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

Kevin Alfred Strom Archive


The War Against Us,
Part 1, Living in the Present

American Dissident Voices broadcast
April 5, 2003
Hadding Scott and Kevin Alfred Strom


Wellcome to American Dissident Voices. Today we'll be beginning a new series by ADV researcher Hadding Scott, and yours truly, Kevin Alfred Strom, entitled The War Against Us, part 1: Living in the Present.
A Wider War is Coming
First, I want to remind you of a prediction we made a few weeks ago in our Cannon Fodder series and our other programs about the war: we predicted that Israel's proxy war in the Middle East would not stop with Afghanistan and Iraq. We predicted that Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia were next on the Zionist's hit list, and would be the next places where American cannon fodder would be sent to kill and to die. Now that prediction has been confirmed by no less than "Uncle Colin" Powell himself, in a saber-rattling speech he gave on Monday to the leading Jewish lobby group AIPAC, short for "American Israel Public Affairs Committee." Here's what Powell said about Syria there:
"Syria can continue direct support for terrorist groups and the dying regime of Saddam Hussein, or it can embark on a different and more hopeful course. Either way, Syria bears the responsibility for its choices -- and for the consequences." [Wild applause and hooting from the audience, largely composed of powerful and well-connected establishment Jews.(Note that the sound byte cut off, I suspect that the cheering went on even longer.)]
Now, exactly what "consequences" do you think Powell is threatening, as he prosecutes a war against Syria's neighbor Iraq? According to Lamis Andoni, a reporter for the Christian Science Monitor, it was a clear threat by Powell to "widen the war" and that "the U.S. will not tolerate any dissent in the region."
And who, besides the influential Jews, do you think was sitting in the audience at the Israeli lobby's meeting? The AIPAC audience of 5,000 included not only Secretary Powell, but fellow speakers such as national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, political director Kenneth Mehlman, Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton and Assistant Secretary of State William Burns. And, hard as it may be for neophytes on the Jewish question to believe, this little-heralded meeting also included in its audience half of the United States Senate and one third of the United States Congress! Almost unbelievably, considering the important people in attendance, the Zionist conference was billed as being "off the record" and one of the important things discussed was the need for the AIPAC lobbyists not to publicly trumpet their push for war, for fear of a Gentile awakening to the Jewish nature of the war. In fact, conference participant Eyal Arad, who also happens to be Ariel Sharon's campaign advisor, explicitly stated that the Bush administration had requested that the Jewish lobby group "keep a low profile in this conflict." But conference moderator Steve Rosen let the cat out of the bag when he owned up to his possessive feelings about the war: "God willing, we're going to have a great victory in Iraq," he said. Everyone knows what Jews mean when they use the word "we."
and ]
And the United States Senate passed a resolution on March 12th, Senate Resolution 82, which has so far received little attention in the controlled media, which for all practical purposes calls for 'regime change' in Iran, Iraq's neighbor: "Expressing the sense of the Senate concerning the continuous repression of freedoms within Iran.... Iran is an ideological dictatorship presided over by an unelected Supreme Leader.... the Iranian Government has been developing a uranium enrichment program.... It is the sense of the Senate that... it should be the policy of the United States to seek a genuine democratic government in Iran...." You know the drill. First Afghanistan, now Iraq, next Syria and Iran.
[ ]
As we predicted on American Dissident Voices, this is not a war on terror nor is it a war for American interests. It is a proxy war for Israel, and the Jews who now preside over the Bush administration laid out their plans to engage in a wide war of aggression to redraw the map of the Middle East several years ago. They're counting on us falling for the animated flags and synthetic violins playing on CNN or Faux News, and falling for their invocation of 9/11 every time they decide to start killing their perceived enemies in a new country. As you see the National Alliance's predictions coming true over and over again, I'm counting on you not to fall for these Jewish lies ever again.

