When Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the highest-ranking American officer, was asked recently on NBC’s Meet The Press show whether the United States has a military plan for an attack on Iran, he replied simply: “We do”.
Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen (R) accompanied by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Photo / AP
General staffs are supposed to plan for even the most unlikely future contingencies. Right down to the 1930s, the US maintained and annually updated plans for the invasion of Canada – and the Canadian military made plans to pre-empt the invasion.
But what the planning process will have shown, in this case, is that there is no way for the US to win a non-nuclear war with Iran.
The US could “win” by dropping hundreds of nuclear weapons on Iran’s military bases, nuclear facilities and industrial centres (cities) and killing five to 10 million people. But short of that, nothing works.
On this we have the word of Richard Clarke, counter-terrorism adviser in the White House under three administrations.
In the early 1990s, Clarke said in an interview with the New York Times four years ago, the Clinton Administration had considered a bombing campaign against Iran, but the military professionals told them not to do it.
“After a long debate, the highest levels of the military could not forecast a way in which things would end favourably for the US,” he said. The Pentagon’s planners have war-gamed an attack on Iran and they just can’t make it come out as a US victory.
It’s not the fear of Iranian nuclear weapons that makes the US Joint Chiefs of Staff so reluctant to get involved in a war with Iran. Those weapons don’t exist and the whole justification for the war would be to make sure that they never do.
The problem is that there’s nothing the US can do to Iran, short of nuking the place, that would really force Tehran to kneel and beg for mercy.
It can bomb Iran’s nuclear sites and military installations to its heart’s content, but everything it destroys can be rebuilt in a few years.
And there is no way that the US could actually invade Iran.
There are some 80 million people in Iran and, although many of them don’t like the present regime, they are almost all fervent patriots who would resist a foreign invasion.
Iran is a mountainous country and big: four times the size of Iraq.
The Iranian army currently numbers about 450,000 men, slightly smaller than the US Army – but unlike the US Army, it does not have its troops scattered across literally dozens of countries.
If the White House were to propose anything larger than minor military incursions along Iran’s south coast, senior American generals would resign in protest.
Without the option of a land war, the only lever the US would have on Iranian policy is the threat of yet more bombs – but if they aren’t nuclear, then they aren’t very persuasive. Whereas Iran would have lots of options for bringing pressure on the US.
Just stopping Iran’s oil exports would drive the oil price sky-high in a tight market. Iran accounts for about 7 per cent of internationally traded oil.
But it could also block another 40 per cent of global oil exports just by sinking tankers coming from Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the other Arab Gulf states with its lethal Noor anti-ship missiles.
The Noor anti-ship missile is a locally built version of the Chinese YJ-82. It has a 200km range, enough to cover all the major choke points in the Gulf. It flies at twice the speed of sound just metres above the sea’s surface and has a tiny radar profile. Its single-shot kill probability has been put as high as 98 per cent.
Iran’s mountainous coastline extends along the whole northern side of the Gulf and these missiles have easily concealed mobile launchers. They would sink tankers with ease and, in a few days, insurance rates for tankers planning to enter the Gulf would become prohibitive, effectively shutting down the region’s oil exports completely.
Meanwhile, Iran would start supplying modern surface-to-air missiles to the Taleban in Afghanistan and that would soon shut down the US military effort there. (It was the arrival of US-supplied Stinger missiles in Afghanistan in the late 1980s that drove Russian helicopters from the sky and ultimately doomed the whole Soviet intervention there.)
Iranian ballistic missiles would strike US bases on the southern (Arab) side of the Gulf and Iran’s Hizbollah allies in Beirut would start dropping missiles on Israel.
The US would have no options for escalation other than the nuclear one, and pressure on it to stop the war would mount by the day as the world’s industries and transport ground to a halt.
The end would be an embarrassing retreat by the US and the definitive establishment of Iran as the dominant power of the Gulf region. That was the outcome of every war-game the Pentagon played and Mike Mullen knows it.
Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, told Israel Radio today that there are only three days left for Israel to attack Iran if it wants to stop the Islamic Republic from manufacturing nuclear weapons.
