Who is most important?




Hello, and welcome to this week's broadcast of American Dissident Voices. I'm National Alliance Chairman Erich Gliebe.

For all of the media hoopla surrounding the death of Anna Nicole Smith, I wouldn't be surprised if you've missed a significant bit of information regarding the Iraq War that was made available to the public this past week. That significant bit of information involves the former Under Secretary of Defense, the Jew Douglas Feith, who was investigated for his activities between the attacks of 9/11 and a report that was issued from his office in 2002.

Feith is under criticism for his report because, firstly, it is alleged that the report was a determining factor in President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq and, secondly, the report was far from factual. In fact, Feith's report contains some outright lies and was in many ways at odds with the consensus of the larger intelligence community. Those weaknesses, however, didn't stop George W. Bush from lending weight to Feith's lies and sending off thousands of American citizens to die in the sands of Iraq so as to make Israel a safer place for Jews.

Basically, what Feith did was take a few pieces of substantiated information and make up other parts according to his personal values and those of his superiors. Not surprisingly -- at least from a racialist point of view -- the parts the Jew Feith made up dealt with linking Al-Qaeda with Saddam Hussein, the very things that every Jew at the time of 9/11 wanted linked, in hopes that the American cattle herd would stampede over Iraq and leave Israel as the only strong nation in the Middle East. The alleged link between the now-departed Hussein and Al-Qaeda, of course, has long since to have been shown as a complete fabrication.

For his part, the Jew Feith has responded to inquiries from reporters by claiming that his actions were not unlawful. Well, lying about an enemy of Israel and then using those lies to work up an impressionable Chief Executive into invading a sovereign nation run by that enemy might not be unlawful, but it certainly is immoral. But I guess lawful and moral behaviors don't always coincide anymore. For example, it might be interesting to turn Feith over to an angry mob of the family members of American soldiers who have been killed in Iraq; they might do something unlawful but, on the other hand, it might be the moral thing to do.

Well, anyway, Feith continued to shoot his mouth off recently by saying that his activities were -- quote "...appropriate, given that they were responding to direction from the Deputy Secretary of Defense" -- unquote. The Deputy Secretary of Defense, of course, was another war-hawk Jew -- Paul Wolfowitz -- who used his position and influence to push George W. Bush onto the world stage, where he would make every conceivable wrong decision and establish himself as the first great political bonehead of the 21st Century.

But President Bush is not just a political bonehead who continues to look more foolish by the month -- with his tired "stay the course against terrorism" stance -- he is also ultimately responsible for the chaos and civil war that IS Iraq today. Couple these debits against his account with the thousands and thousands of lives lost -- both American and Iraqi -- and some people might say he is not just responsible, he is CRIMINALLY responsible...or criminally irresponsible, take your pick.

After all, it's true that a bunch of scheming Jews like Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz made up all kinds of lies about Saddam -- links to Al-Qaeda, weapons of mass destruction, nuclear programs, and so on -- but it's equally true that, firstly, Bush surrounded himself with Jews and, secondly, he listened to them and followed their advice. I mean, everyone admits that Feith's report -- which "undercuts the Intelligence Community," in the words of the inspector general's report on Feith's activities -- WAS supported by senior administration officials, such as Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, and George W. Bush. In other words, the inner circle of the Bush Administration WANTED to believe the claptrap Feith made up in his report. Feith made those lies up in an effort to help out his Israeli brethren, and George Bush was quite willing to bring the derision and ridicule of the world down upon himself and the United States to help out Feith's Jewish kinsmen.

You know, when someone is as willing to do as much for others as George Bush has for American Jews and their racial kinsmen in Israel, some people would call it altruism. On the other hand, doing so much to help other nations while, at the same time, doing so much to damage your own people could also be called treason.

History has shown that any White man who really wants to do the right thing for his people and his country should de-Jewify his house because Jews always act on behalf of themselves and each other, no matter what they might tell you to your face. It is unfortunate for President Bush that he didn't realize this when he first entered the White House; it might have saved him from a lot of embarrassment over the last six years.

