Starting with first principles and the scientific method
America First Books
Featuring ebooks that find a truer path in uncertain times


IDEOLOGY AND ETHICS SURVEY
Additional Commentary and References

20. Why should a society have the right to determine it's own destiny?
  One perspective on an.ethical issue:  


An opposing perspective on the same ethical issue:
*
Only certain "protected groups" have  
*
The right of group survival is analogous
such a right, others may not deserve it    
to the right of individual self-determination
*
It is a right for your own group if you  
*
Sovereignty rights of other groups should
can get it, but not for competitors  
be respected just like individual rights
*
Certain groups must perpetually sup-  
*
It is moral for all to practice "charity be-
  port others at their own expense    
gins at home" for basic survival needs

Sample argument: All societies have a right to self-determination, although we must make some exceptions to revenge certain past wrongs and favor certain protected groups. In order to accomplish this task, we must focus on the broad ideological picture rather than examine the mechanics of popular sovereignty for each society (see the opposing viewpoint). The 19th century was a period when whites ruled most of the planet and colonized much of the nonwhite world. Although some cases involved mutually beneficial partnerships, we must focus on those that involved brutal subjugation and oppression of nonwhite peoples. The 20th century was a period when the white world was turned on its head and began to systematically demolish all forms of white rule and colonization everywhere. We must continue this process in order to achieve global "social justice," even if it means practicing extreme double standards where we undermine all forms of white nationalism while simultaneously aiding all forms of nonwhite nationalism, the most important of which is Jewish nationalism (Zionism) in Israel. In fact, Zionism requires special support because of the specialness of the Jewish people and their long history of persecution. Support includes suppression of all forms of criticism of Jewish power in the white world. It also includes overlooking the fact that Zionism might at times constitute a peculiarly authoritarian, aggressive, and even criminal form of nationalism very much at odds with the decentralized, classical liberal principles which defined early American nationalism. It includes forcing Germans to pay reparations to all real or imagined "Holocaust survivors" and their descendents in perpetuity. It includes actively supporting Marxist nonwhite revolutionary groups that seek to not only end white self-rule, but also erect brutal nonwhite dictatorships over whites and eventually expel or genocide them. This has already taken place in Zimbabwe (the former Rhodesia) and is well under way now in South Africa. In European countries, whites need to be conditioned to accept collective security arrangements such as NATO or joint economic agreements such as the EU rather than focus on the traditional brands of white nationalism favored by their ancestors. Lastly, to seriously cripple all forms of white nationalism for good, we must condition whites to passively accept their own racial suicide. A good example of this is Race Traitor magazine promulgated by the Jewish professor Noel Ignatiev at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. He openly calls for the elimination of all whites off the planet. Given current below ZPG birth rates of whites, this could very well happen within two hundred years. This is good, because whites are an especially evil race who deserve to be wiped off the planet.
. . .


Sample argument: The right of group survival is analogous to the right of individual survival. The need for a society to determine its own destiny is no different than the desire of individuals to be free and shape their own lives. The ability of a people to control its own destiny broadly constitutes its "popular sovereignty." This relates to their control of many different variables. They require control of certain intangibles, such as a religious, cultural, and racial identity to provide motivation for successful teamwork. They also require control of the strategic bases of society such media, major corporations, government, and the military. Lastly, with the exception of wandering Jews, people usually require their own territory. As all of these elements come together, we usually begin to see the emergence of "nationhood" complete with such symbols as a flag, national anthem, and national army. The possession of full sovereignty rights does not necessarily imply an aggressive or exploitive posture. For example, during long historical periods many Scandinavian countries have enjoyed strong sovereignty rights while functioning as relatively nonaggressive, peaceful nations. Conversely, it is possible for countries to manifest all the external symbols of sovereignty, such as a flag and national army, yet lack most of the real substance. It is possible that major banks and corporations are controlled by alien peoples. Government leaders may be puppets of foreign intelligence services. If too many of the vital elements of sovereignty are in the hands of aliens, it can result in de facto economic and political marginalization of a people and their slow strangulation and even genocide. Some forms of toxic intrusion are cultural in nature. In fact, even the United Nations recognizes that robbing people of their indigenous culture can be a form of genocide, to the extent that it undermines the cohesion and teamwork required to face adversity. When people give up their popular sovereignty (or local nationalism) in order to become amalgamated into some kind of multi-racial, multi-cultural imperial order, rather than experiencing the benefits of higher civilization, they more often experience the abuse or neglect of absent, alien, or tyrannical rulers. Furthermore, people have to be able to take care of themselves first before they can benefit others. If people neglect their own kind by lavishing most of their altruism on aliens, this can become a parasitic relationship where both groups end up going down together. The right of self-determination should apply to whites in European countries who are now being replaced by Third World immigrants just much as it applies to other peoples around the planet.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY:

