"I have been reading your amazing blog and listening to some of your podcasts with Carolyn. Not sure how I haven't run across your work before. Amazing stuff." (reader's comment, 10 May 2016)
Come chat with us! Download and install an IRC-client -- Hexchat is recommended -- and go to the channel #National-Socialism on the Undernet server.

31 October 2016

It was not George W. Bush, and it was not Dick Cheney: it was Zionist Jews who wanted the invasion of Iraq

The question of who wanted the invasion of Iraq continues to be highly relevant because, among other reasons, it is the same "Neoconservative" Jews who absolutely prefer Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump and thus form the core of the "Never Trump" movement, because Hillary Clinton will go along with their war-agenda (having already done so as Secretary of State, with the deplorable overthrow of Muammar Qadhafi and intended overthrow of Bashar al-Assad) whereas Trump talks about negotiating and putting American interests first, and also wants peaceful relations with Russia.

Beyond that, it is simply not possible to have a realistic grasp of U.S. politics while neglecting -- as is the usual custom -- the role of Jews and Jewish interests.
Ugly Zionist & Key Warmonger Paul Wolfowitz

Review of PBS Frontline’s The War Behind Closed Doors
Hadding Scott
Originally Published on The Occidental Observer,
8 November 2015

While I was in the midst of trying to publicize the Jewish origin and the folly of invading Iraq in early 2003 as an occasional writer of scripts for American Dissident Voices, PBS Frontline presented a rather helpful documentary called The War Behind Closed Doors, written by Michael Kirk, and coproduced by Michael Kirk and Jim Gilmore.

The introduction to The War Behind Closed Doors is quite promising, with Frontline’s narrator stating: “Over two decades, they had served three presidents, and argued for one big idea, that the United States must project its power and influence throughout the world. This is the story of how they set out to change American foreign policy in the days immediately after the tragedy of September 11th.” Then, to be more specific about what that means, the intro includes a clip of former CIA analyst Kenneth Pollack saying: “And it does seem very clear that this group seized upon the events of September 11th to resurrect their policy of trying to go after Saddam Hussein and a regime-change in Iraq.” This was a documentary that would clarify who was responsible for the drive for war against Iraq: Neoconservatives — which meant that that the war was not fundamentally about oil.

The documentary describes the path to invasion of Iraq (which seemed imminent but had not yet occurred when the program aired on 20 February 2003) as a struggle between Neoconservatives (also calling themselves “Neo-Reaganites” or “hawks”) led by Paul Wolfowitz, and “pragmatists” or “realists” ostensibly led by Colin Powell. The Neoconservative position was that Saddam Hussein’s government must be destroyed, while the pragmatists, without disputing the Neoconservatives’ provocative claims about Saddam Hussein, advocated containment as the appropriate response.

Brent Scowcroft (a pragmatist who had been an advisor to George H.W. Bush) is shown explaining to an interviewer that George H.W. Bush had deliberately left Saddam Hussein in power in 1991, contrary to what the Neoconservatives had wanted, because it was desirable to preserve a balance of power between Iraq and Iran, and because overthrowing Saddam Hussein might lead to various negative consequences.

The interviewer, and some other Jewish commentators in the documentary — Kenneth Pollack and Richard Perle — speak as if the goal of the 1991 war had been to remove Saddam Hussein from power, but Scowcroft is adamant that it was not.

LOWELL BERGMAN: I thought we had two interests. One was to evict the Iraqi army from Kuwait, but the other really was to get Saddam out—
LOWELL BERGMAN: — of power.
BRENT SCOWCROFT: No, it wasn’t.
LOWELL BERGMAN: Well, either covertly or overtly.
BRENT SCOWCROFT: No. No, it wasn’t. That was never — you can’t find that anywhere as an objective, either in the U.N. mandate for what we did or in our declarations, that our goal was to get rid of Saddam Hussein. [PBS Frontline transcript]

