effect dragged
in off the street, set up on a podium, and told: Here, we need
you to pretend to be the President of the United States. Just
read what you see on the teleprompter and try not to stutter or
mispronounce the big words too much.
But I don't know anything about being President, protests the
That's okay, they assure him, we will run everything for you. You
just learn to repeat what we tell you. It would be funny if it
weren't so serious.
Already in 1999, the Zionist Jew Paul Wolfowitz had George W.
Bush's puppet-strings in hand. A New York Times story of December
23, 1999, was titled, "A Cadre of Familiar Foreign Policy Experts
is putting its Imprint on Bush." The reporter, one Eric Schmitt,
commenced by noting that foreign policy was an area in which
George W. Bush apparently had no clue, "a subject that has caused
him the most trouble in his presidential campaign," and to help
him to have a clue Bush had "eight hawkish advisers," who were
said to be "led by Condoleeza Rice ... and Paul D. Wolfowitz." It
is pretty far-fetched to say that an affirmative-action appointee
like Condoleeza Rice had any significant influence next to the
pushy, agenda-driven Wolfowitz. That seems to be just a
politically correct pretense. To be realistic, read that the
"eight hawkish advisers" were "led ... by Paul D. Wolfowitz."
This New York Times story amounted to an announcement to the
Zionist Jews of the world that if George W. Bush were elected,
there would be trouble for Iraq, because Paul D. Wolfowitz had
been agitating for the destruction of Iraq, not only since the
days of George "Pappy" Bush, but since the days of Jimmy Carter.
The New York Times Magazine of September 22, 2002 bears the cover
story: "Stalking Saddam: How Paul Wolfowitz' agenda became the
Bush agenda." An article that is generally flattering to
Wolfowitz reveals the Jew as -- surprise, surprise -- by no means
a conservative on domestic matters, and we receive confirmation
of his motivation in foreign affairs as follows:
"You hear from some of Wolfowitz's critics, always off the
record, that Israel exercises a powerful gravitational pull on
the man. They may not know that as a teenager he spent his
father's sabbatical semester in Israel or that his sister is
married to an Israeli, but they certainly know that he is
friendly with Israel's generals and diplomats and that he is
something of a hero to the heavily Jewish neoconservative
movement." [Bill Keller, "How Paul Wolfowitz' agenda became the
Bush agenda," New York Times Magazine, Sep 22, 2002: 96]
Wolfowitz's agenda has filled what was essentially the vacuum of
George W. Bush's mind; Eric Schmitt was observing already in
1999: "...the advisers' influence over Mr. Bush has become more
evident with every speech, news conference, and debate. Indeed...
it is not unusual to hear the advisers' words coming out of
Of course, it has not been Wolfowitz calling all the shots all
the time. Our affirmative-action Secretary of State Colin Powell,
back when he was showing a tiny bit of independence, had
apparently gotten some sound advice from the former Marine Corps
General Anthony Zinni, who was opposed to overthrowing Saddam
Hussein in years past and has also spoken out against the current
war. There were also other people with some modicum of practical
sense who advised George W. Bush against this war. Wolfowitz and
his neoconservative cronies however, whose combined
media-presence is considerable, used pressure to get the Bush
administration to see things their way.
The resulting policy toward Iraq has been just what you would
expect when you have a weak, vacillating man in charge, with
warmongering Jews talking into one ear and pragmatists with no
real vision of their own talking into the other. The Jews of
course got their way in the end by pushing, but we can thank the
pragmatists for gaining enough temporary concessions to diplomacy
along the way to make this Zionist war even more embarrassing for
the United States than it might otherwise have been.
Bush disingenuously demanded that Saddam Hussein readmit weapons
Saddam Hussein unexpectedly complied, which made attacking him
more difficult, and also, by showing that he is anxious to avoid
war, made it harder to believe that he is really a menace to the
As soon as Bush sent the troops over there, to many observers it
seemed a foregone conclusion that he would have to find an excuse
to attack, regardless of whatever Saddam Hussein might do. Bush
gave his "48 hours" ultimatum, which has nothing to do with WMDs,
but may have been intended to provoke a pre-emptive strike by
Iraq. Unlike the Japanese in World War II, however, Saddam
Hussein kept his cool and did not attempt any pre-emptive attack,
leaving Bush to be the victim of his own words, having either to
eat his ultimatum or proceed with a totally unprovoked attack.
