🚀 go-pugleaf

"Rabbi Edeiken" <yawen@enter.net> wrote in message
news:49OQJKXB37198.6323842593@frog.gilgamesh.org...
> The National Alliance web site has been very busy
> since September 11, 2001. Do not give up and please
> be assured; all links are functioning.
>
> American Dissident Voices Internet Radio
> http://www.natvan.com/internet-radio/
>
> Free Speech
> http://www.natvan.com/free-speech
>
> Who Rules America
> http://www.natvan.com/who-rules-america
>
> What is the National Alliance
> http://www.natvan.com/what-is-na
>
> American Dissident Voices:
> Transcripts
> http://www.natvan.com/american-dissident-voices
> Broadcast Schedule
> http://www.natvan.com/radio-schedule
> Internet Radio
> http://www.natvan.com/internet-radio
> Text
> http://www.natvan.com/pub
>
> National Vanguard Magazine
> http://www.natvan.com/national-vanguard
>
> Catalog
> http://www.natvan.com/cgi-bin/webc.cgi/st_main.html
>
> National Alliance in America
> http://www.natvan.com/index.html
>
> National Alliance in Canada
> New webpage: http://www.natall.ca
>
> Fame of a Dead Man's Deeds
> http://www.natvan.com/e-book.html
> A new book about Dr. William Pierce and the National Alliance
> has been published on the Internet and is now available from
> the e-book division of Barnes and Noble, the world's biggest
> retail bookseller.
>
> Now to today's informative talk.
>
> American Dissident Voices Broadcast of November 3, 2001
>
> Why Revolution Is Necessary
> By Dr. William Pierce
>
> Hello!
>
> One of the most interesting developments I've seen since September 11 is
> the public hinting by people in the Federal Bureau of Investigation that
> it really would be helpful to them if they were permitted to torture
> suspects or other people from whom they wanted information, like the
> police in Israel do. These hints haven't been given a big play by the
> news media, but there is a report on the subject in the October 21 issue
> of the Washington Post and a column by Jonathan Alter in this week's
> issue of Newsweek. These stories seem to be what the media people call
> "trial balloons": give a new proposal just enough exposure to get a bit
> of public reaction from the perceptive minority without alarming the
> lemmings. If the response isn't strongly negative, then push the
> proposal hard.
>
> I'll read you just a few sentences from the October 21 story in the
> Washington Post, to give you the flavor of the proposal. I quote: "FBI
> and Justice Department investigators are increasingly frustrated by the
> silence of jailed suspected associates of Osama bin Laden's al Quaeda
> network, and some are beginning to say that traditional civil liberties
> may have to be cast aside if they are to extract information about the
> September 11 attacks and terrorist plans. . . . Said one experienced FBI
> agent involved in the investigation: 'We are known for humanitarian
> treatment, so basically we are stuck. . . . Usually there is some
> incentive, some angle to play, what you can do for them. But it could
> get to that spot where we could go to pressure . . . where we won't have
> a choice, and we are probably getting there.' Among the alternative
> strategies under discussion are using drugs or pressure tactics, such as
> those employed occasionally by Israeli interrogators, to extract
> information." -- end of quote --
>
> Well, the article goes on to quote other FBI officials who are
> "frustrated" by their inability to "extract information" from some
> suspects and who wish that they could use drugs or "pressure tactics" --
> that's a euphemism for torture -- like the Israelis do, and more than
> "occasionally." Actually the story, by Walter Pincus, is pretty low key.
> It nowhere says that there already is a plan to use torture, just
> "wouldn't it be nice if we could." And he quotes a former senior FBI
> official who believes that the American public will go along with such a
> plan if there is another terror attack on the United States. And, of
> course, there will be. As I said, the article reads like a "trial
> balloon."
>
> It's a funny thing: after the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, the Jewish
> media were all over my 1978 novel, The Turner Diaries, claiming that a
> fictional bombing of the FBI headquarters building in Washington that
> occurred in the novel was a "blueprint" for the Oklahoma City bombing.
> They really wanted to tie the Oklahoma City bombing to me and to
> everyone else who had criticized the Jews' monopoly control of the news
> and entertainment media. I won't be surprised when they discover that
> the last chapter of The Turner Diaries describes a suicide attack on the
> Pentagon with a bomb-carrying airplane and then begin claiming that that
> was a "blueprint" for the September 11 attack on the Pentagon. There's
> something else in The Turner Diaries, however, that I'm quite certain
> they won't try to blame on me, and that is my description of the
> adoption of torture as an interrogation technique by the FBI. In the
> book, published 23 years ago, I described quite vividly the FBI's
> torture of a terrorism suspect, using the services of an experienced
> Israeli torturer. The media bosses won't blame the current yearning in
> the FBI for the authorization to use torture on my book because they
> themselves also are solidly in favor of the use of torture. It is no
> mere coincidence that both the Washington Post story and the Newsweek
> column are written by Jews.