On Friday, Russia announced that on August 21st, it will start loading nuclear fuel into the Bushehr reactor. Bushehr is Iran’s first atomic power station. Bolton said that once the reactor, also built by Russia, becomes operational on Friday, it will be too late to attack, because the attacking it would result in fallout of radioactive material as far as the Persian Gulf and hurt Iranian civilians.
Bolton also expressed pessimism that the U.S. administration would lead an attack against Iran, saying, “I would be very surprised if there are any circumstances in which the Obama administration would use force against Iran’s nuclear program.”
Earlier in the week, Bolton said, “If Israel wants to do something against the reactor in Bushehr, it must do so in the following eight days.” Today he revised his estimate to even less time. He said that in the absence of an Israeli attack, Iran would complete its goal of the establishment of a functioning nuclear reactor.
Bolton was skeptical of the possibility that Israel would attack Iran in the coming days. “I do not think so, I fear that Israel has lost this opportunity,” he said.
Already during his tenure in the Bush administration, Bolton stood out due to his approach advocating an attack on the regime in Tehran. He reiterated the danger for Israel and the world, and called on his government to deal with it firmly. Bolton has repeatedly stated that everything must be done to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, including a military attack.
Host Jamie Kelso is uploading the 1991 Issue of Instauration magazine to the new website Instauration Online, and in the August 19, 2010 broadcast we read some of the 1991 stories written before anyone could know that on Dec. 25, 1991 Gorbachev would give up power and the next day the Supreme Soviet would vote to dissolve itself, an unprecedented event in the history of our White people. Only 50% of the 293 people of the U.S.S.R. were ethnic Russians. Will the end of the U.S.S.R. be, in the end, a great step forward toward White survival, or not?
How globalist elites use immigration & multiculturalism as tools to dissolve nations
Analysis of the anti-war Left and the Tea Party movements
Why america cannot be saved at the ballot box
Relationship between Jews and Muslims and the west
The pros and cons of capitalism and socialism
About James Miller
James Miller is a blogger and political activist from Los Angeles. His blog deals with the issues of immigration, globalization, and ethnic tribalism. He is active in the anti-war and Minutemen movements.
Ever heard of Stephen Girard? Probably not. Yet when he died in 1831 Stephen Girard was the richest man in America. Why have you not heard of him? Well, he’s been dropped into the controlled media’s memory hole. In spite of the fact that Girard was a selfless man who risked his own life to help treat yellow fever victims in Philadelphia, donated his huge wealth to charity and civic purposes, sacrificed vast wealth rather than cash in the loans he had made to our government in the War of 1812 to avert federal bankruptcy and defeat in the war…you don’t hear about Girard. Girard, you see, in spite of all these virtuous deeds was a bad man, a very bad man…for he left a large fortune to fund Girard College on 42 acres in the middle of Philadelphia, with the specific instruction in his will that Girard College would provide housing and schooling to “white orphan boys” from the age of six to eighteen. In the August 18, 2010 Jamie Kelso Show, Kelso reads “the rest of the story” on Girard from the January 1991 number of Instauration magazine. The rest of the story includes the fact that this all-White college (meaning a primary and secondary school, in the French sense, rather than a college in the current sense) is now effectively all-Black and non-White. How did this happen?
The German language transcript was also published as an article was also published at Deutsche Stimme.
The text that follows was translated into English by the author.
Who benefits from the War in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, dear friends. Thank you all for being here. Many thanks for the invitation to our friends, the NPD chief Mr. Udo Voigt and Mr. Gerd Finkenwirth. Also many thanks to a lovely young lady Silvana for her professionalism and her kindness. I’d like to extend also my best greetings from my friends in the USA and from my colleagues from the American Third Party Position, our Chairman, William Johnson, Prof. Kevin MacDonald, the radio host of Political Cesspool, James Edwards, and many, many other valiant members. Our recently launched party shares many similar ideas and pursues similar goals.
* * *
Instead of raising the question “who benefits from the war in Afghanistan and Iraq,” one might just as well ask the question: Who was the instigator of these two wars? The latter question does not sound very specific and provides a treasure trove for various conspiracy theoreticians. Wild speculations about the true motives of these wars are of no interest for us despite the fact that some of these conspiratorial allegations may be true. What we wish to find out is how these two wars were justified from the standpoint of international law and how they were legitimized by public discourse.