This question helps to dramatize the conflicting attitudes that have been programmed into Americans by their controlled media.

Ask any American if every racial and tribal group on this planet should have a right to survive and determine its own destiny, and I am willing to bet that over 95% will say yes.

Then ask that same American if the reality of sub-ZPG white birth rates and replacement of whites by massive illegal immigration from Mexico should justify strenuous efforts to revitalize white culture, white territoriality, white exclusivity, forms of white separatism, and indigenous white values in a last ditch effort to save the white race, and most Americans will probably back off in disdain, making disparaging comments about "white supremacism" and "white racism."

Many whites have been conditioned to feel that it is both normal and desirable for whites to become another minority, despite their willingness to save the whales and redwoods and every other race on this planet --except their own. As an example, white students cheered on June 13, 1998 , when President Bill Clinton gloated about the trend of white dispossession.

According to the late Dr. William Pierce in a newscast: "The Fastest Zipper in the West told his audience -- and that included television viewers all over America -- that we must not do anything to slow the flow of immigrants from the Third World into the United States. He denounced as "wrongheaded" those White Americans who fear that -- quote -- "the America they know and love is becoming a foreign land." -- end of quote -- That is a wrongheaded view of Third World immigration, Clinton said. Instead we must welcome more "diversity." More "diversity" will be good for us, he said. Anyway, he gloated, there's nothing you can do to stop it. The White majority in America will become a minority within the next 50 years, so get used to it, you wrongheaded bigots. The White America you knew and loved will become non-White. And to try to oppose this transformation of America, this darkening of America, this de-Europeanization of America, Clinton said is -- and I quote -- "more than wrong. It is un-American." -- end of quote -- ."

However, I am sure that virtually none of those white students at that 1998 talk would have denounced as "racist" and bigoted" the idea of protecting the Jewish supremacist state of Israel for Jews.

In fact, in June 2006 President George Bush said: ""I am strongly committed to Israel's security and viability as a Jewish state, and to the maintenance of its qualitative military edge."

Imagine if he had said, "I am strongly committed to America's security as a white state and the strict maintenance of its border with Mexico and the prevention of all illegal Third World immigration."

What a shock it would be to have a senior U.S. government official who openly cares as much about America and white Americans as he does about Israel and Jews. But don't hold your breath any time soon..

In my introduction to my reconciling ideological viewpoints series, I make the following observations:

Rightists typically believe that genetics comprise a highly constraining factor in both the performance and character of specific individuals and groups. In other words, some groups tend to be naturally just dumber, lazier, more inefficient, more authoritarian, more collectivistic, or even more "crooked" than others (or some combination of all of the aforementioned). These traits can be traced back to different evolutionary selective factors, such as the genetic sculpturing influence of frost zone areas of the planet as opposed to tropical areas, the amount of evolutionary time spent in highly urbanized, multi-racial, or over-populated environments, or different reproductive rates of people in different niches in society.

On the positive side, rightists also believe that people with shared ancestry and culture are more likely to deeply understand each other and form more cohesive and productive groups. One finds an emphasis on shared values in a wide variety of organizations, whether or not their leaders happen to be consciously "leftist" or "rightist," ranging from management consultant diagrams with "shared values" in the center, as in the famous McKinsey 7-S framework for organizational success (p. 10, In Search of Excellence) to training methods designed to build teamwork and group pride on sports teams and in the military.