>
> They also are solidly in favor of every other measure to strengthen the
> hand of the government in dealing with its opponents -- and not just
> with terrorists. They would like to put an end to all dissent, to all
> Politically Incorrect speech or writing or expression of opinion: an end
> to all opposition to them and to the government. And really, the media
> and the government are far too close to being one and the same these
> days. That's quite a different situation from the one we had 30 years
> ago, during the Vietnam war, and the situation is far more dangerous
> today than it was then. Then, when Jewish and Marxist groups were
> burning ROTC buildings on our university campuses, setting off bombs in
> banks and other businesses they claimed were supporting the White
> government in South Africa, and committing other acts of terrorism on a
> continuing basis, if the FBI had suggested that perhaps it should use
> torture in interrogating terrorist suspects, the media would have gone
> ballistic and screamed for the head of the FBI director.
>
> Well, if the FBI begins using torture now, at least the government can
> claim that it is just going along with tradition. After all, it wasn't
> so long ago that witches were tortured to make them confess to having
> congress with the devil -- and also to reveal the names of other witches
> or sorcerers. The torture was justified on the grounds that it was
> essential for the safety and welfare of the public: you can't allow
> witches and sorcerers to run around putting spells on people; the
> government needs to find out who they are so that it can get them off
> the street. Of course, the danger from witches wasn't real, so the
> government wasn't justified in using torture in the 17th century, but
> the danger from terrorists today is real, and many people believe that
> justifies the use of torture and the curtailment of other civil
> liberties. And my answer to that is that the danger of terrorism today
> is real only because the government has made it real through its own
> policies: policies that it could change at will, eliminating the danger
> of terrorism without limiting the freedom of Americans.
>
> Unfortunately, however, the government not only refuses to admit that
> any of its policies are the cause of terrorism against Americans; it is
> moving with unseemly haste to silence anyone who dares to suggest that
> is the case. The ghastly new law, the badly misnamed "USA PATRIOT" law
> signed by George Bush last week, is a giant step in that direction. The
> "USA PATRIOT" title is a highly contrived acronym standing for "Uniting
> and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to
> Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism." The new law is both un-American and
> unpatriotic. It is also un-Constitutional, although you shouldn't make
> any wagers that the Supreme Court will overturn it. The law specifically
> trashes the Fourth Amendment, and it is aimed at intimidating all
> opponents of the government or its policies into silence by threatening
> to put them into the category of being suspected "supporters of
> terrorism," whereupon they immediately lose all of their civil liberties
> and become, in effect, outlaws.
>
> The new law certainly succeeded in intimidating nearly every legislator
> in the Congress even before George Bush signed it on Friday of last
> week. The bill's sponsors rammed it through the Congress without any of
> the customary debate or public hearings or opportunity to modify it. The
> customary legislative process of "regular order" was completely
> short-circuited, and terrified Congressman dared not protest or vote
> against the bill from fear of being denounced as "unpatriotic."
> Denounced by whom, you ask? By the media, of course, which were solidly
> behind the new law. It was reminiscent of the witch trials of 400 years
> ago, when people who knew that the accused was innocent were afraid to
> speak up lest they too be accused of being in league with the devil.
>
> If you still believe that the people elected by the voters to the U.S.
> Senate and House of Representatives are America's "leaders" and are
> looking out for the interests of the public, you should contemplate in
> detail the course of the "USA PATRIOT" bill through the Congress. Nearly
> 90 per cent of the members of the Congress, Republicans and Democrats,
> all of whom took a solemn oath to uphold and defend the Constitution,
> let themselves be stampeded by fear of media criticism into damaging the
> Constitution in a grievous way -- perhaps into striking a death blow
> against the Constitution -- by voting for this bill. And George Bush was
> his usual smirking self as he triumphantly signed it into law last
> Friday.
>
> Now Jewish billionaire Larry Ellison, the principal owner of Oracle, the
> country's second-largest software company, is trying to persuade the
> government to require everyone to carry a national identity card that
> will allow the FBI to keep track of their movements. Ellison has
> generously offered to provide the software without charge to the FBI to
> operate the tracking system. In the government the biggest booster of
> Ellison's national identity plan is Senator Diane Feinstein, who heads
> the Senate subcommittee on terrorism.
>
> Hey! It's not Osama bin Laden who hates America's freedom: it's our
> government, our media, and people like Larry Ellison and Diane
> Feinstein.
