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:
Living With Blinders Off
Part 3

American Dissident Voices broadcast
April 26, 2003
Hadding Scott and Kevin Alfred Strom

Welcome to American Dissident Voices. Today we’ll be continuing our series by ADV researcher Hadding Scott, and yours truly, Kevin Alfred Strom, entitled "The War Against Us." Today we present part 3: "Living With Blinders Off."
Harboring terrorists? Abu Abbas: if only he'd stayed in Israel.
I guess I shouldn't be too surprised that one terrorist, Abu Abbas, was found in Iraq, giving a slight element of truth to George W. Bush's claim that Saddam Hussein “harbored terrorists.” Actually Abu Abbas is an ex-terrorist, and the record shows his  operations to have been singularly inept. Abu Abbas is an ex-terrorist because under the Oslo Accords there is amnesty for  all acts of terrorism committed before 1993, and Abu Abbas has  taken that opportunity to renounce violence. Because of the Oslo Accords, Abu Abbas legally visits the State of Israel, so that Israel as well as Iraq could have been accused of "harboring"   Abu Abbas.
While Abu Abbas is associated with a string of miserable attempts at terrorism, the most notorious operation with which his name  has been associated, the hijacking of the Achille Lauro, was not   even his idea. Ari Ben-Menashe, a salesman for the Israel   Defense Forces' armaments business, wrote in his 1992 book,   Profits of War: Inside the Secret U.S.-Israeli Arms Network,   that the hijacking of the Achille Lauro was actually ordered   and funded by the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad. Ben-Menashe writes: "That was, in fact, an Israeli 'black'   propaganda operation to show what a deadly, cutthroat bunch the    Palestinians were." Ben-Menashe states that Mossad officers    posing as mafiosi paid Abu Abbas millions of dollars to    assemble a team to attack the cruise ship.
"The team was told to make it bad, to show the world what lay in store for other unsuspecting citizens if Palestinian demands were not met. As the world knows, the group picked on an elderly American Jewish man in a wheelchair [Leon Klinghoffer], killed him, and threw his body overboard. They made their point. But for Israel, it was the best kind of anti- Palestinian propaganda. " An April 23, 1996 Associated Press report states that Abu Abbas returned to Gaza and helped Yasser Arafat by apologizing for the   hijacking and the killing of Klinghoffer, saying, "The hi-jacking was a mistake, and there were no orders to kill   civilians," apparently meaning that the order came from the   Israeli agents posing as Mafiosi and that he, Abu Abbas, had   not given any such order.
[ ]
Abu Abbas is wanted in Italy for the Achille Lauro hijacking, but Israel never handed him over, and indeed why should they wish to   do that, since the question of the Israeli government's   instigation of that hijacking would be raised in the trial?   Since the arrest of Abu Abbas in Iraq cannot really be used as   a justification for the war, other alleged evidence linking   Iraq to terrorism is being created.
Saddam Hussein tried to kill my daddy.
There is one well known allegation of Iraqi-sponsored terrorism that is widely believed but demonstrably dubious: I mean the canard that Saddam Hussein tried to have George Bush Sr. assassinated. The original source of the claim that Saddam Hussein tried to have Daddy Bush killed is a confession made by a whiskey smuggler subjected to torture by Saddam Hussein's  longtime enemy, the government of Kuwait. [Seymour Hersh, "A  Case Not Closed," The New Yorker, Nov 1, 1993]
A confession extracted under torture is hardly a reliable basis  for any accusation, and it is certainly not an adequate basis  when the accusation serves a known political agenda.
It appears that there was a misrepresentation of other evidence in this case. A chemist assigned to analyze the explosive made the following complaint, summarized in a report by the Justice Department's Inspector General:
"Whitehurst alleges that he compared the explosive material in the main charge of the Bush device to explosive materials in known Iraqi devices and told Explosives Unit Chief J. Christopher Ronay that the explosives were different. Whitehurst claims  that Ronay purposely misinterpreted these results in order to  link the explosive material to Iraqi agents. Whitehurst further  asserts that very possibly his results were changed to support  the retaliatory missile strike by the United States."