The widespread belief that the goal of the 1991 war had been to eliminate Saddam Hussein was supported by the hyperbolic propaganda that had been used. The comparisons of Saddam Hussein to Adolf Hitler started in the mass-media. In late 1990 President Bush joined the trend by comparing Saddam Hussein (unfavorably) to Hitler, because of the supposed brutality of the Iraqi troops in Kuwait (AP, 2 November 1990). There was a tendency to see everything in terms of this Hitler comparison, from “He gassed his own people!” to supposedly unprovoked invasions of neighboring states. Given that President George H.W. Bush had engaged in and never repudiated that kind of crazed propaganda, the first Bush Administration would necessarily be seen as having failed to fulfill a moral imperative when, ultimately, they did the practical thing by leaving Saddam Hussein in power.

In fact, George H. W. Bush did call for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and then refrained from supporting such an effort, as the Neocons have charged. This can be seen either as disingenuous war-rhetoric or as vacillation between the influences of the pragmatists (Scowcroft) and the Neoconservatives (Wolfowitz), or as a combination of the two.

Immediately after the 1991 war, Paul Wolfowitz (as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy) authored a set of military guidelines that would justify preventive war — in other words, war against a state that had not attacked and was not threatening to attack, but might attack someday if not attacked first.

Recall that in 1981 the State of Israel had been condemned by the UN Security Council for “preventive war” in its attack on the Osirak nuclear reactor, with the Reagan Administration's ambassador to the United Nations, Jeane Kirkpatrick, also voting to condemn. The President of the Security Council, Porfirio Muñoz Ledo, explained:

The reasons on which the Government of Israel bases its contention are as unacceptable as the act of aggression it committed. It is inadmissible to invoke the right to self-defense when no armed attack has taken place. The concept of preventive war, which for many years served as justification for the abuses of powerful States, since it left it to their discretion to define what constituted a threat to them, was definitively abolished by the Charter of the United Nations.[Security Council Official Records, S/PV.2288 19 June 1981]

Wolfowitz was now advocating that the government of the United States adopt the uninhibited belligerence of the State of Israel, using military strikes to maintain hegemony against merely suspected (or perhaps imagined) threats.

Information about the Wolfowitz Doctrine was leaked to the news media by people within the administration who opposed it, and it became a source of embarrassment. Dick Cheney was ordered to rewrite Wolfowitz’s guidelines in a way that eliminated the option of unilateral preventive war.

Neoconservative William Kristol however commends the Wolfowitz Doctrine, declaring that Wolfowitz was “ahead of his time.” The narrator explains: “One day there would be a more receptive president, and another opportunity.”

That more receptive president was not Bill Clinton.

The narrator implies that George W. Bush was chosen as the likely successor to Bill Clinton as early as 1998, and that a group of “foreign-policy wisemen” including Wolfowitz on one hand and Colin Powell on the other, attempted to groom him for that position.

This period, when the struggle for the mind of George W. Bush occurred, shows most clearly that invading Iraq was not the idea of George W. Bush. William Kristol states that Bush was not immediately supportive of the Neoconservatives’ aggressive foreign policy: “I wouldn’t say that if you read Wolfowitz’s defense policy guidelines from 1992 and read most of Bush’s campaign speeches and his statements in the debates, you would say, ‘Hey, Bush has really adopted Wolfowitz’s worldview.’”

Thus the pragmatists initially prevailed over the Neoconservatives, so that George W. Bush, in the period before the election, was advocating a reduced role for American military forces in the world. The narrator says that Bush’s foreign policy during the first few months of his administration was “stalled between the two competing forces” — stalled between the Neocons and the pragmatists.

Kristol indicates that this continued until the 9-11 attacks: “I think you could make a case that on September 10th, 2001, that it’s not clear that George W. Bush was in any fundamental way going in our direction on foreign policy.”

A pivotal moment, following the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, came when Bush delivered a speech that evening that included the line: “We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.”

The War Behind Closed Doors treats this as a highly important utterance. Obviously it is important, since rumors that some government harbors or supports terrorists are easy to generate, and were in fact generated. The narrator says: “The hawks welcomed the president’s phrase, ‘those who harbor’ terrorism.” Richard Perle is quoted praising the speech.