Then Bush tried to kill Saddam Hussein with a missile attack. And
the rest you know.
I think this record shows that our own "democratically elected"
leader is not a very good advertisement for the democracy that we
are allegedly bringing to Iraq!
The talking heads on TV have been saying that the generals just
did not plan on having to fight a guerrilla war. It is a big
surprise, they say. But all they really had to do to know that
guerrilla warfare would be a main tool of opposition was to do a
little research. They could have inferred it from the Time
magazine interview of Hussein Kemal in 1995, where the defector
explicitly stated that guerrilla warfare would have been the main
peril for a drive to Baghdad in 1991, or they could have gotten
some inkling of it from the various news reports showing Iraqi
civilians buying firearms -- no background check required, by the
way -- so that they could shoot the American invaders.
] Or, failing all that, they could have just listened to the
final segment of American Dissident Voices' "Cannon Fodder"
series which aired only a few weeks ago. It's amazing that just
using the Internet and old magazines, I can predict an
eventuality that George W. Bush's Jewish chickenhawks have
What was sold to us as a quick and easy war of liberation, with
glory for the soldiers and for the U.S.A. as a whole, is turning
out to be a very dirty war where our troops are fighting an
entire people and find themselves shooting innocent women and
children because of fear.
British and U.S. government sources believed, or said that they
believed, that the government of Saddam Hussein would be toppled
by a coup as soon as the fighting started. The Bush
administration's repeated statements that the "evil leader" of
Iraq was the real problem were clearly intended to drive a wedge
between the Iraqi people and their leader, so that some among
them would arrange to jettison their jinxed leader the way
Slobodan Milosevic was jettisoned by Yugoslavia a few years ago
as a result of intense U.S. pressure. The creation of a popular
revolution against Saddam Hussein was also understood to be the
purpose of the economic sanctions which Iraq has endured since
1991, but that never worked. The siege of Basra -- not especially
a stronghold of support for the Baath party -- was supposed to
cause such misery that it would explode in rebellion and welcome
the invaders, but once again that method has failed and there is
talk about taking Basra "the hard way."
Apparently the soldiers were also misled into thinking that this
would be a very quick and easy war. Several times I have seen
reports that the soldiers were eager to get on the road to
Baghdad because this was the way to go home.
People make the excuse that, although there have been setbacks,
the United States and Britain are "not losing the war." It is
true that Iraqi forces are not on the verge of forcing all the
invading troops back into Kuwait, but when you represent a
military campaign as "Operation Iraqi Freedom," and find yourself
fighting mostly civilian militias, you have in a sense already
lost, because the entire premise and alleged point of your
campaign has been proven wrong. Can you imagine George W. Bush
distributing night-vision equipment and rocket-propelled grenades
to U.S. citizens so that we could defend our country as the
Iraqis are doing? In terms of the right to keep and bear arms, a
fundamental freedom, it seems that the Iraqis should be
liberating us. It has never been in doubt that the United States
of America could squash the entire country of Iraq and reduce
Baghdad to rubble, in the event that the Iraqis don't want to
accept our "gift," but that could hardly be called victory for a
campaign called "Operation Iraqi Freedom."
It will be a victory in name only, much as the election of George
W. Bush was a false victory for all the people who thought only
about defeating the Democrat and gave no consideration to the
quality of what they were installing in the Democrat's place, as
long as it claimed to be "conservative." There was a rush into
this war, much as the Republicans rushed into making George W.
Bush their candidate, and in both cases the foolhardy
conservatives gained an apparent victory that that will be worse
than a defeat.
The text above is based on a broadcast of the American Dissident
Voices radio program sponsored by National Vanguard Books.
It is distributed by e-mail each Saturday to subscribers of
Hotmail now available on Australian mobile phones. Click here for more. .