By the way, conspiracy theories, often ascribed to proverbial right-wingers, are not only the hallmark of right-wingers. The ruling class in the West does not shun using different types of conspiratorial vocabulary whose prime purpose is to demonize and criminalize the political foe. In addition, the liberal system resorts frequently to conspiracy theories in order to justify its military interventions. Months before the invasion of Iraq, many American politicians, including the media had in all seriousness ranted about the “Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.” It soon turned out that the Iraqis had no such weapons, which was later conceded by the very same politicians.
From my own experience I could give you some firsthand illustrations of this conspiratorial vocabulary. As a young man in communist Yugoslavia, I witnessed daily the endless verbal demonization of fictitious political opponents. The Yugo-communist system used the words “Nazi and fascist threat” in order to legitimize its repression against its critics. Although there were no more fascists in communist Yugoslavia in the aftermath of the Second World War, the system and its scribes had to dig up fictitious Nazi-Croats in order to justify its shortcomings and its terror. Back then we used a joke, which soon became iconic all over ex-communist Europe: “Even when a fly farts the Yugo-communist judiciary will not level criminal charges against the fly, but will instead apprehend the proverbial ‘Nazi-Croats.’” Similar linguistic escapades have now become part and parcel of the official vocabulary of the European Union, whose politicians dish out their propaganda under the elegant cloak of “freedom of speech” and “human rights.”
It is important to analyze how the liberal politicians and their warmongers manipulate public discourse. On the one hand we are bombarded by a litany of horrific labels, such as “war on terror”, “Islamo-fascism”, and “Al Qaeda terrorists”; on the other, we must daily stay tuned to their sentimental utterings such as the “fight for human rights,” “multicultural tolerance”, or “freedom for Afghan women.” The German Chancellor Angela Merkel did not sound credible at all when she recently rendered homage to fallen German soldiers and the enduring commitment of German troops in Afghanistan, “which serves the interest of our country.” The entire address by Chancellor Merkel was teeming with theatrical verbiage, better known in Germany as “cemented language” (Betonsprache), once commonly used in former communist East Germany.
Regardless of the hyper-moralistic lexicon used by the Western ruling class, empirical evidence regarding the true motives for the US commitment in Iraq and Afghanistan is very sparse if not completely absent.
A Balance Sheet
The war in Afghanistan was launched 3 weeks after the terror attack on September 11, 2001 in New York. Even a halfwit can tell that a long-term military strategy for Afghanistan could not be readied in three weeks. The plan to overthrow the regime in Afghanistan and Iraq had already been waiting in the wings. The first indications of the upcoming war in the Middle East and Central Asia had been put on paper by pro-Zionist academics in America in the early nineties, namely, after the first indecisive Gulf War in 1991. Many American pro-Israeli journalists and many well-known Jewish-American scholars had began drafting a long term plan for the reorganization of the region — “regime change” in the Middle East and Asia. Especially important was the role of the American Enterprise Instituteand the launching of “the Project for the New American Century.” Many important names participated in these projects, names that later came to be associated with the code term “neoconservatives.” September 11, came to them as if sent by God.
Any war anywhere in the world must be always preceded by cultural warfare. The US neocons understood that very well. The war in Afghanistan and Iraq began first as an academic dispute — largely spearheaded by neocon journals, such as Commentary andThe Weekly Standard. Today however, the language of “weapons of mass destruction” has replaced its bellicose denominator with the euphemism of “fighting for democracy.” In retrospect, one must raise the question whether one could also draw parallels between the fraudulent motives for the current war in Iraq and the Allied motives for their WWII commitment in Europe and the subsequent “reeducation” of the German people.