David Frum, Bush’s Canadian-born Jewish speechwriter, also praises the speech:

Within 48 hours, he had made the two key decisions that have defined the war on terror. First, this is a war, not a crime. And second, this war is not going to be limited to just the authors of the 9/11 attack but to anyone who assisted them and helped them and made their work possible, including states. And that is a dramatic, dramatic event. And that defines everything.

What Frontline fails to mention is that it was Frum who insisted on that crucial line in Bush’s speech. One week before PBS Frontline aired its documentary, The Nation magazine had already revealed that detail:

It was not, alas, “a war speech.” It did, though, contain the line about making “no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.” And Frum cannot resist informing us he had been the one to insert that thought into every draft of the speech. [David Corn, “Who’s in Charge?” The Nation, 13 February 2003]

This casts a very interesting light on another comment from Frum about the speech: “When he laid down those principles, I don’t know whether he foresaw all of their implications, how far they would take him. I don’t know if he understood fully and foresaw fully the true radicalism of what he had just said.”

Who was really making the big decisions for which Frum liked to give Bush so much credit? Frum had put words into Bush’s mouth and then said that he was not sure that Bush had understood the implications. The picture that we get, by adding just a bit of information that Frontline had omitted, is that George W. Bush was pushed into belligerent posturing by his Jewish advisors.

The pragmatists continued to push the idea of going after terrorists rather than governments; Powell for example spoke of “persuading” governments that might be harboring terrorists. But the fact that the President had already talked about going after governments had created an expectation that was difficult to oppose.

Meanwhile the false notion that Iraq was unfinished business was revived. (Obviously such an evil man must be doing evil things.) The notion that Iraq was somehow a “state sponsor of terrorism” (having been taken off the list of state sponsors of terrorism by the Reagan Administration in 1982, but reinstated amid the war-propaganda of 1990) was bandied about.

Dick Cheney is a favorite target for leftist critics of the War on Terror, and for the John Birch Society, who want a scapegoat that allows them to avoid saying anything critical of Jews. Very often, Cheney is represented as a key “Neocon.” In fact Cheney had worked with the Neoconservatives at various times since the days of “Team B” during the Ford Administration. But William Kristol described Cheney’s position at the beginning of George W. Bush’s presidency thus: “Cheney is a complicated figure and, obviously, a very cautious and reticent figure, so hard to know what he thinks in his heart of hearts. I think he had feet in both camps, so to speak.” In other words, Cheney was not initially committed to the Neoconservative position on Iraq.

George W. Bush adopted the doctrine of preventive war that had been advocated by “the brains” of the Neoconservative outfit, Paul Wolfowitz. From this, given 15 years of demonization-propaganda against Saddam Hussein and a little nudging from Jews like David Frum who were positioned to influence George W. Bush, the invasion of Iraq followed.

At the time when The War Behind Closed Doors aired, the Neoconservatives were getting their way and enjoying practically unanimous support for their project, and perhaps it was overconfidence that motivated William Kristol to claim for his Neoconservative movement such unequivocal responsibility for the imminent war. There was always obfuscation about who had agitated for war, with many habitually blaming the oil industry or other economic interests, because such explanations fit their leftist theory about how the world works. It was extremely useful that PBS Frontline documented that it was in fact Neoconservatives who spent more than a decade agitating for that war, and also, if it did not explain exactly who these Neoconservatives were, at least gave some indications about who they were not.

There are however some negative aspects to The War Behind Closed Doors, the worst of them being the propaganda spouted by Jewish television-host Ted Koppel’s Jewish son-in- law, Kenneth Pollack, who also happened to be a former CIA analyst, a sometime member of the National Security Council and various think-tanks, and author of a pro-war book, The Threatening Storm, that was especially influential with Democrats (since Pollack had served in the Clinton administration). Although supposedly giving an expert outsider’s perspective on the Neoconservatives’ agitation for war, and seeming to criticize the Neoconservatives in some ways, the most important part of what Pollack said really supported the Neoconservatives’ project.