A report submitted to President Bill Clinton by the DOJ Terrorism and Violent Crime Section emphasized only similarities between  Iraqi explosives and the substance allegedly to be used in  assassinating Bush, omitting that the Iraqi stuff resembled  British PE-4A while the other was of Portuguese origin. In  other words, Bill Clinton was duped into taking hostile action  against Iraq by subordinates in the Department of Justice who  withheld information that exculpated Iraq. The DOJ document from  which I am deriving this information suggests that the omission    was due to carelessness, but nobody who is aware of the    relentlessness with which Zionist Jews have pressed their    vendetta against Iraq could possibly accept that this was a    mistake. [USDOJ/OIG Special Report The FBI Laboratory: An    Investigation into Laboratory Practices and Alleged Misconduct     in Explosives-Related and Other Cases (April,1997) Section D:  The Bush Assassination Attempt.
[ ]
Magnifying the Atypical.
NBC's video coverage of April 9, the so-called "Liberation Day," in Baghdad, featured only a small number of people making actual denunciations of Saddam Hussein. In fact, some of the same denouncers were shown more than once. There seemed to be many more people who were simply looting without making any political statements, and I would not assume that there was any political  notion behind the looting as Donald Rumsfeld has suggested, any  more than I would attribute political motivation to the Negro  looters of South Central LA in 1992. Earlier in that very same  broadcast of NBC Nightly News, in footage that showed U.S.  Marines running through Baghdad, one could already hear Iraqi  women off-camera chanting, "Yankee go home," but you had to be  paying very close attention to notice that, because it was very  brief, and the women's chanting received no specific comment  from Tom Brokaw. I myself would not have noticed what the women  were saying if I hadn't videotaped the segment and listened to  it several times. A more balanced news-broadcast would have  spent less time showing the same small group of anti-Saddam  protestors and would have given just a little face-time to the  women chanting "Yankee go home" at armed marines.
In the second half-hour of a special edition of NBC Nightly News on "Liberation Day," Tom Brokaw asserted that Saddam Hussein's regime was collapsing and added: "There may be no more enduring symbol of that than the sight of overjoyed Iraqis toppling this huge Saddam statue in the center of the Iraqi capital." Hold on a just a minute, Tom! In the first place, that statue was not  toppled by any Iraqi people: it was dragged down by a United  States Marine Corps tank-recovery vehicle. It was a United  States Marine who was sent up to drape a flag over the statue's  face, apparently with two flags for two different photo- opportunities, first the very same U.S. flag, we are told, that  flew over the Pentagon on 9-11, then a pre-1991 Iraqi flag that  just happened to be there. This was a completely staged event  that was in no way a spontaneous expression by the people of  Iraq. It was in fact a private party! The roads leading into  that square were all blocked off with tanks, and there were no  more than 200 people present, and we know that at least some of  them -- all of them I suspect, given the amount of security --  were members of Ahmed Chalabi's carpetbagger brigade better  known as the Iraqi National Congress.
 [ ]
Another telling characteristic of this staged event is that a marine who happens to be a full-blooded Chinaman was chosen for the glorious task of draping the flags over Saddam's face. Likewise, Brigadier Vincent Brooks was chosen as the spokesman for the U.S. Army, obviously because he is Black. The United States Government hardly misses an opportunity for artificially elevating and glorifying non-Whites. These staged events sharply contrast to what happens in unstaged, real life, as in the famous scene of three White firemen raising a flag over the rubble of the World Trade Center.
The lopsided reporting of "Liberation Day," combined with the revived claim that Saddam Hussein was dead, and the simultaneous stifling of independent media that could have undermined that claim, may have contributed to the discouragement of Saddam Hussein's supporters, and of would-be mujahedeen who might have traveled to Iraq, but no matter; with Saddam Hussein out of the way, we are seeing why General Brent Scowcroft advised Bush Senior to leave Saddam Hussein in power. Thousands of Iraqis are demonstrating for an Islamic Republic, and that will certainly inspire much more fanaticism than Saddam Hussein's secular government ever could.
Banned Weapons?
There was alleged intelligence before the fighting started, that chemical artillery shells had been issued to Iraqi troops. As soon as the first Iraqi fortress was overrun and no chemical weapons were found in the arsenal, this began to look like a lie. Subsequently the lie was modified. We were told that as U.S.  troops approached Baghdad, then the Republican Guard would break   out the chemical weapons.
We were told that Iraq had set up metal drums full of liquid chemical warfare agents at the edge of a minefield in a defensive perimeter around Baghdad. This was said to be part of a killing  zone where the drums full of mustard gas, or whatever it was  supposed to be, would be fired on by the Iraqis, causing them to   burst and spread debilitating gas everywhere while U.S. troops   were attempting to cross the minefield.