* * *

Living in the Past
"Rachel Corrie was a leftist. She deserved to be killed by the Israelis. Leftists deserve whatever they get." People who listen to Limbaugh and Hannity actually say things like that.
So many Americans are living in the past. They are still speaking and thinking as if the Cold War had never ended and Communism were still the chief enemy which our society faced.
This thinking-in-the-past is apparent in arguments like this: "you well-meaning patriots who are opposed to waging war against Iraq are in agreement with some leftists; therefore you are dupes of those leftists and are unwittingly helping the left." Notice the underlying assumptions, (1) that the left per se is the chief enemy, and (2) that a good patriot must always disagree with the left. This is a gross oversimplification of the sort that appeals to limited intellects, much like George W. Bush's "Either you're with us or you're against us." No place is left for the expression of a loyal opposition that says, "I am with you but let me show you where you are making a mistake."
There was a time when the pretense of loyal opposition was indeed a sham used by the enemies of our country and our race, but those people have now completely changed their tactics. Now they are in the driver's seat, and they want to stifle opposition.
Some examples are David Horowitz and Michael Savage, and the rest of the "neoconservative" Jews. Horowitz was once a Marxist theoretician, a Jew intimately involved in the affairs of the Black Panthers. Horowitz's goal back then was to break down racial barriers in our society to make it more "tolerant" and therefore hospitable to Jews. Now that race-mixing is officially condoned throughout the United States, Horowitz has wrapped himself in the American flag and is promoting policies that will, he thinks, make the Middle East more hospitable to Jews. (And of course, additional race-mixing is also a likely result of any prolonged occupation of Iraq, if the example of Vietnam is any clue.)
It is the fact that our enemies have made such great progress in accomplishing their destructive aims, which causes them to condemn anti-war protests instead of leading them. It is now their war, and protestors are in their way.
This change has gone unnoticed not only by the Right but generally by the Left as well, who seem to protest the war against Iraq for reasons that are like comfortable old mantras for them. To justify their anti-war position they fall back on traditional leftist complaints: it is a "racist" war, or, it is "blood for oil"; that is to say, a war motivated by capitalism. In a sense it is a racist war, insofar as one can admit that Zionism is a Jewish racial supremacist movement. Many on the Left, however, balk at facing this. They generally stay with the less risky "no blood for oil" slogan instead of confronting the Jewish agenda that really motivates the whole project. Certainly, not all of the old-time leftist Jews have crossed over to become "neoconservatives," and the influence that they exert in distorting leftist approaches to this issue is no doubt considerable.
There's an old saying that it's very hard to cheat an honest man. If either the Right or the Left were morally and intellectually consistent, the Jews would be unable to get their way as much as they have.
Even people who disagree about values can agree about not wanting to be lied into a war, if they at least have some integrity. But to party-loyalists, Democrat and Republican, all of politics is a contest between opposing teams of shysters. Integrity is not a factor. Most politically oriented talk shows amount to nothing more than places where the two teams can shout each other down. It is really sickening.
It was exactly this failure to be concerned about principles which allowed George W. Bush to become the presidential nominee of the Republican party.
A Reasonable Facsimile of a President
Bush was chosen because he is a weak-willed, manipulable man. In June of 1999, seventeen months before the presidential election of 2000, a political commentary in Business Week magazine described George W. Bush's approach to politics as "to sit back with his finger to the wind." "Bush will soon have to decide which wing of the Republican party he's from," observed Richard S. Dunham. ["The Fence is getting Uncomfortable for Bush," Business Week June 7, 1999: 135] And Bush still hadn't made that choice months later. James Carney, writing in Time magazine of December 6, 1999, stated: "Bush's broad appeal to voters of all stripes is still his biggest asset. But it takes a lot of energy to maintain. Bush has stretched himself so thin to span the issues that his support tends to be shallow; voters who like him often can't say why." [James Carney, "Feeding Both Sides," Time, December 6, 1999: 48] Yes, it takes a lot of energy to keep up the kind of media-hoopla that is necessary so that people will support you without even knowing why. You cannot do that if you do not have the mass-media on your side. Strictly speaking, the Jewish-owned news-media and the Jewish neoconservative machine within the Republican party created the George W. Bush campaign on the basis of nothing more than name-recognition.