I suspected that Pollack was Jewish when I first saw the program in 2003 because of the general thrust of what he was saying, but it is now confirmed. (Pollack was also indicted for spying on behalf of Israel, but the indictment was dropped under less than convincing circumstances.)

In the section of PBS Frontline’s The War Behind Closed Doors about Bill Clinton, Pollack promotes the idea that Saddam Hussein really was developing WMDs behind the backs of the UN’s weapons-inspectors, and tries to portray the clashes in the 1990s between Iraqi officials and the UN’s inspectors as the expression of some kind of psychological strategy on Saddam Hussein’s part for undermining “containment.” Frontline should have pointed out that there was no direct evidence for any ongoing WMD-program. It was all speculation, based, as Pollack says, on the fact that the Iraqis gave the inspectors trouble. But the friction between inspectors and Iraqi authorities was easily explained with the fact that the inspection-team, infiltrated by agents of the CIA, appeared to have been used to try to orchestrate a coup:

But one of the problems is, is that you have a situation, in June of 1996, where the United States is fomenting a coup against Saddam Hussein, a coup based upon Special Republican Guard units. At the same time, you have an UNSCOM inspection, UNSCOM 150, which is in Iraq, creating a confrontation by inspecting Special Republican Guard sites. [Scott Ritter, PBS Frontline: Spying on Saddam, 27 April 1999]

These known facts should have been brought to bear on Pollack’s statements.
The Newsweek of 24 February 2003, four days after this documentary aired, quoted Saddam Hussein’s son, General Hussein Kamel, as telling an interrogator in 1995: “All weapons — biological, chemical, missile, nuclear — were destroyed.” Pollack, with his positions in government as a supposed expert on Iraq, should have known about this.

It is the major fault of The War Behind Closed Doors that it allows Pollack’s claims in support of the WMD accusation to go undisputed. Pollack admitted after the invasion that he had been wrong: “I made a mistake based on faulty intelligence” (New York Times Magazine, 24 October 2004), but it is worse than being wrong: he was either a liar or incompetent. The failure to challenge Pollack’s statements is a crucial omission in PBS Frontline’s presentation, because the proposition that Saddam Hussein had been 100% successful in circumventing weapons-inspections was essential to the argument for war. Add the claim that weapons-inspections were not working (and probably could not work) to the premise that Saddam Hussein is “another Hitler,” and it becomes self-evident that one must go to war.

02 October 2016

White Students at State Universities should Know their Rights and Use Them

The pretense of banning hate-speech while respecting free speech is always hypocritical, since freedom of speech necessarily includes speech that offends. Consequently, any state university that tries to ban all expressions of racism is violating the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Even White Racists have Freedom of Speech 
– but only if they use it.

Hadding Scott
The Occidental Observer, 20 March 2015

A week ago there was news about the University of Oklahoma's chapter of Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity, because of a video showing members of the fraternity singing a chant that was derogatory of Blacks. This occurred off-campus, on a chartered bus. An anonymous person made a video-recording of the chant and gave it to Unheard, a Black campus organization (formed in response to the recent sensationalist propaganda about events in Ferguson, Missouri), predictably provoking a ruckus from that Black organization, since the agitation over events in Ferguson and the consequent Black yearning for vengeance have yet to subside. That Black organization happens to be favored by the university's president, former U.S. Senator David L. Boren, whose legislative record includes initiatives unfavorable to White people.