The McKinsey 7-s framework

Paradoxically, increased group cohesion can become a vital factor in the defense of individual liberty. As one example, in one of his lectures, libertarian author Dr. Ralph Raico pointed out that there was very little immigration to America between 1700 and the American Revolution, yet the population increased threefold from natural multiplication. The extensive kinship and cultural ties of an overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxon Protestant (Nordic) population of the New England colonies provided the grass roots cohesive strength and informal support necessary to resume the Cromwellian side of the English Civil War in America beginning at Lexington and Concord in 1775...

In my environmental vs. genetic article, I explain the various reasons from both an environmental and genetic viewpoint why charity must begin at home. The basic common sense reason, from either viewpoint, is that the golden goose cannot keep laying golden eggs that not only benefit others but itself if it starves itself to death always taking care of the hunger of others first. A certain minimal level of selfishness and self-preservation is required simply to survive and be useful to anyone in this world.

In my environmental vs. genetics article, I explain how 19th century classical liberalism provided an ideological formula that enabled white nations to remain racially conscious and grow strong from within while striving the maintain moral relationships with outside nations and external tribes and races:

Political, moral, and religious systems that acknowledge genetic realities

As mentioned previously, 19th century classical liberalism, which I place in the "genetic bottom up" category, was an ideological formula that enabled people to keep their own ethno-racial house in order without threatening or oppressing others. This was the formula that America was founded on.

19th century classical liberals tended to be openly pro-white racial nationalists. Thomas Jefferson was a prime example. As he grew older, he became increasingly right wing. At one point he wrote a letter stating that he thought peoples from northern Europe were better suited to his idea of self-restrained republicanism than masses from southern Europe. Although Jefferson sought to phase out slavery (while owning more than 200 Negroes), he also clearly called for racial separation between whites and blacks, stating:

"Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free; nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion have drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degree, as that the evil will wear off insensibly, and their place be ...filled up by free White laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up."

Please note that only the first line up to the semicolon, namely "Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free" appears on the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C.. This demonstrates the same thoroughly dishonest editing of history that also characterizes the portrayals of "King Lincoln," FDR, and other great centralizers in Washington, D.C.

Incidentally, other American Founding Fathers were outspoken white racial nationalists. This means, of course, that they staunchly upheld the right of white people to live in their own white communities in accordance with white values and to have a government that favors white survival and a white destiny, as opposed to allowing themselves to be invaded, molested, and dominated by alien peoples. Although overlooked by many political correctness historians today, this was a key ingredient behind 19th century concepts of American exceptionalism and Manifest Destiny.

As three examples, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin were openly critical of Jews. Benjamin Franklin even tried to insert language in the U.S. Constitution to keep Jews out of the country. George Washington commented: "They (the Jews) work more effectively against us, than the enemy's armies. They are a hundred times more dangerous to our liberties and the great cause we are engaged in ... It is much to be lamented that each state, long ago, has not hunted them down as pests to society and the greatest enemies we have to the happiness of America."

Incidentally, the racialist views of Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin fit the pattern of the time. Up until the mid-1960's, U.S. immigration was mostly restricted to whites. The Illinois Constitution approved in 1848 prohibited further immigration of people of color into what is now the self-styled "Land of Lincoln." The Oregon Constitution of 1857 contained language that prohibited free Negroes from living in the state.

Along with Great Britain, the Scandinavian countries were also hotbeds of classical liberal thought. They too had a certain racial consciousness. For example, the Norwegian Constitution of 1814 specifically prohibited Jews and Jesuits and members of monkish orders from entering the country.