So Douglas Feith's 2002 report alleged that Iraq and Al-Qaeda had a strong relationship, which the American Jewish media immediately interpreted as meaning that Saddam Hussein was partly responsible for the 9/11 Al-Qaeda attacks. If he didn't help with the planning, we were told, he certainly helped train or finance the hijackers. That anti-Saddam media blitz was enough to whip the too-trusting American public into a war frenzy, which Bush took to mean that it would be safe to agree to the demands of his Jewish advisors, to the effect that Hussein needed to be taken down, since he was a kingpin of "terrorism." Boy, the Jews must have laughed uproariously among themselves when Bush swallowed that lie hook, line, and sinker. Not only that, but Bush failed to see the true purpose of the Jewish scheming, which was to take out an enemy of Israel.

Perhaps he should have tuned into American Dissident Voices broadcasts in the months following 9/11. The late Dr. William Pierce was doing the broadcasts at that time, and I never knew Dr. Pierce to pull punches about anything. Had Bush tuned in, he might have had a clearer view of what was going on and where things were headed. But probably the men who set up the computers Bush has access to have made sure that the firewall blocks any decent source of information, like www.natvan.com. And it's idle to speculate on the past anyway, especially with most officeholders, who seem to make it a point to go out of their way to make bad decisions.

In stark contrast to Feith's reporting that Saddam and Al-Qaeda were comrades of evil, CIA intelligence at the time suggested only that there was an "evolving association" between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, based on sources of "varying reliability." In other words, the CIA hadn't found anything of any substance that tied Saddam to Al-Qaeda or the hijackers of 9/11, and to this day, nothing of substance has been found. The absence of such evidence didn't stop Feith from making things up to achieve his purposes; the inspector general's report found that Feith did -- quote -- "draw conclusions that were not fully supported by the available intelligence" -- unquote. In my decades-long observing of Jews and their tendencies, it seems to me that -- as a rule -- total lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary doesn't always enter into the equation when Jews make a boldfaced claim about pretty much anything.

It all boils down to something that we in the National Alliance have been saying for decades: the Jews wield a disproportionate amount of clout in our government, and they use that clout to get their way. It wasn't in the best interests of the United States to invade Iraq and destroy Saddam Hussein. Certainly, Saddam was no ally of Al-Qaeda and had no designs to take over the Western world. Other than him being an authoritarian and ruthless ruler (necessary traits for the ruling of Iraq, I might add) the only really bad thing that the Jews could say about Saddam is that he was an enemy of Israel and a supporter of the Palestinian cause, which ironically are just about the only two points that Saddam had in his favor, from a racialist point of view. But, of course, those were enough to put Saddam on the Jews' hit list and for them to push the U.S. into a war-without-end in Iraq.

George Bush should have known better than to send U.S. troops into Iraq with the twin goals of ousting Saddam Hussein and turning Iraq into a stable democracy. Anyone with half a brain could have predicted that the former goal was going to be a relatively easy one to achieve. Compared to the U.S. forces, Iraq had almost nothing in the way of military power. Even if Saddam had had all of those "weapons of mass destruction" (which Bush knew all along he didn't have), it was really no contest. If Bush wanted to take out Saddam, that was going to be a fairly easy task. And that's all the Jews wanted, anyway.

But half a brain -- half a CLEAR brain, that is -- would have been more than enough to see that the job of creating a stable democracy in Iraq was as impossible as taking down Saddam was simple. Bush didn't have a clear brain, though; he allowed himself to be carried away by the whispers of conquest and glory that the corrupt men around Bush made sure he heard. They made sure that Bush realized what their media was doing to public opinion, and they took his hand and guided him through the decision to invade Iraq.

And now that Israel's enemy Number One is destroyed, the Jews could care less about the "free democracy in a stable Iraq" garbage. They're letting Bush tough that one out on his own. The Jew Wolfowitz is gone; so is the Jew Feith. They've moved on to greener pastures.

So what transpired this past week about the lying Jew Douglas Feith and his persuasive report that helped lead to the U.S. invasion of the sovereign nation of Iraq is very big news. But luckily for the news media, another piece of news hit the TVs and talk shows this week...one that was just as significant (just kidding) as all of the Jewish self-serving that has been going on within our government: the death of model and celebrity Anna Nicole Smith.

The media masters must have been thrilled at the timing of Smith's death, coinciding as it did with the revealing of Feith's treachery. And they ensured that Smith's death would all but overwhelm any long-term and popular discussion on how the Jew Feith helped push America into the Iraq War.