Even after nine years of war in Afghanistan, even after seven years of Iraq, the security climate in the Middle East and Afghanistan, or for that matter in the entire West, has not improved. It has deteriorated. There is far more terrorist threat today than eight or nine years ago. One can argue that the risk of Islamic terrorism in Europe and the USA grows in proportion to the continuation of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And what happened with European politicians during that time? In 2001, during the deployment of US troops in Afghanistan, as well as two years later during the invasion of Iraq, the consent of the European allies was difficult to come by. European NATO members, apart from their servile policies toward Washington, knew well that no quick war results were at hand. Official Germany and France were skeptical because they have twice as many Muslim immigrants than the entire U.S., and in addition, they have different visions about how to fight terrorism. For Germany, as a valiant US ally and a NATO member, it was not easy to openly defy the Americans. It is not worth talking about this post-World War II German subservience now. In order to grasp German foreign policy somersaults over the last 60 years one must first delve into the Allied laundering of the German character and the process of massive reeducation which is still part of the German media landscape.
Unlike Germany and France, the Bush administration had no problem drumming up support among Eastern Europeans for their foreign expeditions. Here are two reasons:
Only two decades ago all East European countries were allies of the Soviet Union; they became NATO members just a decade ago. The political and cultural mimicry of Americanism — albeit with a broken Slavic accent — in this part of Europe is more widespread than in Germany or in France.
The other reason is that the bulk of politicians and academics from the Baltics to the Balkans, is made up of rebranded communist apparatchiks and their progeny. In order to cover up their own criminal past, or for that matter their former communist terror policies, they needed to become more Catholic than the Pope, i.e. more Americans than the Americans themselves.
Hence the reasons Eastern Europeans politicians can now be far better manipulated and are far easier to bribe into political servility than Western European politicians — with the exception of Russia. Once upon the time East European politicians made obligatory pilgrimages to Moscow, Belgrade, or Havana. Today, their mandatory places of pilgrimage are Washington and Tel Aviv.
American Political Theology
The beneficiaries of these two wars were, at least at the beginning of the hostilities, US neoconservatives and the state of Israel. But it is wrong to blame them only. To understand the deep-seated motives of U.S. foreign policy, one has to delve into American political theology — the conviction of many American politicians of their country’s divine chosenness. The architects and beneficiaries of these wars are motivated by secular political consequences, but the root causes of these wars have a theological dimension. These two cannot be separated. Uri Avnery, an Israeli leftist writer, remarkedsome time ago that “Israel is a small America, the USA is a huge Israel.”
Sure, it goes without saying that an Israeli journalist, but also many left-leaning Jewish American scholars, such as Noam Chomsky or Norman Finkelstein can easily get away with such an anti-Israeli rhetoric. Its is questionable what type of grammar, let alone language structure a non-Jewish intellectual, or some “right-winger” would need to use in order to express the same judgments.
Over one hundred years US politicians and their advisors have tapped into the Old Testament in quest of their notion of the political. Many American politicians have adopted their political conceptualization from the ancient Hebrew thought. One hundred and fifty years ago it was the ante bellum secessionist South which became the symbol of absolute evil; later, at the beginning of the 20th century, the symbol of the absolute evil became the “bad German” and shortly afterwards the proverbial “Nazi.” During the Cold War it was temporarily the role of Communists in the Soviet Union to play the bad guys. As there are today no more Communists, no more Fascists, no more Southern Segregationists, some substitute had to be urgently looked for. So for many American Bible do-gooders the Ersatz was to be found among the so-called Islamo-fascists, or Islamic terrorists.
Soon this new category of absolute evil expanded to include the Palestinian Hamas, the Lebanese Hezbollah and “rogue states”, like Iraq, Syria and Iran. Geopolitically, these states, including Israel, are of no importance to America’s security whatsoever. But America’s metaphysical ties to Israel make many American politicians perceive Israeli’s enemies as their own.
It is wrong, therefore, to solely blame the Israelis and US neoconservatives, or for that matter the Jews for these two wars. They were or may still be the beneficiaries, but much of the popular support for this “make-the-world-safe-for-democracy” political theology comes from the millions of Christian-Zionists.
Their spirit of chosenness has had its offshoot in a secular ideology of human rights, taken now for granted as something humane and indispensable by the entire world. Yet it is in the name of human rights that the worst mass crimes are often committed. It is in the name of “human rights” that many non-conformist intellectuals can be easily shut up. When a self-proclaimed democrat talks about human rights, one should raise a critical question: “What happens then to those who do not fit into the category of humans or democrats?” Logically, they must be tagged as beasts and animals and therefore, cannot be re-educated, but must be physically wiped out or shut down. Let us try to picture what was crossing the mind of young American pilots who flew over Cologne and Hamburg in the summer of 1943. They had no remorse firebombing these cities below. They viewed the creatures down below as the embodiment of the absolute evil, as the most dangerous beasts that needed to be exterminated for good.