William Gladstone, an example of a late 19th century British classical liberal, was also an unabashed pro-white racialist just like Thomas Jefferson and other American Founding Fathers. He was publicly outspoken in his criticism of alien groups such as Turks and Jews, and had little affection for his political arch-rival, the Jewish Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. One example is this extract from The Congress of Berlin, British Imperialism, and the Emergence of World War I by Carl K. Savich:

Following the April Uprising in 1876, 12,000-15,000 Bulgarian Orthodox Christians were massacred, men, women, and children, by Muslim irregulars in the Turkish forces, basi-bazouks who engaged in "an orgy of destruction, pillage, rape and enslavement." American journalist Januarius A. MacGahan and Eugene Schuyler, a member of the American legation in Istanbul, toured the region in Bulgaria and reported on the atrocities. MacGahan wrote eyewitness news reports for the Liberal newspaper Daily News which created strong anti-Turkish public sentiment in Britain. Gladstone attacked Benjamin Disraeli's pro-Ottoman Empire policy, "referring to Disraeli, he told a friend that the Jews had always been against Christians." The Ottoman Turks were referred to as the "great anti-human species of humanity" who had violated "the purity of matron, of maiden and of child." Gladstone stated: "There is not a criminal in a European gaol, there is not a cannibal in the South Sea islands whose indignation would not arise and overboil at that which had been done." Disraeli continued, however, to pursue a pro-Turkish, pro-Muslim foreign policy as a bulwark against Russian influence and expansion. Disraeli perceived the crisis in strictly imperialist terms. As Robert Blake noted, "Disraeli preferred the Turks to their Christian subjects."

Indeed, those were the days when classical liberal leaders of Western countries were reluctant to give away their countries for cheap or lay down naked before their racial enemies.

Classical liberals also believed in promoting "bottom up" grass roots sovereignty among white people. They felt that left unchecked government tends to become a "top down" tyranny.

One of the quickest paths to tyranny involves war. This gives the state many excuses to increase centralization and suppress civil liberties. James Madison explained:

Of all the enemies of true liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.

War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.

In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honours and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.

The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manner and of morals, engendered in both.

No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

Classical liberals believed in meritocracy rather than special privilege, which they felt gave unfair advantages in the accumulation of wealth and power that could lead to tyranny.

Classical liberals also promoted an internal focus on science, manufacturing, and technology. This not only provided a pathway to prosperity, but also enabled the citizenry to create wealth through industry and trade as an alternative to trying to conquer wealth through war. Thomas Jefferson himself showed devotion to these values through his lifelong interest in scientific discovery and his efforts to found the University of Virginia.

Last, but not least, classical liberals favored free trade. However, they did not believe in sacrificing strategic industries or domestic industry in general. They took the attitude that economic progress could be mutual between nations, provided that they played by sportsmanlike, chivalrous rules. They were more interested in creating mutually beneficial trade relations to exchange industrial products than engaging in imperial maneuvering that could lead to disastrous conflict.

The paradox of "international nationalism"

The concept that charity must first begin at home does not imply complete selfishness, but rather it can simply be a prerequisite for healthy sharing once everyone has put their own house in order. Technological and industrial advancements developed by one white nation can be shared with other white nations, as well as the rest of the world, in a mutually beneficial way. If strong pro-white nationalism were to exist other countries such as Ireland, Norway, France, Germany, Poland, and Russia, this could ultimately be good for white Americans as a source of inspiration. These other countries could provide alternative areas of white stability and competing examples of white liberty and prosperity that might help deter the further advance towards tyranny here in America. So long as white nationalists around the world can maintain relatively decentralized and chivalrous institutions, they can help to prevent international stresses that might encourage forms of destructive imperialism that lead to disastrous wars.

Incidentally, the French National Front political party has produced an excellent 2 min 34 sec musical video (click here) that artistically communicates the concept that nationalist revival in France can be good for nationalism everywhere else.

There is also some important biological reasons why charity must begin at home that I discuss in my environmental vs. genetics article:

In his book Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, Dr. Edward Wilson explains how the selection of certain genetic traits can only be explained in terms of natural selection applied on a group level as opposed to an individual level.

