🚀 go-pugleaf

paleoconavatar@aol.com (PaleoconAvatar) wrote in message news:<20020314150020.00730.00000902@mb-ft.aol.com>...
> American Dissident Voices Broadcast of March 9, 2002
> 
> The New "Patriotism"
> By Dr. William Pierce
> 
> from http://www.natall.com
> 
> Hello!
> 
> You know, I think that the word "patriotism" has a different meaning
> today than it did when I was growing up. It used to mean a love of one's
> native land and one's people: one's fatherland, according to the
> etymology of the word. The fatherland was the land where one's ancestors
> had been born and where a large extended family -- everyone descended
> from those ancestors who originally had settled the land -- now lived.
> Patriotism really had a tribal or racial meaning. It was a feeling based
> on blood. And although our ancestors had come to America from all parts
> of Europe, they were enough alike that they still could feel the bond of
> blood. They still felt themselves members of a large family, a family
> with European roots, and they could stand together as brothers against
> those who were not part of the nation. Whether they came from Scotland
> or Ireland or England or Sweden or Germany or Poland they could fight
> together against Indians or Mexicans. They felt their kinship, and that
> was the basis of their patriotism.
> 
> Well, that racial meaning of patriotism is one that the people who
> control our mass media obviously don't like. They've multiculturalized
> patriotism along with everything else. Their propaganda for a new brand
> of patriotism is pretty blatant stuff. I'm sure you've seen the
> television ads a hundred times where a very diverse bunch indeed --
> Blacks and Browns and Yellows, with a few Whites thrown in -- proclaim
> sequentially, "I-am-an-American."
> 
> These days, to be "patriotic" means to wave the flag and shout slogans
> whenever the mass media deem it appropriate. It means to cheer the
> government whenever the government decides to use its cruise missiles or
> its smart bombs to kill a bunch of people in some other country,
> regardless of the reason. Instead of blood-based patriotism, today we
> have government-based patriotism. If you wave the flag and support the
> government, you're a patriot. If you don't like what the government is
> doing and you say so, then all of the flag-waving, slogan-shouting
> yahoos look at you as if you are the enemy.
> 
> Back in the 19th century American patriots -- real patriots -- were
> winning land for us from mestizos and pushing them back across the Rio
> Grande. "Remember the Alamo!" was a patriotic slogan then. Today it's
> something the media and the government want us to forget or to feel
> embarrassed about, as the mestizos come flooding back in this direction
> again in a great wave of re-conquest: the reconquista. And the
> government in Washington is helping them. They're flooding not just into
> Texas and the other parts of the Southwest, but wherever greedy
> employers want cheap labor. And if you raise your hand against this
> government-sponsored invasion, if you try to push a few mestizos back
> across the border, you're not considered a patriot; you're a terrorist
> or a "hate criminal."
> 
> Two years ago, in July 2000, a group of White men chased some Mexicans
> out of a park in Billings, Montana. Just chased them out, told them the
> park was for Whites, didn't hurt anyone. Last week a Federal judge in
> Billings sentenced one of the White men to 15 years in prison and two
> other White men to 10 years each. For chasing some Mexicans out of a
> park. The media thought those sentences were just about right. So did
> the Bush government, which had one of its Justice Department Jews, a
> Mark Blumberg, acting as prosecutor. Fifteen years in a Federal prison
> for chasing some Mexicans out of a traditionally White park, without
> actually hurting anyone. If you looked carefully you could have seen
> that in an Associated Press report from Billings last Saturday.
> 
> Imagine the Billings situation reversed: Mexicans chasing Whites out of
> a barrio park in some Browned-out area of Texas or California. Do you
> think the Federal government would rush a Jewish prosecutor to the area
> to make sure that the Mexicans were locked up for 15 years? Let me tell
> you, the Bush government would pretend that nothing had happened. There
> wouldn't even be a prosecution. Patriotism, government style, these days
> means not fighting back against what is being done to the country that
> our ancestors fought and bled to win for us.
> 
> At least, that's one side of government-style patriotism. The other
> side, as I said a moment ago, is to wave your flag and cheer mindlessly
> whenever the government, on orders from Israel, kicks the bejesus out of
> some little country without an adequate air-defense system. The
> government-style patriots never ask why we're beating up somebody or
> pounding some other country back into the Stone Age. They don't really
> care. They're as mindless as baseball fans. To them all that matters is
> that our team is pounding the other team, and so they cheer.