Christian-Zionists bear some of the responsibility for these two wars. Their self-serving idea of some special divine election does not lead to better understanding among different nations and different races, but to endless and futile wars.
Today, Aug. 17, 2010, Jamie Kelso closes his show encouraging all VoR listeners to grab themselves a copy of Wilmot Robertson’s timely classic “The Dispossessed Majority”. Kelso points out that there are plenty of copies available on Amazon for $2.70 plus $3.99 shipping. Thanks to the Web, books and literature of our cause is more available (by far) than it has ever been before. Jamie’s argument, that the not-necessarily-nationalist White geniuses who have created the Internet and the Web have thereby done more for our White Nationalist cause than perhaps anyone, is exemplified by the fact that Wilmot Robertson’s classics are being distributed primarily on purely commercial websites which have been enabled by the mind-boggling capability of the Internet and Web to deliver ANY book EVER printed to anybody overnight…for peanuts.
Jamie Kelso is back at it with the latest issue of Instauration Magazine to be uploaded to InstaurationOnline.com. Kelso uploaded the May 1991 issue an hour before today’s VOR webcast. Watch for more issues from 1991 to appear in the coming week, and to spark some of this week’s live broadcasts.
The United States is running out of time to get its budget and trade deficits under control. Despite the urgency of the situation, 2010 has been wasted in hype about a non-existent recovery. As recently as August 2 Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner penned a New York Times column, “Welcome to the Recovery.”
The United States is running out of time to get its budget and trade deficits under control. Despite the urgency of the situation, 2010 has been wasted in hype about a non-existent recovery. As recently as August 2 Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner penned a New York Times column, “Welcome to the Recovery.”
As John Williams (shadowstats.com) has made clear on many occasions, an appearance of recovery was created by over-counting employment and undercounting inflation. Warnings by Williams, Gerald Celente, and myself have gone unheeded, but our warnings recently had echoes from Boston University professor Laurence Kotlikoff and from David Stockman, who excoriated the Republican Party for becoming big-spending Democrats.
It is encouraging to see some realization that, this time, Washington cannot spend the economy out of recession. The deficits are already too large for the dollar to survive as reserve currency, and deficit spending cannot put Americans back to work in jobs that have been moved offshore.
However, the solutions offered by those who are beginning to recognize that there is a problem are discouraging. Kotlikoff thinks the solution is savage Social Security and Medicare cuts or equally savage tax increases or hyperinflation to destroy the vast debts.
Perhaps economists lack imagination, or perhaps they don’t want to be cut off from Wall Street and corporate subsidies, but Social Security and Medicare are insufficient at their present levels, especially considering the erosion of private pensions by the dot com, derivative and real estate bubbles. Cuts in Social Security and Medicare, for which people have paid 15 per cent of their earnings all their lives, would result in starvation and deaths from curable diseases.
Tax increases make even less sense. It is widely acknowledged that the majority of households cannot survive on one job. Both husband and wife work and often one of the partners has two jobs in order to make ends meet. Raising taxes makes it harder to make ends meet–thus more foreclosures, more food stamps, more homelessness. What kind of economist or humane person thinks this is a solution?
Ah, but we will tax the rich. The rich have enough money. They will simply stop earning.
Let’s get real. Here is what the government is likely to do. Once Washington realize that the dollar is at risk and that they can no longer finance their wars by borrowing abroad, the government will either levy a tax on private pensions on the grounds that the pensions have accumulated tax-deferred, or the government will require pension fund managers to purchase Treasury debt with our pensions. This will buy the government a bit more time while pension accounts are loaded up with worthless paper.
The last Bush budget deficit (2008) was in the $400-500 billion range, about the size of the Chinese, Japanese, and OPEC trade surpluses with the US. Traditionally, these trade surpluses have been recycled to the US and finance the federal budget deficit. In 2009 and 2010 the federal deficit jumped to $1,400 billion, a back-to-back trillion dollar increase. There are not sufficient trade surpluses to finance a deficit this large. From where comes the money?