In July of 1999, a report in the Canadian magazine MacLean's stated, with evident amazement: "In the early summer of the year before [italics in original] the election, Republican officeholders are tripping over themselves to jump on his bandwagon. Twenty governors and 126 congressmen have endorsed Bush. He has raised more money in a shorter time than anyone before him.... His rivals are withering on the vine, and Bush seems to be fighting the general election already." [MacLean's, July 12, 1999:23] What this means is that the fix was in as to who the next Republican nominee -- and most probably the next
president, given the stain of impeachment on the Democrats -- would be.
Now, it is actually questionable whether Al Gore himself would have taken a different position from that of George W. Bush regarding the Zionist-Jews' war-agenda, given that Gore's family is intermarried with Jews, and that Paul Wolfowitz praised Gore for condemning Bush Senior's "moral blindness" for not taking more aggressive steps against Saddam Hussein in 1991. There is generally more of a pacifist streak in the Democratic than in the Republican party, but somehow this did not prevent the Clinton administration from bombing the hell out of Serbia in 1999 following several years of Jewish agitation, and very possibly it would not have stopped Al Gore from doing the Jews' bidding against Iraq.
According to reporter Andrew Austin, Bush had neither sought nor expected this sudden prominence: "The people who know him are full of stories. How he never really thought about the big job. How he was genuinely surprised -- 'dumbfounded' in the words of one old friend -- that folks were thinking of him like that." [ibid.]
George W. Bush is a very ordinary man who was in effect dragged in off the street, set up on a podium, and told: Here, we need you to pretend to be the President of the United States. Just read what you see on the teleprompter and try not to stutter or mispronounce the big words too much.
But I don't know anything about being President, protests the presidential draftee.
That's okay, they assure him, we will run everything for you. You just learn to repeat what we tell you. It would be funny if it weren't so serious.
The Puppetmasters
Already in 1999, the Zionist Jew Paul Wolfowitz had George W. Bush's puppet-strings in hand. A New York Times story of December 23, 1999, was titled, "A Cadre of Familiar Foreign Policy Experts is putting its Imprint on Bush." The reporter, one Eric Schmitt, commenced by noting that foreign policy was an area in which George W. Bush apparently had no clue, "a subject that has caused him the most trouble in his presidential campaign," and to help him to have a clue Bush had "eight hawkish advisers," who were said to be "led by Condoleeza Rice ... and Paul D. Wolfowitz." It is pretty far-fetched to say that an affirmative-action appointee like Condoleeza Rice had any significant influence next to the pushy, agenda-driven Wolfowitz. That seems to be just a politically correct pretense. To be realistic, read that the "eight hawkish advisers" were "led ... by Paul D. Wolfowitz." This New York Times story amounted to an announcement to the Zionist Jews of the world that if George W. Bush were elected, there would be trouble for Iraq, because Paul D. Wolfowitz had been agitating for the destruction of Iraq, not only since the days of George "Pappy" Bush, but since the days of Jimmy Carter.
The New York Times Magazine of September 22, 2002 bears the cover story: "Stalking Saddam: How Paul Wolfowitz' agenda became the Bush agenda." An article that is generally flattering to Wolfowitz reveals the Jew as -- surprise, surprise -- by no means a conservative on domestic matters, and we receive confirmation of his motivation in foreign affairs as follows: "You hear from some of Wolfowitz's critics, always off the record, that Israel exercises a powerful gravitational pull on the man. They may not know that as a teenager he spent his father's sabbatical semester in Israel or that his sister is married to an Israeli, but they certainly know that he is friendly with Israel's generals and diplomats and that he is something of a hero to the heavily Jewish neoconservative movement." [Bill Keller, "How Paul Wolfowitz' agenda became the Bush agenda," New York Times Magazine, Sep 22, 2002: 96]
Wolfowitz's agenda has filled what was essentially the vacuum of George W. Bush's mind; Eric Schmitt was observing already in 1999: "...the advisers' influence over Mr. Bush has become more evident with every speech, news conference, and debate. Indeed... it is not unusual to hear the advisers' words coming out of Bush's mouth."
Of course, it has not been Wolfowitz calling all the shots all the time. Our affirmative-action Secretary of State Colin Powell, back when he was showing a tiny bit of independence, had apparently gotten some sound advice from the former Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni, who was opposed to overthrowing Saddam Hussein in years past and has also spoken out against the current war. There were also other people with some modicum of practical sense who advised George W. Bush against this war. Wolfowitz and his neoconservative cronies however, whose combined media-presence is considerable, used pressure to get the Bush administration to see things their way.
The resulting policy toward Iraq has been just what you would expect when you have a weak, vacillating man in charge, with warmongering Jews talking into one ear and pragmatists with no real vision of their own talking into the other. The Jews of course got their way in the end by pushing, but we can thank the pragmatists for gaining enough temporary concessions to diplomacy along the way to make this Zionist war even more embarrassing for the United States than it might otherwise have been.