> 
> It used to be that, in order to have the patriotic support of the
> people, the government had to have a good reason for starting a war. It
> used to be that our people had to feel that they were defending
> themselves -- or at least, defending some legitimate American interest
> -- before they could feel patriotic about killing people in other
> countries. Making it easier for Israel to hang on to stolen Arab land in
> the Middle East is not a legitimate American interest. But the
> government-style patriots, with the little flags tied to their car
> antennas, don't need a reason. It makes them feel good that their
> government is able to kick sand in the face of just about anybody else
> on the beach and get away with it. They like cheering for the biggest
> bully in the block, as long as the bully is successful. They cheer the
> government in the same way the Roman mob used to cheer for their
> favorite gladiator in the Colosseum.
> 
> I spend half an hour every day scanning through the TV news channels --
> not primarily to find out what has happened in the world, but rather to
> find out what the party line is on what's happened in the world. In this
> regard, Fox News is probably the most revealing. Nearly every day Fox
> interviews one or more Defense Department consultants or retired
> generals or other government officials as "experts" on the current U.S.
> war in the Middle East. Without an exception these "experts" are
> enthusiastic supporters of the current war. Was our blasting of
> Afghanistan and the ousting of the government there a good thing? They
> are absolutely certain that it was. Should we start another war with
> Iraq next? They are unanimous in their opinion that we should. What
> about Iran? Hell, yes, we can lick them too. But never a reason. Never
> an explanation of why it is good for us to tear up all of these
> countries, beyond the fact that we're bigger than they are and can get
> away with it: no explanation of how it serves our interests, of how it
> makes the world a better place for America.
> 
> With "experts" like that to set the tone, it is no wonder that the
> yahoos are going around with their chests stuck out now because we beat
> up Afghanistan and will go around with their chests stuck out even
> further after we beat up Iraq or Iran.
> 
> You know, I just said that no one ever asks why we have to whip all of
> these other countries. Of course, the stock answer, if you raise the
> question to one of the Fox News "experts," is that we're "fighting
> terrorism." What we're doing in the Middle East now is waging a "war
> against terrorism," they'll tell us. Well, that's an explanation that
> doesn't bear close examination. If our war aim is to protect ourselves
> from terrorism, why do we need to wage war against Iraq? Iraq has never
> inflicted any terrorism on us or even threatened to do so. Every Fox
> News "expert" takes it for granted that it would be a good thing to kill
> Saddam Hussein. Why is that? Saddam Hussein is not a fanatical Muslim
> fundamentalist who is likely to do anything wild and crazy against
> America that would provoke retaliation.
> 
> I'll tell you what Saddam Hussein is. He is a strong leader of his
> nation. He may be a mean and ruthless SOB -- he may be the kind of
> fellow you wouldn't want your sister to marry -- but he is a strong
> leader who refuses to take orders from Jews or from the U.S. government.
> He does not threaten America and has no reason to do so unless he is
> pushed into a corner, but the Jews are worried that he might provide
> help to the Palestinians. They are worried that he will be a threat to
> further Israeli expansion in the Middle East because he refuses to be
> bullied or bought. That is the reason that all of the Fox News "experts"
> agree that it would be a good thing to assassinate him -- although they
> won't come right out and state that reason. Instead they give us the
> standard, mealymouthed party line about Iraq and Saddam Hussein being a
> potential terrorist threat that we need to neutralize.
> 
> Of course, if we do wage war against Iraq or against Iran, then we will
> have to worry about terrorist reprisals. When they have nothing else to
> lose, then they will strike at us with whatever means they have. But if
> we mind our own business and look out for our own interests, neither
> Iran nor Iraq has any reason for provoking us. If we had been looking
> out for our own interests before September 11 instead of for Israel's
> interests, 3,000 Americans who lost their lives on that day would still
> be alive.
> 
> Sometimes the Fox News "experts" use a more abstract justification for
> killing people in other countries who haven't done anything to us: they
> might do something to us in the future, so we'd better kill them now.