One example includes selection for altruism. This is a trait that motivates an individual to risk his own life or to diminish his own resources for the greater good of his group.

We might imagine the following as an example of altruistic sacrifice. A woman has several children who are in danger of getting mauled by a bear. The mother starts fighting the bear to give her children time to flee, and gets mauled to death. From an evolutionary viewpoint, although her genes are now lost, there is still a net gain of the survival of her children.

As another example, imagine a group of young men who fight to the death to defend their tribe against invaders who might genocide or enslave their people. Their sacrifice is cost effective if it prevents the destruction of the remainder of their gene pool.

In contrast, imagine a group where parents tend to feel no inclination to risk themselves to save their children, or where young men feel no inclination to fight to defend their tribe against attack, enslavement, and possibly even extermination. In this case, this group without any altruistic instincts is more likely to become extinct than one that has altruistic traits. In a world where tribes compete for living space, the group without altruism cannot effectively band together to defend its genetic interests.

Since altruism has a genetic basis, it is vitally important that a people with strong altruistic tendencies focus this behavior first and foremost towards the reproduction of their own genetic type. In this way the altruistic genes survive.

If on the other hand a group carrying a high degree of innate altruism can be tricked into adopting and nurturing alien children, or pursuing economic policies that benefit alien interests before their own kind, then the altruistic group is in fact now suffering from parasitism. An alien group is now enhancing its own genetic fitness at the expense of the altruistic group, in essence "using up" the first group's altruism to promote the survival of alien genes. If this parasitic relationship continues for too long, the altruistic group will become extinct, and altruistic behaviors will die with them.

Sir Arthur Keith's Evolutionary Breeding Unit concept

The late British anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith argued that tribal separation in what he called "Evolutionary Breeding Units" has been very important in the human evolutionary process. Tribal separation allowed beneficial mutations to take hold. Furthermore, tribal separation enabled groups with superior genes to expand at the expense of failed groups. Among other things, it enabled a tribe with altruistic traits to avoid being parasitically used up by a group that lacks these traits. It also rewarded successful groups on a genetic level, analogous to the way successful entrepreneurs must be able to retain earnings in their companies to grow in a competitive free enterprise capitalist system.

Sir Arthur Keith described how competition takes place not only between tribes, but also to promote eugenic as opposed to dysgenic mating on an individualized basis within a tribe. When applied to mating, "eugenic" means mating that promotes offspring who are more fit. "Dysgenic" means mating that produces less fit offspring. As mentioned earlier, humans tend to naturally engage in eugenic practices when they try to find a marital partner who is their equal or better.

One cannot help but wonder if a combination of tribal competition, combined with internal eugenic mating selection inside competing evolutionary breeding units, accounted for the "cranial explosion" that occurred among human ancestors in last three million years. Dr. Edward Wilson's classic work Sociobiology: the New Synthesis provides a vivid example with a graph that plots brain volume (y-axis) against millions of years before present on the x-axis. (Figure 27-1, redrawn from Pilbeam, 1972).

The graph starts with Ramaphithecus punjabicus who had an estimated 310 cc brain volume roughly 14 million years ago. A hypothetical curve showing the brain volume of our ancestors shows a steady gradual rise of less than 20 degrees for the next eleven million years until we get to Australopithecus africanus, with about a 460 cc capacity roughly 3 million years before present. From here the cranial capacity curve sharply accelerates. We see Australopithecus habilis at 600 cc about 2 million years ago, Homo erectus at 1,000 cc about 1 million years ago, and Homo sapiens at around 1,400 cc at present. The curve reaching Homo sapiens is at about a 70 degree upward climb.

After Homo Sapiens depicted on the graph around our present time, we see the line on the chart fall off from a 70 degree climb to a 45 degree climb. Considering the way America and other Western countries are being dumbed down as a consequence of out of control Third World immigration and the habit of the most fit white women having the least children, I think that it would be more accurate to show a negative angle. This would be consistent with Dr. Pendell's observation that civilization tends to create niches that support the reproduction of the less fit at the expense of more productive people, and hence tends to reverse evolution.