>
> If you've been listening to many of my broadcasts, you know what I think
> about democracy and democrats. I think democracy is a lousy political
> system, and it is inherently crooked. It pretends to put power into the
> hands of the majority of the people -- which is a stupid idea in itself
> -- while it actually puts power into the hands of the tiny minority that
> control the opinions of the majority: namely, the media bosses. And I
> loathe Democrats: they are demagogues who seek power for themselves by
> appealing to society's resentful losers and dispensing bread and
> circuses paid for by society's more productive elements.
>
> But as much as I hate Democrats, I hate and fear Republicans even more:
> especially conservative Republicans: for example, Chief Supreme Court
> Justice William Rehnquist, Attorney General John Ashcroft, Vice
> President Richard Cheney, and George W. Bush. It is among the
> conservative politicians and bureaucrats that one finds the greatest
> mania for regimenting people, for making everyone march in step and sing
> in tune, for slapping down anyone who gets out of line, for sticking the
> government's nose into every aspect of people's lives. And I'll
> guarantee you, the mania these conservative politicians and bureaucrats
> have for controlling citizens and suppressing dissent is not based on
> either patriotism or a conviction that it's for our own good. They are
> crooks and liars, and the only good they're concerned about is their
> own.
>
> You know, just because I have one view of an issue, and a politician has
> a different view, doesn't in itself mean that the politician is a crook
> and a liar. People -- even politicians -- are entitled to have different
> opinions about things. But when a politician like George Bush announces
> to the nation in completely unambiguous terms that the September 11
> attack was unprovoked and was simply an expression of hatred by
> fundamentalist Muslims for America's freedom and democracy, it's not a
> difference of opinion; the man is simply lying. He's lying consciously
> and deliberately. He's lying to the whole nation on a matter of the
> utmost importance. This is much, much more reprehensible -- much, much
> more dangerous for the country -- than Bill Clinton's lies about the
> sexual services he was receiving in the Oval Office from a Jewish
> intern.
>
> George Bush has lied us into a war -- for two very obvious reasons.
> First, just as the members of the Congress were afraid to question the
> new anti-terrorism bill from fear of being painted by the media as
> "unpatriotic," George Bush is afraid to talk about the provocation which
> caused the September 11 attack -- namely, the U.S. government's support
> of Israeli aggression against her neighbors -- because he knows that the
> media would then accuse him of "anti-Semitism."
>
> And second, if he raised the subject of the provocation, he would have
> to explain why the government pursued such a policy. He would have to
> talk about the enormous power of organized Jewry over government policy,
> and again that would cause the controlled media to denounce him as an
> "anti-Semite." And he also would stand revealed as a man who had
> consciously followed a policy dictated by organized Jewry knowing that
> it was a policy harmful to America. He would stand revealed as a man at
> least partly responsible, along with his predecessors, who knowingly
> followed the same policy, for the September 11 attack. He would stand
> revealed as a traitor, who had served a foreign power to the detriment
> of American security and welfare.
>
> You know, being a traitor is a bit like grabbing a tiger by the tail.
> Once you embark on that course, you can't go back. It's either hang on
> or be hanged. So George Bush lies to the whole country about a matter of
> the utmost importance and continues serving his alien masters. And the
> man smirks about it.
>
> Such a man cannot be trusted. A government headed by such a President
> cannot be trusted. Any reasonable patriot must fear such a government
> when it is given the powerful tools for repression that are in the new
> "USA PATRIOT" law and when its secret police agencies begin suggesting
> that it would be nice if they were permitted to torture suspects in
> order to extract information. And such a government especially should be
> feared when it is in cahoots with the news media. In a free society one
> force that keeps the government from getting completely out of control
> is a free press. Even when the media also are crooked, if they at least
> are hostile to the government they can keep the government in check. But
> when crooked media are in cahoots with a crooked government, the country
> is in real trouble. And that is the situation we're in now.
>
> In America's present situation, terrorism is the least of our problems.
> Certainly, it is a bad thing when our country is so hated by much of the
> rest of the world because of our government's policies that airliners
> are hijacked and flown into office buildings, killing thousands of
> Americans. Certainly it is a bad thing when anthrax-infected letters are
> mailed around the country, killing innocent people and causing major
> disruptions in the postal service. But these things are nothing compared
> to the loss of our civil liberties. They are nothing compared to the
> danger of a treasonous, lying government. They are nothing compared to
> the damage done to our society by mass media of news and entertainment
> being in the hands of an alien minority pursuing its own agenda.
>
> Americans made far greater sacrifices 225 years ago to secure civil
> liberties that King George III was denying them than they made in New
> York and Washington on September 11. When we are obliged to fight again
> to restore civil liberties now being given up so lightly by an
> irresponsible and thoughtless public seeking more security, the loss of
> lives and property will be far greater than in the World Trade Center
> attack. When we take the necessary actions to regain control of our mass
> media and our government, the disruption and suffering will be
> incomparably greater than that caused by the current anthrax terrorism.
