Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page
Why this enormous hatred for Timothy? They say it is because he killed 168 people. I say it is because he refuses to say that he is sorry: he refuses to whine and make excuses and beg for his life, like they would have done. I say that it is because he did what he did for an impersonal reason, for an ideal, and ideals make them uncomfortable. I say that it is because he has acted as a man of principle should act and is willing to face the consequences for his actions, and that really goes against the grain in this age of democracy and hypocrisy and feminism and endless talk, with people never meaning what they say.
Someone like Bill Clinton, who orders the bombing of Belgrade and kills thousands of civilians in order to divert attention from his domestic problems, is forgiven immediately by the media bloodhounds because Bill Clinton is not a man of principle. Bill Clinton is not a threat to the rotten system that feeds the bloodhounds. They can understand and empathize with a mass murderer like Bill Clinton, but not with a soldier like Timothy McVeigh.
If the media people really believed that everyone who kills lots of other people is "evil" or a "monster," they should have had a field day when Ariel Sharon became the head Jew in Israel recently. Sharon is the Jew who, as Israeli defense minister, set up and supervised the massacre of some 3,000 Palestinian civilians -- mostly women, children, and old men -- in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in 1982. Has any journalist, the editorial writer for any major newspaper or magazine, had anything at all to say about that recently?
You know, I'm not trying to justify the killing of civilians. I'm just trying to explore the fundamental crookedness of the mass media in dealing with the subject of killing. Here's another example: the current media hullabaloo about the killing of 20 or so Vietnamese civilians in 1969 by a Navy SEAL team commanded by Lieutenant Robert Kerrey, who later was governor of Nebraska, then a U.S. Senator, and then a presidential candidate in 1992.
In 1969 a Vietnamese family had their throats cut to keep them from raising an alarm during Kerrey's raid in the Mekong Delta, and then 15 or 20 other civilians were shot. The raid had failed to achieve its purpose of assassinating a Viet Cong official, but Kerrey received a Bronze Star anyway. Now, amid a dispute about whether the Vietnamese civilians who were killed had simply been in the way during a fire fight or Kerrey had ordered them to be rounded up and shot, there is a great deal of hand-wringing and soul-searching going on. The media really have made a circus out of the affair. One could almost believe that the folks in the media are horrified by the killing of civilians. But really, they aren't.
When it serves their propaganda purposes they will act like humanitarians and make a big fuss about killing civilians. They will act as if they believe it to be a terribly reprehensible thing for which the perpetrators should be punished. They went through that act all during the Vietnam War. Their attitude was that White Americans were baby-killers wreaking havoc among little Brown people in Vietnam for no good reason. The media certainly sympathized with the demonstrators who carried Viet Cong flags in Washington during the time that the Viet Cong were killing American servicemen in Vietnam at the rate of 100 a day.
And now they are making a big fuss about whether Kerrey and his fellow SEALs deliberately killed those 20 or so Vietnamese civilians 32 years ago or not, just as they are implying that Timothy McVeigh also is a monster who deliberately murdered the children in the day-care center in the Oklahoma City Federal Building. But, as I already said, no one in the controlled media has condemned Clinton for ordering the bombing of Belgrade or for the strafing of refugee columns in Kosovo.
Speaking of strafing, at the end of the Second World War U.S. fighter pilots considered it a great sport to shoot civilians along the roads and highways of Germany. Whether it was a refugee column fleeing the invading Red Army or simply a German farm wife and her children walking along a country road, American pilots would shoot them. It was considered a sport. Everybody knew about it, but no one ever was prosecuted as a war criminal because of it. The media never expressed disapproval -- and in fact, it was because the media tacitly approved of such atrocities and implicitly encouraged them with their anti-German hate propaganda that pilots felt it was acceptable behavior. Quite a difference from the party line taken by the media in the Vietnam War!
Did American pilots ever do any soul-searching or hand-wringing about these casual acts of murder, the way Robert Kerrey is now about his 1969 raid on a Mekong Delta village? If so, I haven't heard about it. What about the far more murderous carpet-bombing of German cities during the war? These bombing raids were designed to kill as many German civilians as possible. Since the war I have spoken with two or three American bomber pilots who told me that they realize now that they were fighting on the wrong side during the war, and they bitterly regret having participated in the mass murder of Germans for the benefit of the Jews.
I am sure that most American bomber pilots never have felt a twinge of guilt for what they did during the war, however, because most of them were lemmings. Lemmings do not have an internal compass to tell them what is right and wrong. As long as the media tell them that they did the right thing in bombing German cities, they feel no guilt. It is the ambiguous attitude of the media toward the Vietnam War that causes all of the anguish Robert Kerrey feels about his actions in 1969.