In contrast with this upward evolutionary process, we also see numerous instances in nature where animal groups suddenly stop practicing the ethic that charity must begin at home. When animal populations in nature start misdirecting their energies so that they no longer adequately reproduce or feed themselves, that is usually a strong indicator that they are under some kind of parasite attack. In my mutualism vs. parasitism article, I provide some examples:

Parasite animal models

Various animal species employ very sophisticated parasitic modus operandi. Obviously most humans are not "hardwired" towards criminality or "parasitism." However, humans often mimic animals in many ways. As a very simple example, a human wearing body armor into battle imitates the genetically "hardwired" shell characteristics of a crustacean or the bony forehead of a rhinoceros. Looking at species which have become completely "hardwired" towards parasitism can give us some important clues about traits to look for in sizing up human criminal groups, even if most forms of human criminality involve components of learning.

One interesting example involves the Death's Head Moth. It routinely invades bee hives and sucks out the honey. This is an amazing feat, given that the moth is several times larger than the average bee, and furthermore given that bees normally converge on any invader and sting it to death. However, this moth has evolved to give off a scent that make the bees think that it is another bee.

Due to some evolutionary quirk, bees are very poor at judging an alien by size, but are extremely good at judging it by smell. Hence, as long as the moth can continue to secrete this special hormone, it can merrily suck honey out of the combs as dozens of wiggling, busy bees are literally scrunched up around the moth inside the hive.

Unfortunately for the moth his supply of scent is limited. He must make sure not to become so absorbed in sucking honey that he fails to leave the hive before his scent is used up. If he tarries too long, the bees suddenly recognize an invader in their midst, and immediately turn into the moth and sting him to death.

Another fascinating example involves the South American fire ant described in "An Amazing Parallel" taken from Best of Attack! Revolutionary of the National Alliance. The article refers to an 11 June 1965 Time Magazine article titled "Subversion Among the Ants" about a tiny, but troublesome fire ant native to South America that was making inroads into the southern U.S.

According to the report, scientists noted that in South America the fire ants were much less a problem for farmers than in the United States. Some unknown malady seemed to have robbed them of their natural fierceness, aggressiveness, and industriousness; in other words, the fire-ant "civilization" in South America had become terminally decadent.

When the scientists investigated further they traced the source of the fire-ant decadence to a social parasite — "another species of ants that live without concealment in the fortresses of the fierce fire ants and, by some mysterious influence, make their hosts support them in idle luxury."

And what is this "mysterious influence," this fire-ant liberalism, which blunts their xenophobic instinct and makes them tolerate the alien parasites in their midst? The scientists don't know, but they say it is transmitted from the parasites to the hard-working fire ants by a fluttering of the parasites' antennae, "apparently conveying a compelling message that makes the worker feed the parasites..."

Shades of Jewish television! So the ant-parasites do it with antennae too! But the message the media masters convey to us through out TV antennae compels us to do far more than feed their bloodsucking tribe. It robs us of memory of the past and concern for the future. It perverts all healthy instincts. It turns racial pride into racial guilt. It undermines racial solidarity and gives us in its place self-hatred. It makes us abandon our own natural interests and serve instead the interests of alien parasites and all the racial dregs of the globe.

Well, from the source, you probably guessed in advance it would take a swipe at America's controlled national media. Again, I do not believe that all Jews are bad people. In fact, in many ways good Jews are also being victimized by criminals at the top. And no doubt many American Indians and Iraqis can level complaints about American cultural domination that are not dissimilar to white complaints about Jewish supremacists. By the same token I see no reason to take the spotlight off the controlled media, particularly when it has served as a cheerleader and/or apologist rather than as a watchdog regarding American aggression in the Middle East and other extremely dangerous trends I mention in my Critical Issues section.


In summary, denying a people its right to survive as a people is like denying an individual his right to life. It is in essence an act of genocide. By the very words of senior U.S. Government officials such as former President Clinton, they are aiding and abetting the genocide of white America. They are the blood enemies of the same dwindling white middle class that they claim to serve as elected government officials sworn to protect and defend the Constitution.