The answer is from individuals fleeing the stock market into “safe” Treasury bonds and from the bankster bailout, not so much the TARP money as the Federal Reserve’s exchange of bank reserves for questionable financial paper such as subprime derivatives. The banks used their excess reserves to purchase Treasury debt.
These financing maneuvers are one-time tricks. Once people have fled stocks, that movement into Treasuries is over. The opposition to the bankster bailout likely precludes another. So where does the money come from the next time?
The Treasury was able to unload a lot of debt thanks to “the Greek crisis,” which the New York banksters and hedge funds multiplied into “the euro crisis.” The financial press served as a financing arm for the US Treasury by creating panic about European debt and the euro. Central banks and individuals who had taken refuge from the dollar in euros were panicked out of their euros, and they rushed into dollars by purchasing US Treasury debt.
This movement from euros to dollars weakened the alternative reserve currency to the dollar, halted the dollar’s decline, and financed the US budget deficit a while longer.
Possibly the game can be replayed with Spanish debt, Irish debt, and whatever unlucky country is eswept in by the thoughtless expansion of the European Union.
But when no countries remain that can be destabilized by Wall Street investment banksters and hedge funds, what then finances the US budget deficit?
The only remaining financier is the Federal Reserve. When Treasury bonds brought to auction do not sell, the Federal Reserve must purchase them. The Federal Reserve purchases the bonds by creating new demand deposits, or checking accounts, for the Treasury. As the Treasury spends the proceeds of the new debt sales, the US money supply expands by the amount of the Federal Reserve’s purchase of Treasury debt.
Do goods and services expand by the same amount? Imports will increase as US jobs have been offshored and given to foreigners, thus worsening the trade deficit. When the Federal Reserve purchases the Treasury’s new debt issues, the money supply will increase by more than the supply of domestically produced goods and services. Prices are likely to rise.
How high will they rise? The longer money is created in order that government can pay its bills, the more likely hyperinflation will be the result.
The economy has not recovered. By the end of this year it will be obvious that the collapsing economy means a larger than $1.4 trillion budget deficit to finance. Will it be $2 trillion? Higher?
Whatever the size, the rest of the world will see that the dollar is being printed in such quantities that it cannot serve as reserve currency. At that point wholesale dumping of dollars will result as foreign central banks try to unload a worthless currency.
The collapse of the dollar will drive up the prices of imports and offshored goods on which Americans are dependent. Wal-Mart shoppers will think they have mistakenly gone into Neiman Marcus.
Domestic prices will also explode as a growing money supply chases the supply of goods and services still made in America by Americans.
The dollar as reserve currency cannot survive the conflagration. When the dollar goes the US cannot finance its trade deficit. Therefore, imports will fall sharply, thus adding to domestic inflation and, as the US is energy import-dependent, there will be transportation disruptions that will disrupt work and grocery store deliveries.
Panic will be the order of the day.
Will farms will be raided? Will those trapped in cities resort to riots and looting?
Is this the likely future that “our” government and “our patriotic” corporations have created for us?
To borrow from Lenin, “What can be done?”
Here is what can be done. The wars, which benefit no one but the military-security complex and Israel’s territorial expansion, can be immediately ended. This would reduce the US budget deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars per year. More hundreds of billions of dollars could be saved by cutting the rest of the military budget which, in its present size, exceeds the budgets of all the serious military powers on earth combined.
US military spending reflects the unaffordable and unattainable crazed neoconservative goal of US Empire and world hegemony. What fool in Washington thinks that China is going to finance US hegemony over China?
The only way that the US will again have an economy is by bringing back the offshored jobs. The loss of these jobs impoverished Americans while producing oversized gains for Wall Street, shareholders, and corporate executives. These jobs can be brought home where they belong by taxing corporations according to where value is added to their product. If value is added to their goods and services in China, corporations would have a high tax rate. If value is added to their goods and services in the US, corporations would have a low tax rate.
This change in corporate taxation would offset the cheap foreign labor that has sucked jobs out of America, and it would rebuild the ladders of upward mobility that made America an opportunity society.