Bush disingenuously demanded that Saddam Hussein readmit weapons inspectors. Saddam Hussein unexpectedly complied, which made attacking him more difficult, and also, by showing that he is anxious to avoid war, made it harder to believe that he is really a menace to the U.S.
As soon as Bush sent the troops over there, to many observers it seemed a foregone conclusion that he would have to find an excuse to attack, regardless of whatever Saddam Hussein might do. Bush gave his "48 hours" ultimatum, which has nothing to do with WMDs, but may have been intended to provoke a pre-emptive strike by Iraq. Unlike the Japanese in World War II, however, Saddam Hussein kept his cool and did not attempt any pre-emptive attack, leaving Bush to be the victim of his own words, having either to eat his ultimatum or proceed with a totally unprovoked attack. Then Bush tried to kill Saddam Hussein with a missile attack. And the rest you know.
I think this record shows that our own "democratically elected" leader is not a very good advertisement for the democracy that we are allegedly bringing to Iraq!
The talking heads on TV have been saying that the generals just did not plan on having to fight a guerrilla war. It is a big surprise, they say. But all they really had to do to know that guerrilla warfare would be a main tool of opposition was to do a little research. They could have inferred it from the Time magazine interview of Hussein Kemal in 1995, where the defector explicitly stated that guerrilla warfare would have been the main peril for a drive to Baghdad in 1991, or they could have gotten some inkling of it from the various news reports showing Iraqi civilians buying firearms -- no background check required, by the way -- so that they could shoot the American invaders. [ ] Or, failing all that, they could have just listened to the final segment of American Dissident Voices' "Cannon Fodder" series which aired only a few weeks ago. It's amazing that just using the Internet and old magazines, I can predict an eventuality that George W. Bush's Jewish chickenhawks have supposedly missed.
What was sold to us as a quick and easy war of liberation, with glory for the soldiers and for the U.S.A. as a whole, is turning out to be a very dirty war where our troops are fighting an entire people and find themselves shooting innocent women and children because of fear.
British and U.S. government sources believed, or said that they believed, that the government of Saddam Hussein would be toppled by a coup as soon as the fighting started. The Bush administration's repeated statements that the "evil leader" of Iraq was the real problem were clearly intended to drive a wedge between the Iraqi people and their leader, so that some among them would arrange to jettison their jinxed leader the way Slobodan Milosevic was jettisoned by Yugoslavia a few years ago as a result of intense U.S. pressure. The creation of a popular revolution against Saddam Hussein was also understood to be the purpose of the economic sanctions which Iraq has endured since 1991, but that never worked. The siege of Basra -- not especially a stronghold of support for the Baath party -- was supposed to cause such misery that it would explode in rebellion and welcome the invaders, but once again that method has failed and there is talk about taking Basra "the hard way."
Apparently the soldiers were also misled into thinking that this would be a very quick and easy war. Several times I have seen reports that the soldiers were eager to get on the road to Baghdad because this was the way to go home.
People make the excuse that, although there have been setbacks, the United States and Britain are "not losing the war." It is true that Iraqi forces are not on the verge of forcing all the invading troops back into Kuwait, but when you represent a military campaign as "Operation Iraqi Freedom," and find yourself fighting mostly civilian militias, you have in a sense already lost, because the entire premise and alleged point of your campaign has been proven wrong. Can you imagine George W. Bush distributing night-vision equipment and rocket-propelled grenades to U.S. citizens so that we could defend our country as the Iraqis are doing? In terms of the right to keep and bear arms, a fundamental freedom, it seems that the Iraqis should be liberating us. It has never been in doubt that the United States of America could squash the entire country of Iraq and reduce Baghdad to rubble, in the event that the Iraqis don't want to accept our "gift," but that could hardly be called victory for a campaign called "Operation Iraqi Freedom."
It will be a victory in name only, much as the election of George W. Bush was a false victory for all the people who thought only about defeating the Democrat and gave no consideration to the quality of what they were installing in the Democrat's place, as long as it claimed to be "conservative." There was a rush into this war, much as the Republicans rushed into making George W. Bush their candidate, and in both cases the foolhardy conservatives gained an apparent victory that that will be worse than a defeat.


For the latest contact, donation, and other update information regarding Kevin Alfred Strom, please visit his web page at Please also visit, and Prices, addresses, and availability information pertaining to materials cited in his works are subject to change.

Please also visit the America First Institute donation page.




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.