There are many people who would excuse both the American pilots who carpet-bombed German cities and strafed German refugee columns and American soldiers such as Kerrey who killed Vietnamese civilians, simply because all of these things were acts of war, and in a war anything is permitted. Murdered civilians are simply "collateral damage." Certainly most of the controlled mass media would go along with that view so far as the murder of German civilians is concerned, and as I said, their view of the Vietnam War is at least ambiguous.
What about Timothy McVeigh? No one can argue seriously that he bombed the Federal building in Oklahoma City because he wanted to kill or terrorize civilians. Neither terrorism nor killing civilians was his goal. He bombed the Federal building to punish the Federal government for its murderous behavior in burning the Branch Davidian church in Waco, Texas, two years earlier. He wanted to send the government a message that its behavior would not be tolerated. And part of that message would be the killing of the government's secret police agents -- FBI and ATF agents -- who worked in the building. The fact that his bomb would kill not only secret police agents but also civilians, including the 19 children in the day-care center, was regrettable but unavoidable: collateral damage. Timothy was at war against the government, and in a war civilians are killed even when they are not deliberate targets, as they were in America's war against Germany. But of course, none of America's controlled media accept that view of the matter. Timothy is "evil"; Timothy is a "monster." The American pilots who strafed German refugee columns were just soldiers doing their job.
Is this one-sided view of things based on naivete? It's certainly not based on patriotism. The media proved during the Vietnam War that they have no pro-American bias based on patriotism. And it's not based on naivete either. It's based on a conscious and deliberate intent to deceive.
I'll give you an example. Four years ago, in my broadcast of May 24, 1997, I told you about a terrible atrocity which occurred in Italy toward the end of the Second World War. In May 1944 Allied forces bombed and shelled the sixth-century abbey of Monte Cassino to rubble, forcing the German defenders there to withdraw. Among the Allied troops was a division of Moroccan soldiers. Even then the Allies wanted to have "diversity" among their forces in order to show the world that they believed in racial equality.
Well, the Moroccans weren't much as fighters, but they were pretty good at cutting the throats of prisoners after the fighting was over. And they also excelled at raping civilians -- and prisoners too, occasionally, buggery being an established tradition among them. The night after the Germans had withdrawn, the Moroccans -- 12,000 of them -- left their camp and swarmed over the mountain villages around Monte Cassino. They raped every village woman and girl they could get their hands on, an estimated 3,000 women, ranging in age from 11 years to 86 years old. They murdered 800 village men who tried to protect their women. They abused some of the women so badly that more than 100 of them died. They selected the prettiest girls for gang-raping, with long lines of dark-skinned Moroccans waiting their turn in front of each one, while other Moroccans held the victims down. And they raped some of the young men as well.
Now, is this the sort of thing that our controlled media regard as "collateral damage," which must be accepted as inevitable in time of war? No, the media bosses understood that not even the brainwashed American public would be happy with that explanation, so they simply suppressed the news, just as they suppressed the news of the massacre of Whites by Blacks in Wichita, Kansas, last December. Look in the standard chronologies of the Second World War, and you will find no mention of the rape of the women of Monte Cassino. Even the accounts prepared by the U.S. War Department -- accounts which detail the battle for Monte Cassino -- have excised any reference to what the Moroccan soldiers did to the villagers there after the battle. Now, that's not naivete; that's crookedness. That's deliberate intent to deceive.
Here's another example, which I've also talked about in earlier broadcasts: that's the mass murder of the Polish military, professional, and intellectual elite by the Soviet secret police in April 1940: some 25,000 Polish leaders altogether, the cream of the Polish nation. The Soviet secret police had rounded up the Polish writers and professors and military officers immediately after the Soviet invasion of Poland in September 1939. All of these Polish leaders, seen by the communists as a potential threat to the Soviet rule of Poland, were transported to Russia and herded into concentration camps. Then a few months later they were taken to execution pits, methodically murdered, and covered up in mass graves.
Almost immediately rumors of this enormous atrocity reached the West, when the prisoners no longer answered mail from their relatives. The controlled media in the West suppressed the rumors. The relatives of the media bosses were riding high as communist commissars in the Soviet Union, and the Poles were the traditional enemies of the Jews. The media bosses didn't care what happened to the Polish leaders, and they didn't want to say anything bad about their brethren in the Soviet Union.