If the wars are not immediately stopped and the jobs brought back to America, the US is relegated to the trash bin of history.
Obviously, the corporations and Wall Street would use their financial power and campaign contributions to block any legislation that would reduce short-term earnings and bonuses by bringing jobs back to America. Americans have no greater enemies than Wall Street and the corporations and their prostitutes in Congress and the White House.
The neocons allied with Israel, who control both parties and much of the media, are strung out on the ecstasy of Empire.
The United States and the welfare of its 300 million people cannot be restored unless the neocons, Wall Street, the corporations, and their servile slaves in Congress and the White House can be defeated.
On August 12, 2010, Jamie Kelso traces the important lessons of third party politics in France demonstrated by the Front National, which has won percentages as high as 17% of the national vote since Jean Marie LePen and others founded the FN in 1972. A huge positive development in third party White patriot politics is the inclusion of the Front National in the new Alliance of European National Movements. The Front National’s Bruno Gollnisch is the president of the AENM, and the British National Party’s Nick Griffin is the vice president of the AENM. Both Gollnisch and Griffin are elected Members of the European Parliament (MEPs). The winning strategy followed by Griffin is succintly laid out for all of us in the BNP guidebook entitled “Folk and Nation: Underpinning the Ethnostate” written by BNP Foreign Secretary Arthur Kemp and BNP Chairman Nick Griffin (published 2009). Kelso read this entire handbook on an earlier program this week.
Selections from the June 1988 issue of the premier White patriot magazine over the quarter century of its publication from 1975 to 2000 are the basis for our August 11, 2010 Jamie Kelso show. This June 1988 issue was just put online by Kelso today at http://www.instaurationonline.com. In it, it’s interesting to see what it was like in 1988 trying to fight the U.S.S. Liberty coverup before the Liberty crew had revolted against the silence on pain of death imposed on them by…are you ready for this?…the U.S. Navy itself!
Tom Sunic speaks at a music festival in Germany, on Saturday, August 7, 2010. The title of the speech, given in German, is, Wem nutzt der Krieg in Irak und Afghanistan? (Who benefits from the War in Iraq and Afghanistan?).
The English language transcript can be found here.
On August 10, 2010 the Jamie Kelso Show is devoted to a crucial booklet that has been used to build the British National Party into the huge political success that it has become. BNP Foreign Secretary Arthur Kemp and BNP Chairman Nick Griffin wrote “Folk and Faith: Underpinning the Ethnostate” as a guidebook to the BNP’s election strategy. You can read excerpts from “Folk and Faith” and a discussion of Kemp’s and Griffin’s successful White election strategy at http://www.whitenewsnow.com. Kelso reads almost the entire 19-page handbook on the air in less than one hour, from start to finish.
In 1942, the US Delarof pulls away from the dock, taking the Aleuts to internment camps in southeast Alaska. Click here for larger image
This show is in two parts:
Part 1: Guest Charles Ellis from Alaska joins Carolyn to discuss the little known internment of the Aleuts living on the Pribilof Islands by the United States government during WWII.
Part 2: Carolyn discusses the ongoing anti-Germanism that is facilitated by “Holocaust” fantasies and the fear of being perceived as Politically Incorrect.
Also in part 2, Carolyn announces that she will be on “The Real Deal” Internet radio program with Jim Fetzer this Wed., Aug. 11, from 5 to 7 p.m. Central time. The live stream can be found here and the archived program here.
On August 9, 2010 Jamie Kelso reads an analysis of the folly of allowing the Black racist, and serial miscegenator Jack Johnson to contest for the White heavyweight crown in 1908 against Canadian Tommy Burns in Australia, a fight won by Johnson. On July 4, 1910, 100 years ago, Jim Jeffries came out of a six-year retirement saying:: “I am going into this fight for the sole purpose of winning the title for whites.” He lost. White police and citizens in 25 States and 50 cities tried to quell Negro rioting in celebration, with 23 Negroes and 2 Whites dying. But now, in large part thanks to the Scotsman Helio Gracie, and his Gracie mixed martial art techniques, Whites once again dominate heavyweight fighting.
Note: Due to a technical error, the first 14 minutes of this show was regrettably lost.