>
> In other words, even if the terrorism threat to Americans were a
> thousand times greater than we have experienced so far -- even if
> terrorism cost us five million lives instead of five thousand -- it
> would not be as harmful to us and as great a threat to our national
> survival as a treasonous government and alien-controlled mass media. The
> public, frightened of terrorism, may be willing to give up its freedom
> in the hope of gaining more security, but it will end up with neither.
> Unfortunately, the minority of us who really value our freedom will lose
> it too.
>
> And you know, none of this is necessary. It is easy for us to eliminate
> -- or at least greatly reduce -- the threat of terrorism without giving
> up any of our civil liberties. Without scrapping the Bill of Rights it
> is possible for the Sally Soccermoms and the Joe Sixpacks to go back to
> cruising the malls and watching the ball games without having to worry
> about being hit by a hijacked airliner or opening an anthrax-infected
> letter. It is possible for them to have their comfort and security and
> for us to have our freedom at the same time.
>
> Regimentation is not necessary for security. The authoritarians in our
> government would like to regiment the people whether there is a threat
> of terrorism or not, but regimentation isn't necessary. The way to
> eliminate the threat of terrorism is to eliminate the causes of
> terrorism. And as far as terrorism from outside the country is
> concerned, the cause is the U.S. government's blind support of Israeli
> aggression in the Middle East. Every recent terrorist attack against
> Americans by foreigners has had this single cause: the 1993 bombing of
> the World Trade Center, the 1998 bombing of our embassies in Kenya and
> Tanzania, the 1996 bombing of our servicemen in Saudi Arabia, last
> year's bombing of the USS Cole, and the September 11 attack on New York
> and Washington. In fact, we can go back much further, even to the
> bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983, which killed 241
> Americans. None of these attacks would have occurred if the U.S.
> government had pursued a policy in the Middle East based on American
> interests instead of on Jewish interests.
>
> To eliminate or greatly reduce domestic terrorism, more than a change in
> U.S. foreign policy is required. Here's an example: the Jewish media now
> are entertaining the theory that the anthrax letters causing so much
> anxiety are being mailed by neo-Nazi groups inside the United States.
> Even though the anthrax letters refer specifically to Israel and close
> with the words "Allah is great," Jews are speculating that because all
> of the letters were mailed inside the United States and so many of the
> targets were media figures -- that is, Jews -- they could have been
> mailed by domestic anti-Semites rather than by Muslim backers of Osama
> bin Laden.
>
> Perhaps so, but that still remains to be seen. The relevant fact is that
> domestic terrorism that would have been inconceivable 50 or 60 years ago
> is becoming increasingly common. Fifty years ago no American would have
> considered launching a campaign of anthrax terrorism in this country.
> Today it is at least conceivable. And it's not that the technology is
> new. Any reasonably resourceful graduate student in microbiology can
> find anthrax spores or other lethal pathogens in the natural
> environment, identify them, isolate them, cultivate them in a small
> laboratory using inexpensive equipment, and grow enough of them to
> inoculate hundreds of letters. And he could have done the same thing 50
> years ago. The spores always have been around, and the techniques are
> not new. What is new is the motivation.
>
> What is new is the enormously greater corruption and irresponsibility of
> our government today and the consequent distrust of the government by
> perceptive citizens. What is new is the enormously greater intrusion of
> the government into the lives of law-abiding citizens today and the
> consequent hatred of the government by freedom-loving Americans. What is
> new is the enormously greater degree of alienation on the part of most
> Americans -- at least on the part of those Americans who care about more
> than mall cruising and televised ball games. The principal cause of this
> alienation is, again, the government, with its destructive immigration
> policy and its destructive program of forced multiculturalism.
>
> That's easy enough to understand, but to act on our understanding in
> order to eliminate the cause of either foreign or domestic terrorism
> will require the replacement not only of the present U.S. government but
> also of the system on which it is based. Which is to say, until we have
> a thoroughly cleansing revolution in America, we must endure more and
> more terrorism and more and more loss of freedom at the same time.
>
> 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 ADVlist.
>
> To subscribe to ADVlist send an e-mail message to:
> ADVlist-on@NatVan.com (The subject and body of the message don't
> matter.)
>
> For more information about National Vanguard Books or the
> National Alliance see our web site at http://www.natvan.com or
> http://www.natall.com
>
> To contact us, write to:
>      National Vanguard Books
>      Attention:  ADVlist
>      P.O. Box 330
>      Hillsboro, WV  24946
>
> or e-mail:  national@NatVan.com please tell us if we can post your
> comments and if so whether you want your name or e-mail address
> given.
>
> ==>  TO BE REMOVED from ADVlist, send an e-mail message to:
> ADVlist-off@NatVan.com (The subject and body of the message don't
> matter.)
>
> (c) 2001 National Vanguard Books
>
>
>