Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page
Usually Tom Brokaw is very good at appearing credible. That's what he's paid for more than anything else, of course. The media bosses don't want the lemmings doubting the party line, and so Brokaw tries very hard to give an impression of honesty, of trustworthiness, of folksy credibility. And usually he's pretty good at it. But some things he reports are just too fantastic to believe. One of the most unbelievable things I have ever heard him say was a recent report he gave that our new Jewish secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, had just discovered that she is a Jewess, that she had no inkling of her Jewishness before becoming secretary of state. Brokaw gave us a little hocus pocus about Jewish tombstones in Prague and Jewish grandparents who had disappeared at Auschwitz, and how these things had been revealed very recently to Albright, surprising her greatly and leading her to the conclusion that she is not really the Gentile Episcopalian she formerly had thought she was, but a Jewess. Wow!
Now, I've been telling the world for the last four years that Madeleine Albright is Jewish. I knew, of course, about her pretense to Episcopalianism, but I also knew many other things about her -- including the fact that both her parents were Jews from the former Czechoslovakia. And now she is trying to persuade us peasants, with the help of the media bosses, that she didn't know. That is just not credible, no matter how hard Tom Brokaw tries to keep a straight face when he tells us.
Gee, all Madeleine had to do was look in a mirror at any time during the last 59 years to know what she was. Shades of Golda Meier! Are we supposed to believe that Madeleine's totally pro-Israel policy throughout her public life was based on a belief that she was a Gentile? Are we supposed to believe that her hawkish, bloodthirsty policy toward everyone else in the Middle East besides Israel has had nothing to do with her Jewishness? Are we supposed to believe that all of her Jewish political connections and the fact that she already had surrounded herself with Jewish advisors and assistants at the State Department are just coincidences? Are we supposed to believe the top politicians in Washington didn't know she is Jewish, and the Senate just rubber-stamped her appointment to be secretary of state because they like her looks? Are we supposed to believe that the media bosses have been in love with her for the same reason?
Come on, now! Everybody knew what Madeleine was, except the general public. At the time Clinton nominated her to be secretary of state the Jewish newspapers were ecstatic -- that is, the Jewish newspapers that only Jews are supposed to read, where you usually can get some hint of what they're really thinking, unlike the Jewish newspapers for Gentile consumption, like the New York Times and the Washington Post. These were happy with her too, of course, but they naturally cited reasons more likely to appeal to non-Jews to explain their happiness. The Arab newspapers were very unhappy about her appointment and referred to her Jewishness as a reason for their unhappiness. Now Madeleine and the New York Times want us to believe that the Arabs knew she was a Jew, but she didn't know. And the New York Times also is telling us, "Don't worry. Her being a Jew won't change the way she does her job as secretary of state." In an editorial on February 6 the New York Times also told us that Madeleine has a "strong record of support for . . . human rights." They're talking about the same Madeleine Albright who last year on the interview program 60 Minutes said that causing the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children with an embargo which keeps food and medicine out of Iraq was a reasonable price to pay in order to keep Saddam Hussein from threatening Israel. Some humanitarian!
We've let Madeleine and her kinsmen in the media get away with so much for so long that they believe that they can get away with anything now. They believe that they can tell us any kind of whopper, and we'll believe it.
The thing that I'm wondering about is why did she choose this time to make her Jewishness public? Earlier, when she married one of the few Gentiles with some influence in the mass media, she found it advantageous to pretend to be Episcopalian. Now that she has become secretary of state in the most Jewish government this country has ever had, why did she choose to reveal her true identity? I have some ideas about this, but no proof yet. I hope that I'm wrong, but I'm afraid that within the next year or two we'll all find out why this thoroughly obnoxious, aggressive, and pushy Jewess has come out of the closet at this time.
That was in 1995. Now in 1997, with the details of Sergeant Major McKinney's sexual life in the Army finally leaking out, his name is in all of the media again, but, strangely, one really has to search to find any mention of the fact that he is Black, or that the female soldier he is accused of harassing sexually and threatening with rape is White. I have eight major, in-depth news articles on this matter in front of me now, from the New York Times, the Washington Post, and USA Today, and not one of them mentions that McKinney is Black, or that the woman he molested, former Sergeant Major Brenda Hoster, is White. There is no mention of race at all in the articles.
That's interesting, isn't it? At the time when Sergeant Major McKinney was made a role model for White soldiers, every newspaper and news magazine told us about his Blackness. They rubbed our noses in it. The media bosses really were gloating about it. And now, when he has become just one more Black non-commissioned officer using his position of authority to demand sex from White female soldiers placed under him by an Army establishment desperate to prove its Political Correctness, there is no mention at all of his race.