That's a plausible theory about how chemical agents might be used, and it seemed quite believable at the time. It put me at a loss for any alternative explanation. Maybe I was wrong in thinking that the Iraqis had no chemical warfare agents since, obviously, military analysts would not be saying that the Iraqis were setting out metal drums on their defensive perimeter if they weren't really doing it, right? And what other explanation could   there be except that those contained chemical warfare agents?   This seems to be an example of how, if you are going to tell a   lie that you want people to believe, it is better to tell a big    one. No metal drums of chemical warfare agents have been found     on any battlefield in Iraq, nor has any excuse been made to explain this misinformation, as far as I know.
In fact, no such weapons have been found so far in Iraq, despite several false alarms. George W. Bush will be in a very awkward position if no evidence is found to justify what he has done..
It seems extremely unlikely that the Iraqi leadership had any such weapons and chose not to use them when they were facing overthrow; if you would not use such weapons then, when would you? But on April 20 the New York Times reported:
"A scientist who claims to have worked in Iraq's chemical weapons program for more than a decade has told an American military  team that Iraq destroyed chemical weapons and biological warfare   equipment only days before the war began."
The claim attributed to the anonymous scientist implies that Saddam Hussein knew ahead of time that George W. Bush was going to force a war with his “48 hours” ultimatum. Here's the icing on the cake: this alleged Iraqi scientist who cannot be named is  not only an expert on weapons, but he is also omniscient, a one-stop source for all the revelations that the Bush administration   needs in order to assure the American people that the Iraqi war is justified, and to justify its incipient hostility toward  Syria:
"The scientist also told American weapons experts that Iraq had secretly sent unconventional weapons and technology to Syria, starting in the mid-1990's, and that more recently Iraq was cooperating with Al Qaeda, the military officials said." [ Judith Miller, "Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of War, an Iraqi Scientist  Is Said to Assert," New York Times, Apr 21, 2003
What an amazing range of top-secret knowledge! That scientist must be Saddam Hussein himself! To add further insults to our intelligence, we are told that this scientist must remain anonymous because of possible retribution, meanwhile persons claiming analogous credentials, such as the liar Khidir Hamza and other "Iraqi defectors," have been touring the interview  circuit for years, defaming the government of Iraq without  coming to any grief whatsoever. How reporter Judith Miller could   know that such a scientist exists is hard to say, because,   "While this reporter could not interview the scientist, she was permitted to see him from a distance," which means that all of     the wacky claims that Judith Miller is passing on to us have been fed to her by the Army's “Mobile Exploitation Team  Alpha.”
Since an anonymous person making an unproven claim is totally unpersuasive, it is very likely that physical evidence of such weapons will be manufactured. The fact that the United States Government is refusing the presence of Hans Blix in Iraq to authenticate MET Alpha's discoveries is a pretty solid indicator that they are up to no good.
The Larger Context.
The American public's impression that Saddam Hussein was a global menace is based on two lies: (1) the gassed-Kurds story, and  (2) the idea that Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in 1980 and Kuwait   in 1990 without cause. These two lies about Saddam Hussein   correspond to allegations that we Americans have been trained   to believe about Adolf Hitler, and in fact we have been led to   regard Saddam Hussein through the lens of such a comparison.
George Bush Senior, after persistent goading by Zionist-Jew newspaper columnist William Safire, even called Saddam Hussein "worse than Hitler," and George W. Bush has made similar comparisons, encouraged by luminaries like the moralizing Jewish hypocrite Elie Wiesel. The following exchange occurred between reporter Helen Thomas and Jewish liar Ari Fleischer at a White House press briefing:
HELEN THOMAS: "Does the President think [those who] dissent against the war that he's planning are appeasers?"
ARI FLEISCHER: ".... The President does view this much like Elie Wiesel did, when Elie Wiesel came to the White House yesterday and met the President -- where Elie Wiesel, one of the great humanists and smartest intellectuals and a leading moral authority -- no less an official than Elie Wiesel stood in front of the White House after a meeting with the President and said, this is like 1938 all over again. And he called -- "
HELEN THOMAS: "And he thinks we should bomb people?"
ARI FLEISCHER: "-- and he called on the world, including Europe, to intervene, to disarm Iraq. As Elie Wiesel said, if the world had done that in 1938, there would have been no World War II. The President views it in a similar way."
So there you have it. Invidious comparisons to Adolf Hitler are used to cause wars. A "leading moral authority" who sets himself up as an opponent of Hitler-the-Devil wants us to bomb people, and so we do it.