We racialists have known for decades now that the media masters kill stories when they want to and blow up stories out of all proportion to their true importance, IF it suits their purposes. They have blown the Anna Nicole Smith story way out of proportion because, by all meaningful standards, there is no reason to dwell on her.

Smith was a hungry-for-the-limelight model who, at 26, married 89-year-old oil billionaire J. Howard Marshall, all the while claiming that she was NOT a gold digger. They never lived together, and Marshall died a little over a year later, in 1995. Since that time, Smith had been engaged in ongoing legal battles over Marshall's estate that still aren't fully resolved.

The most nauseating part of Smith's story, though, involves Smith's 5-month-old daughter whose paternity is -- to put it mildly -- in doubt. As best I've been able to determine from a few minutes of Internet surfing, it looks like young Dannielynn's daddy could be any of seven or eight men. Great stuff for gossipers everywhere, but not important for the salvation of the race. And the media masters have been pushing this non-story to the detriment of other stories that we need to hear, like the one about the so-called "leaders" in our government leading us down the garden path.

You know, it's one thing if you get yourself into trouble, but it's quite another if you lead others into trouble, too. For example, if you're in combat and walk into an enemy trap and get waxed, it's too bad for you. But if you lead your company into an ambush and should have known better, that's worse, because you put the lives of others at stake as well as your own.

Or if you get drunk and smash your vehicle into a bridge pier, you're a criminal, but you're more an idiot than a criminal. But if you're a bus driver and do the same thing with a busload full of children, everyone understands that you have no business being on the streets and, if you are, you certainly don't have any business being responsible for anything anymore.

It's in the nature of White people (and maybe in the nature of other races, too) that we have a common contempt for people who bring others down with them. If you want to screw up your own life, that's your business, but to bring your foolishness down on the rest of us...we're not too pleased about that prospect. So how do we feel about someone who deliberately sends others into harm's way WITHOUT endangering himself? How would we feel about the military officer who orders his men into a known ambush, but stays behind at HQ? How would we feel about a bus driver who, if it were possible, endangers the lives of the schoolchildren without any danger to himself?

That's how White racialists feel about people like Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, George Bush, and the other connivers and schemers up and down the American media and government over the last century. These are people who send others into harm's way with almost no danger to themselves. Feith and Wolfowitz and Bush have sent hundreds of thousands of people -- men, women, and children -- to their deaths without a second thought. They have burdened the American economy and damaged the national psyche in order to help Israel, that most selfish of nations that lies and manipulates anyone and everyone who will be taken in by their slick words and false promises.

And now it looks as though Bush and his buddies are ready to send more Americans into the danger zone, now that the Iraq War has become an unwinnable shambles. That venture is Iran, which now stands as Israel's primary opponent in the Middle East, now that Iraq has been neutralized. For a couple of weeks now, the U.S. has been accusing Iran of supplying equipment to insurgents in Iraq. We've also been hearing of Iran's intransigence about toning-down its nuclear program. The purpose of this negative media attention, as I see it, is to scare the American public and to build a case against Iran to justify a U.S. invasion, because Israel doesn't want a strong and nuclear Iran trying to throw its weight around in the Middle East.

Be skeptical about these claims against Iran. The people now speaking against Iran are cut from the same cloth as those who gave us all of those lies about Saddam Hussein and Iraq. No doubt you've heard the age-old tale about the boy who cried wolf? How are we to know that there REALLY IS a wolf this time?

We in the National Alliance predicted this would happen. In the Fall 2004 issue of the National Alliance's Resistance magazine, which I edit, we included a news item regarding the nuclear tiff that the Jewish-led U.S. was at that time having with the independent-minded Iran. Way back then -- more than 2 ½ years ago -- we warned that, if things didn't change, Iran was going to be the next victim in the Jewish storm of destruction that recently took down Saddam and Iraq.

That storm is building now, and it's being built by men like the Jew Douglas Feith, whose lies served to feed the storm of Jewish hate that annihilated Iraq. Join forces with the National Alliance and let's build an opposing storm that will snuff out the Jewish one... and then provide the energy to straighten out the rest of this mess our race is in.

I'm Erich Gliebe, and thanks for being with me again today.