The statement on the right reflects consistent principle. In a classical liberal system, it reflects a mutualist viewpoint. In contrast, the statement to the left allows self-determination for some groups, but none for whites, and hence is crooked (or parasitic). I wrote the statement on the left with the same kind of smart ass, yapping tone typically found in anti-white literature disseminated by the ADL. This organization, along with AIPAC (whose members have been arrested and convicted of spying for Israel), are premiere Jewish lobbying groups documented on the Rev Ted Pike archive web page that are trying to turn America into a police state through bogus "hate crime" legislation, bogus "patriot" acts speedily pushed through Congress, and the unconstitutional Bush administration "executive orders" that grant the President complete dictatorial powers under the pretext of any "emergency."

Michael Rivero at whatreallyhappened.com summed it up on his web page "Israeli Spying: The Mother of All Scandals:"

...Two years into an investigation of AIPAC’s possible role as a spy front for Israel, Larry Franklin, a mid-level Pentagon Analyst is observed by the FBI giving classified information to two officials of AIPAC suspected of being Israeli spies. AIPAC hires lawyer Nathan Lewin to handle their legal defense, the same lawyer who defended suspected Israeli spy Stephen Bryen in 1978.

Larry Franklin worked in the Pentagon Office of Special Plans, run by Richard Perle, at the time Perle (who was caught giving classified information to Israel back in 1970) was insisting that Iraq was crawling with weapons of mass destruction requiring the United States to invade and conquer Iraq. There were no WMDs, of course, and Perle has dumped the blame for the “bad intelligence” on George Tenet. But what is known is that the Pentagon Office of Special Plans was coordinating with a similar group in Israel, in Ariel Sharon’s office.

With two suspected Israeli spies (at least) inside the office from which the lies that launched the war in Iraq originated, it appears that the people of the United States are the victims of a deadly hoax, a hoax that started a war.

The leaking of the investigation of AIPAC to the media on August 28th, 2004 gave advance warning to other spies working with Franklin. The damage to the FBI’s investigation was completed when United States Attorney General John Ashcroft ordered the FBI to stop all arrests in the case. Like the Stephen Bryen case and the hunt for “Mega”, this latest spy scandal seems destined by officials who have their own secret allegiances to protect, barring a massive public outcry.

The organization at the heart of the latest spy investigation, AIPAC, wields tremendous influence over the US Congress. Through its members and affiliated PACs, AIPAC directs a huge flow of campaign cash in favor of, and occasionally against, Senators and Representatives solely on the basis of their willingness to support Israel. As an example, in 2002, U.S. Rep. Artur Davis, D-Birmingham received so much help from pro-Israeli PACs that 76% of his campaign budget came from OUTSIDE the state of Alabama, mostly from New York.

Let me repeat that. A Congressman AIPAC wanted elected received more money from pro-Israel groups outside his state than from his own constituents inside his state. Who is that Congressman going to be thinking of when he votes in Congress?

So here is the mother of all scandals.

For two years, the FBI has suspected AIPAC of spying for a foreign country, and for those two years (and for decades before) that group suspected of spying for Israel has been reshaping the US Congress for the benefit of a foreign government.

And THAT is the mother of all scandals.

Think about that as billions of your tax dollars flow to Israel while your roads and schools crumble and decay and services are cut.

Think about that as the coffins come home with your loved ones inside.

Think about that when you and a million of your fellow citizens march down the streets of America opposing wars built on lies and deceptions and wonder why the government just doesn’t want to listen to you any more.

Now you know the real character of the people who have been pushing for open borders and white guilt and white dispossession in America.

Return to question 20

Proceed to commentary for question 21





 

Flag carried by the 3rd Maryland Regiment at the Battle of Cowpens, S. Carolina, 1781

© America First Books
America First Books offers many viewpoints that are not necessarily its own in order to provide additional perspectives.