Early reporting indicated that Boren was not certain that students involved in the racist chant could legally be expelled from the university, but advisors were suggesting that it might be possible under the Civil Rights Act. Boren did announce on 10 March the expulsion of Levi Pettit and Parker Rice, the two students who led the chant, using verbiage carefully crafted to resonate with the Civil Rights Act (alleging that the two had created a "hostile educational environment"), but the general consensus seems to be that under the Constitution of the United States what Boren has done is not legal at all. Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at UCLA, wrote in an essay for the Washington Post:
First, racist speech is constitutionally protected, just as is expression of other contemptible ideas; and universities may not discipline students based on their speech. That has been the unanimous view of courts that have considered campus speech codes and other campus speech restrictions — see here for some citations. The same, of course, is true for fraternity speech, racist or otherwise; see Iota Xi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. George Mason University (4th Cir. 1993). [Washington Post, 10 March 2015]
Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a professor of law at the University of Tennessee, adds:
Though some ignorant people argue that "hate speech" is unprotected under the First Amendment, that is not the law and never has been. Nor should it be. The test of our commitment to free expression, after all, isn't our willingness to tolerate speech that everyone likes. If you only support free speech for ideas you agree with, you're a hack. If you only support free speech for ideas that everyone agrees with, you're a coward. And if poisonous hateful speech could be banned, communists and the Westboro Baptist Church wouldn't have won so many First Amendment cases.

Boren's behavior was not only illegal — and clearly so — it was also a betrayal of the duty of fairness that he, as a university president, owes to every student enrolled in his university. [USAToday, 17 March 2015]
So, where is the outraged response from the aggrieved? Where are the White protestors getting in Boren's piggish face with all the legally protected free speech that he is trying to suppress? Where is the White free-speech movement?

Moreover, why aren't the students that Boren says he expelled dragging him and the university into federal court? They are not poor. One of them is from a family that lives in a $650,000 home in the same wealthy Dallas suburb where former president George W. Bush lives.

I think that the answer to this question suggests itself if one considers the typical motive for joining a fraternity like Sigma Alpha Epsilon, and the nature of such an organization.

Students join Sigma Alpha Epsilon not for any idealistic reason, but because they want outward success and wealth. They want that social capital described by Robert Putnam that facilitates career- advancement. Bloomberg News stated a year ago that this particular fraternity was “renowned as a Wall Street pipeline,” with members including “hedge fund managers David Einhorn of Greenlight Capital and Paul Tudor Jones of Tudor Investment Corp,” and “Texas oilman-turned- investor T. Boone Pickens.”

You might notice that there are some Jewish names among SAE's prominent members. In addition to Einhorn, there is the current national president of Sigma Alpha Epsilon, Bradley Cohen. It means that however much SAE's members may enjoy expressions of anti-Black sentiment among themselves, they are not pro-White – since Jews are not White and do not care about the White race, and could be expected to block any serious pro-White tendency in the organization.

Cohen condemned the expression of anti-Black sentiment by members of Oklahoma's chapter of his organization as some “cancer” that had developed just recently. He knows better than that. In newspaper-archives, I found “racist” controversies like this, relating to various fraternities – especially Sigma Alpha Epsilon -- going back more than three decades. In fact, there was such a controversy when Cohen was the president of the SAE chapter at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, in 1987, when members of his chapter responded to a recently established federal holiday by staging an off- campus “Martin Luther Coon” party.
Dean of Students Paul Ginsberg, whose office is investigating the incident, said the university could do little to punish the students for an off-campus party. “Our role would be educational, not punitive,” he said. If such a party were held at a fraternity house, the fraternity would be suspended from campus activities, Ginsberg said. […] Cohen said he was irritated by the accusations against fraternities. He said the Greek system was becoming a scapegoat for larger issues of racism at the university. “Obviously, it bothers me very much, because it makes us look like quite a racist establishment,” Cohen said. “We don't deserve that by any means.” [The Milwaukee Journal, 7 May 1987]
Cohen's response then as now has been to practice deception, denying racism in the organization, while supporting the view that racism is disreputable. Thus, expressions of disdain for Blacks are kept as a kind of naughty little secret within the fraternity, while White members of the fraternity maintain absolute passivity, or worse, as they observe members of their race outside of the fraternity being corrupted, misled, and oppressed.