Then, in June 1941, the German Army invaded Russia, determined to stamp out communism and end the Soviet-Jewish threat to Europe. Two years later, in 1943, after pushing deep into Russia, the Germans stumbled across a series of mass graves near the Russian village of Katyn. They found the corpses of more than 4,000 of the 25,000 Polish leaders who had been arrested by the Soviet secret police in 1939 and had not been heard from since April 1940. The Germans called in the International Red Cross and forensic experts from several neutral nations and also brought in British, French, and Polish officers from German POW camps to view the evidence. And that evidence was overwhelming. The communists had deliberately murdered the leadership stratum of the Polish nation in order to make the Poles easier to rule. The observers reported back to their own countries what they had seen -- and the media not only suppressed the reports but blamed the genocide on the Germans instead of on the communists and Jews.
So what's the point of all this? Do I expect the controlled mass media to change their ways? Am I advocating that they treat all atrocities in an evenhanded way? Do I expect them to regard Timothy McVeigh as a prisoner of war rather than as a monster and a terrorist?
No, of course not. The people who control the mass media are behaving in a perfectly sensible way. Evenhandedness is a ridiculous concept to them. In their view, an atrocity is something your enemies do. Whatever the people on your side do is justifiable. During the Second World War the Germans were their enemies, and the Americans were on their side, and so whatever the Americans did to the Germans was justifiable or, at worst, "collateral damage." Whenever the Germans played rough, however, it was an atrocity, a war crime.
The media bosses realized, of course, that many Americans would not accept such a simplistic view, and so they suppressed news of atrocities committed by their allies -- by the Moroccans and by the Red Army, for example -- and they exaggerated any rough tactics by the Germans, even inventing atrocities where none had been committed.
During the Vietnam War, a generation after they had beaten the Germans, the media bosses had as their primary motive the final destruction of the old America, the Gentile America, with its traditions and morals and exclusiveness. They needed to destroy America's self-confidence, confuse its sense of identity, break down its remaining resistance to domination by the media masters. So they treated the Vietnam War with ambiguity. The Americans no longer were the "good guys," as they had been portrayed during the Second World War. Any killing of Vietnamese civilians by Americans was not treated as "collateral damage," but as a war crime.
And now, with the government totally under their control, anyone who is against the government is their enemy. So far as the media bosses are concerned, the government can burn as many Branch Davidian churches as it wants. That's just "collateral damage" in the government's campaign to keep the population intimidated. And anyone who strikes back at the government is a "monster," a "terrorist."
As I said, all of that is perfectly sensible. They know who they are and where their interests lie. They understand the stakes in this struggle for mastery of the planet. They understand that we are engaged in a total war, and they are determined to win. They are rational people. They do whatever is advantageous for them.
I believe that it's about time for us to understand where our interests lie. We need not only to understand the facts -- to understand who did what to whom and why -- but we also need to get rid of the foolish attitude that all atrocities are equally deplorable. When we regain control of our mass media, we should not have to suppress any news or ignore any facts. If our people kill some of our enemies, we should be able to discuss it frankly. We may or may not approve of it, depending upon whether it serves the interests of our people or is an unnecessarily bloodthirsty act of indiscipline. But we should not treat it as morally equivalent to our enemies killing us.
The doctrine of moral equivalence is suicidal folly promoted by our enemies. Every day I encounter White people infected with this doctrine. "Why are you opposed to Mexicans coming into our country? We came from Europe and took their land away from them, and now they're taking it back. What's wrong with that?"
Well, there's not much to be done with idiots who can't figure out what's wrong with that. But the rest of us need to get our thinking straightened out. We need to understand that we are at war, and that we must win the war. We must never again permit ourselves to be tricked into committing atrocities against ourselves, as we did during the Second World War. We must never again permit ourselves to be manipulated into feeling guilty for what we do against our enemies, as the media have manipulated those who, like Robert Kerrey, killed Vietnamese.
And, incidentally, we should understand that however tactically wrong the bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma City may have been, and however regrettable the killing of innocent civilians in that bombing, Timothy McVeigh is no monster. He is a soldier, and what he did was based on principle. He justified his actions on the same basis that soldiers always do: he was at war against a government that is at war against his people.
I know that most Americans prefer not to think about that. Most Americans don't want to choose sides in this war. Most just want to pretend that there is no war and get on with their lives, and it's easier to follow the lead of the media and regard Timothy McVeigh as a monster than as a soldier. But there is a war, and in this war the rule is: Whatever is good for our people is good, and whatever harms our people is evil. That is the morality of survival.
It is too bad about the innocent civilians who died in Oklahoma City. It is too bad about the Polish intellectuals and officers who were murdered by the Soviet secret police. It is too bad about the German civilians who were carpet-bombed by American fliers. It is too bad about the many, many more innocent civilians who will die in the years ahead. It all could have been avoided if we had gotten our thinking straightened out earlier.
Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page