> The notion that they put forward in a roundabout fashion is that the
> only way for America to be safe is to kill off everyone who has the
> potential for hurting us in the future: which is to say, everyone who
> has the resources for developing weapons of mass destruction and who
> also refuses to take orders from us. That's a rather interesting way of
> looking at things, and some rather extreme conclusions can be drawn from
> it. But if our government actually did believe that is the best way to
> protect America, then we should launch an all-out nuclear attack on
> Israel immediately. Israel not only already has developed a very
> dangerous arsenal of weapons of mass destruction but also is a psychotic
> nest of murderous thugs posing a danger to the whole world. More than
> that, Israel has repeatedly shown itself willing to use terrorist
> tactics against anyone, including America, anytime it thinks it can get
> away with it.
> 
> A memorable example of that is Israel's murderous attack on the U.S.S.
> Liberty in 1967, which killed 34 American servicemen. The Israelis
> attacked our ship without warning, using jet aircraft (supplied by the
> United States) and torpedo boats. Their plan was to sink the Liberty,
> kill all the survivors in the water by strafing, and then blame it on
> the Egyptians, in order to cause hostility between the United States and
> Egypt. That was not the first time Israel had tried such a trick, but it
> was the most murderous. It failed only because the radio operator aboard
> the Liberty was able to get off a message identifying the attackers as
> Israelis before the attack had knocked out all of the Liberty's
> communications.
> 
> But of course, the Fox News "experts" who advocate going to war against
> Iraq and Iran, sending in occupation troops, and then placing them under
> puppet governments, because otherwise they might someday develop weapons
> of mass destruction and use them against America, would faint dead away
> if it were suggested to them that the same reasoning should be applied
> to Israel, but even more so. These same "experts" also pretend that the
> reason for the September 11 attack was that Osama bin Laden "hates our
> freedom" and had nothing at all to do with the U.S. government's support
> for Israel.
> 
> One might forgive this sort of behavior on the part of the yahoos. In a
> sense they don't know any better. They've been raised with the new
> patriotism -- the government-patriotism -- and they really don't see
> anything wrong with cheering a government that attacks other countries
> that haven't attacked us. All that matters to the yahoos is that their
> team beats the other team: Yea! We're the greatest! Don't mess with us!
> 
> But people don't get to be generals by being so shallow in their
> sensibilities and understanding. The Fox News "experts" understand all
> the subtleties of the issues involved, but they're too crooked to speak
> the truth.
> 
> I'm sure that it didn't used to be so bad. I'm sure that the "experts"
> have become more crooked than they used to be, and the truth has become
> a scarcer commodity. This was brought to mind last week by the media
> uproar when a Baptist preacher's remarks to President Richard Nixon,
> made 30 years ago, came to light. Billy Graham, the high-profile
> celebrity preacher, media star, and adviser to presidents, was about as
> oily as other Baptist preachers most of the time, but occasionally he
> spoke frankly on sensitive subjects, as the Oval Office tapes from the
> first half of 1972, released to the public last week by the National
> Archives, reveal.
> 
> During a meeting with Nixon and others in the Oval Office on February 1,
> 1972, Graham complained about the total domination of the mass media of
> news and entertainment in America by Jews. This Jewish control of the
> media certainly was no secret. I had published the first edition of my
> expos� of Jewish media control, complete with names and mug shots, which
> I titled "Who Rules America?," in 1968. Every politician and other
> leading figure in Washington knew about the Jewish domination of the
> media; they were just afraid to talk about it for fear of reprisals from
> the Jews. The result of this timidity was that Sally Soccermom and Joe
> Sixpack didn't have a clue. The big shots all knew what the Jews were up
> to, but they were afraid to tell the public. Most of the big shots were
> even afraid to discuss the Jews among themselves.
> 
> In 1972, however, Billy Graham not only complained to Nixon and others
> in the Oval Office about the Jewish stranglehold on the media, he
> understood what this Jewish media control was doing to America, and he
> told those in the Oval Office, and I quote, "This stranglehold has got
> to be broken, or the country's going down the drain." -- end of quote --
> President Nixon agreed with Billy Graham, but he was too cowardly to do
> anything about it. Nixon said, and again I quote from the Oval Office
> tape, "I can't ever say that, but I believe it."