In fact, except for one slip made in Time magazine last November, the controlled media have been very careful not to talk about the racial dimensions of the Army's sexual harassment problem. The November 25, 1996, issue of Time pointed out that the reason the Army brass hadn't done anything to stop the rapes of female recruits at Aberdeen Proving Ground and other Army bases is that most of the rapists are Black drill instructors and Black officers, and most of the rapees are White recruits, and the Army brass were afraid of being charged with racism if they acted quickly to deal with the problem. But since that one revelation in Time magazine, I haven't seen a single other mention by the controlled media that the Army's sexual harassment problem is actually a race problem. They don't want us to know that.
This seems to be true of the case with Sergeant Major McKinney too. His White victim, Brenda Hoster, complained to her superiors in the Army after McKinney attacked her, but they refused to take action. McKinney was being idolized as a Black role model for White soldiers, and Brenda Hoster's superiors knew that if they did anything to damage his image they would be suspected of racism. So they did nothing.
That, unfortunately, is all too typical of the U.S. Army today. For more than fifty years the Army has been politicized, step by step. Officers with the slightest hint of Politically Incorrect views or with any old-fashioned military values have been weeded out. Unprincipled careerists, willing to pay lip service to the party line, have been promoted. Today the officers' corps of the United States Army consists of politicians in uniform: trendy, rootless, without honor -- as ready to move against Politically Incorrect elements of their own people as against a foreign enemy.
This is the sort of development I foresaw more than 20 years ago, when I wrote The Turner Diaries. In my novel I predicted it, but I am truly sorry to see that it has come to pass.
At that point the media bosses would have been well advised to drop O.J. and give him no more public exposure than they give to any of the thousands of other Black murderers who get caught in this country every year. But they were fascinated by their boy O.J., and so, with the eager collaboration of Judge Lance Ito, they gave us a media spectacle which has done more to wake up White Americans and set back the media's program of racial destruction than anything else in years. That was a big mistake on their part.
When the civil trial finally brought in a guilty verdict recently, there was much foolish talk about how the new verdict shows that our system of justice works after all. What nonsense! Our justice system is broken, and it can't be fixed -- short of a revolution -- and everyone with half a brain understands that. To pretend otherwise is nothing but hypocrisy and unwillingness to face the more unpleasant realities of life in multiracial America. All of the talk about how the burden of proof is different in a civil trial than it is in a criminal trial and that's why he got through the first trial safely but lost the second one is just so much hot air. The only reason there was a different verdict in the civil trial than in the criminal trial is that the civil jury wasn't Black. If the civil jury had had the same racial makeup as the criminal jury, O.J. would have won the civil trial too. That's a fact, and it's utter foolishness to pretend it isn't.
The lesson for us in all of this is, don't get involved in any sort of dispute with a Black in an area where if you end up being tried for defending yourself you'll have a Black majority on the jury.
The corruption of our court system, of our legal system, is one of the most unfortunate things which has happened to America. Before the system was corrupted by "diversity" -- that is, by Blacks being on juries and being unwilling to rule against one of their own -- it was corrupted by money. The amount of justice a man got depended on how much justice he could afford to buy. Rich people were happy with the system because they could manipulate it to their advantage. Perhaps the two O.J. trials have been a good thing for us in more than one way. Perhaps they have awakened rich White people to the fact that their money is no longer enough to keep them safe, whenever there is a racial factor involved.
The whole O.J. saga reminded me of a novel I read more than ten years ago. It was Tom Wolfe's Bonfire of the Vanities. It's a story about what the court system in New York City does to a rich White man who has a racial encounter. Very illuminating. If you haven't read it yet you can order a copy from National Vanguard Books.
In America, unfortunately, we have developed a spectator mentality. We like to watch what's happening around us, but we don't like to participate. We don't like to get involved. That's why I hate spectator sports and have a great contempt for sports fans. Sitting on your couch and watching other people do things isn't healthy, either individually, for you, or collectively, for the country. America is in the mess it's in today because we just sat back and watched it happen. We didn't do anything to stop it. We just let the wreckers have their way, without doing so much as giving them a bloody nose.
I don't like to say this, but I feel obliged to say it: If you just continue to do nothing, you are betraying your country and your people. You are a selfish coward. You are a traitor to your children and your grandchildren. You are shirking your responsibility to them. You know what the media bosses and the politicians have planned for them. You are a disgrace to your country and your ancestors.
Think about that. And if you are a real man or a real woman and not just a spectator, write and ask for information on the National Alliance. Together we can do something. Together we can make a difference. Together we can stop the people who are destroying our country and destroying our children's future.
Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page