Lest anyone assume that someone with such a clearly Jewish name as Cohen couldn't possibly approve belittlement of Blacks, let it be noted that at the same university just 18 months after the “Martin Luther Coon” party, Zeta Beta Tau, a Jewish fraternity – likely friends of Cohen's – stirred controversy by holding a “slave auction” with members of the fraternity wearing blackface (Milwaukee Sentinel, 26October 1988). Jews (at least in many cases) have no special love for Blacks, but pretend that they do, and it seems that initiates to some college fraternities are taught to pretend the same way, looking out for their particular interests while being false toward the rest of the world. Just how far this kind of dissimulation can go, even among non-Jews, became evident in a case from 1991 involving a fraternity at the University of Idaho, which in some ways parallels the recent case of Sigma Alpha Epsilon at Oklahoma:
Delta Tau Delta chapter President Leonard Plaster publicly apologized for the booklet, which had explicit sexual references to several women on campus as well as references to “niggers” and “spics.” […] “We now see very clearly the problem with making these statements, even if they are not public, and they certainly do not reflect our members' attitudes.” “I'm appalled by the content, and I'm amazed by their hypocrisy,” said Bruce Pitman, dean of student advisory services.” The fraternity had recently participated in a national campaign condemning sexual harassment, racism, and human rights violations. [AP, 7 May 1991]
There is an indication that the SAE members at Oklahoma also were extreme hypocrites about race. This was stated in a rant by one of the university's football-players, Eric Striker, who complained that members of the fraternity would hug the Black football-players and pretend to love them. That Black football-player subsequently apologized under pressure, but I don't believe that he should have apologized. I also do not approve of the fratboys' dishonest double dealing. When they show false friendship to Negro football-players, it is not only those Blacks that are being deceived.

In response to the controversy over the fraternity's racist chant and David Boren's over-the- top reaction to it, someone has pointed out that one of the University's Negro football-players, Joe Mixon, who had horribly beaten his White girlfriend, smashing bones in her face, received less punishment from the university for breaking a girl's bones than the fratboys received for singing a Politically Incorrect song. Quite right. That is certainly a double standard, in terms of tolerating uncivilized behavior. But I would maintain that the fratboys are doing the greater harm – to White people – not with their racist chant but with their hypocrisy. If they really are hugging Black athletes and pretending that they love them – not only suppressing but inverting their real racial views for public consumption – then they are contributing to an atmosphere where White girls are more likely to think that dating a Negro is acceptable. These fratboys, for all their racist chanting and “Martin Luther Coon” parties among themselves, in the rest of the world are no help at all. In fact, they are part of the problem.

It's not just fratboys either. Since the 1960s, when racial equality became the dominant cant of the United States, glaring hypocrisy has become the key to success. Consequently it's the White American bourgeoisie in general that behaves this way. You can hear it for example in Sean Hannity, who has expressed emphatic approval of the expulsion of two students for singing a racist song, the Constitution be damned. This cowardly careerism is killing the White race.

So, that seems to be the explanation for what, so far, seems to be a sheeplike submission to not only anti-White but blatantly illegal actions by the president of the University of Oklahoma. 

It is really important not to let David L. Boren get away with this. One of the biggest problems that White people have is that we fail to speak up when we should, and a major reason why we do not speak up is that we are not sure just how far our rights extend. The fact that even White racists have freedom of speech must be demonstrated through action. If the cowardly well-to- do White members of Sigma Alpha Epsilon will not openly stand up for their race, nor even for their individual rights, then somebody else, somewhere, sometime, will have to do it, because freedom of speech has to be used in order to be preserved. If the two students expelled by David L. Boren seem guilty, it is only because they are acting guilty by failing to stand up for their rights. To be unjustly punished for exercising a Constitutional right on behalf of such a worthy cause as the defense of White people is not a disgrace; it is a badge of honor. If I were a student at that university, I would not be able to endure what is going on there without saying something. I would not be amusing myself by singing naughty songs in private for which I would have to act guilty if I got caught. I would be looking at ways to make a lot of noise on that campus so that White people will know that they don't have to feel intimidated.