> 
> That's a poor commentary on the quality of leadership we have in
> America. The President understands what Jewish media control is doing to
> the country, but he is afraid to take any action to protect the country.
> He prefers to stand aside and let the country go down the drain. And you
> know, he could have stopped it then. There were enough top military
> leaders then who still had some old-fashioned patriotism. With a little
> planning, every Jewish media figure from Hollywood to Madison Avenue
> could have been arrested and eliminated in a single day. The same thing
> could have been done with the courts, the Congress, and the Federal
> bureaucracy. A clean sweep could have been made. The country could have
> been pulled back from the brink and put on an entirely different course.
> 
> Think what an enormous difference that would have made during the past
> 30 years. We could have cut off all immigration from the Third World and
> from Asia. The whole hip-hop, rap, MTV culture being pushed by the
> Jewish entertainment media could have been nipped in the bud. All of the
> Jewish filth and poison and brainwashing that America has been saturated
> with during the past 30 years could have been flushed down the drain in
> 1972, and the country could have been put on an upward course again.
> 
> The flow of weapons and money from the United States to Israel could
> have been halted in 1972, and Israel would have ceased to exist the
> following year, during the 1973 war. There would be no belligerent
> Israel in the Middle East today with a nuclear, biological, and chemical
> arsenal threatening to spark the Third World War and providing the
> impetus behind the efforts of every other country in the region, Iraq
> and Iran included, to develop their own weapons of mass destruction in
> order to counter Israel. But the man with the power to change
> everything, the man who understood that it needed to be done, the
> President of the United States, was afraid to act, afraid even to talk
> about it except among his associates in the White House.
> 
> Things clearly are worse today. When Billy Graham's 1972 conversation
> with Richard Nixon was made public last week, Graham was afraid to
> acknowledge it. He said that he didn't remember the conversation, but he
> groveled and apologized anyway. And I cannot imagine anyone in the Bush
> government today having the courage or the honesty even to have a
> conversation in the White House about what the Jews are doing to America
> and to the world and what needs to be done to counter them. Richard
> Nixon was a crook and a coward, but George Bush is far worse. And the
> top military leaders today are far less patriotic than the ones of 30
> years ago were. The top military leaders today are like the retired
> generals that one sees being interviewed on Fox News: a sorry lot
> indeed, who will not even acknowledge the reason for the September 11
> attack on America. The are not patriots; they are prostitutes.
> 
> The men who control America's mass media are the men who really rule
> America today. They understand that, and the prostitutes do too. It is
> essential to both the rulers and the prostitutes that no real patriots
> gain the power to upset their applecart. The military system over the
> past 30 years has evolved in a way that weeds patriots out early and
> keeps them from reaching the top. Actually the military leadership
> system has been evolving that way over the past 50 years, with an
> Affirmative Action promotion policy that favors non-Whites and looks
> with suspicion on White males who still have old-fashioned ideas about
> patriotism. But 30 years ago there were still a few patriots willing to
> speak out. General William Westmoreland was the last of these really to
> say much.
> 
> The political system is even worse. It ensures that only men like Bill
> Clinton and George Bush can reach the highest levels: totally corrupt
> men, with absolutely no sense of honor or responsibility or real
> patriotism. We are in real trouble, and it will take real patriots to
> get us out, but real patriots are in short supply these days. What we
> have today masquerading as patriots are crooks at the top and
> flag-waving yahoos at the bottom.
> 
> Nevertheless, there still are a few real patriots, a few old-fashioned
> patriots, here and there, and as America continues down the drain I will
> not be surprised to see one or two of these begin to take action of some
> sort, but it is unlikely that they will act through the conventional
> channels of electoral politics or the armed forces.
> 
> Thanks for being with me again today.
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> 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 ADV-list.
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> 
> ==> To subscribe send an e-mail message to: adv-list-request@NatVan.com
> The subject of the message should be: Subscribe
> 
> E-mail: national@NatVan.com with comments about the broadcast. Please
> tell us if we can post your comments and, if so, whether you want your
> name or e-mail address given.
> 
> To contact us via "snail mail," write to:
>      National Vanguard Books
>      Attention:  ADVlist
>      P.O. Box 330
>      Hillsboro, WV  24946

Insightful writing.

Clark