The mania to prevent "another Hitler" is a greater threat to the peace than Adolf Hitler ever was. Where there is "another Hitler," often there is also "another Neville Chamberlain" to be found. I think it's a bit ironic that anyone who opposes these Jewish wars against countries that are not our natural enemies is called an appeaser, in effect "another Neville Chamberlain,"  because Neville Chamberlain's failing was precisely that he,  like the Bushes Senior and Junior, allowed himself to be pushed  into a war by the Jews.
George Will expanded the comparison even further last October, identifying two congressmen who visited Iraq with Lord Haw Haw. [ George Will, "The World is too Good for America," Jewish World Review, Oct 2, 2002
Saddam Hussein is only the latest example of "another Hitler." Slobodan Milosevic -- who is clearly innocent of the charge of genocide in Kosovo -- has been called "another Adolf Hitler" since 1992. It was even "leaked" about the Mestizo dictator Manuel Noriega that he had "a framed picture of Adolf Hitler" in his home -- a false "leak" to make the U.S. invasion of Panama seem justified in retrospect.
]. It seems to be the usual practice  whenever the United States Government wishes to start a war on  dubious grounds, that the leader of the targeted state is  represented as "another Hitler."
The name Hitler generates a suspension of disbelief as far as atrocity stories are concerned. We live with the idea that Hitler was somehow immune to all ordinary laws of logic and science,  and had great power although making no sense, neither in terms  of reason nor in terms of human nature that any ordinary person  can understand. This is the picture of Adolf Hitler that we have   been given, and it is a picture of a monster. I don't dispute   that some monstrous humans exist, but the tendency to accept   such characterizations without clear evidence is a problem, especially when it is a leader of a country who is so   characterized, because entire peoples will suffer for it.
Furthermore, it is certainly wrong to assume that every autocratic leader is ipso facto a monster, but this assumption is widely propagated, above all by the Jews, who realize that an autocratic government is able to resist Jewish manipulations more easily than a democracy can.
When you have been raised to believe in witches, then you know what to believe and how to react when some particular "witch" is pointed out to you. That Jewish caricature of Adolf Hitler has been of immense value in getting our gullible countrymen to believe every kind of irrational slander against foreign leaders and thus to cheer the devastation of Serbia and Iraq without a pang of conscience.
To reduce the ease with which our people are goaded into war, it might be helpful to ask how much reality is really in the picture of Adolf Hitler that we have been given. Of course, the main  slander of Adolf Hitler is the Jewish ‘Holocaust’ story, just  as the enemies of Saddam Hussein never fail to mention that he  is "a man who gassed his own people." Regarding the alleged  gassing of Kurds at Amadiyyah, Stephen C. Pelletiere and  Douglas V. Johnson say:
"This one is extremely problematical since no gassing victims were ever produced. The only evidence that gas was used is the eye-witness testimony of the Kurds who fled to Turkey, collected by staffers of the U.S. Senate. We showed this testimony to experts in the military who told us it was worthless. The symptoms described by the Kurds do not conform to any known chemical or combination of chemicals."
The same kind of rational analysis that Pelletiere and Johnson of the U.S. Army War College have used to dispel the gassed-Kurds myth also dispels the Jewish ‘Holocaust’ myth, if one has the courage to be logically consistent. In the case of the Jewish ‘Holocaust’ story, it is also true that:
1. No gassing victims were ever produced; that is to say, no autopsy was done in 1945 to demonstrate that anybody was gassed, and the films that most people accept as proof are misleading, because those films, made by the U.S. and British armies to justify the destructive war they had fought, misrepresent victims of the disease typhus as victims of gassing. Further, the U.S. and British armies did not pass through any part of Germany that is today considered to have been the site of a death camp. Therefore those films do not show victims of gassing.
2. Alleged eyewitness testimony is the only evidence that any Jew was gassed; contrary to popular belief there are no documents of the Third Reich tallying victims of gassing.
3. The stories told by "Holocaust Survivors" who claim to know that there were gassings always turn out to be nonsense, contradicting each other and embellished with large sweeps of imagination.
Just as the United States Government now is resorting to falsification in order to retroactively justify its war against Iraq, so also in 1945 did the United States Government falsify evidence of atrocities committed by Germany, including the hoaxing of gas-chambers such as the shower room at Dachau which was given a lower ceiling in order to conceal the shower-room's plumbing and thus make the idea that it was a gas-chamber seem less ridiculous. Other examples of fake evidence at the end of World War II are the alleged human-skin lampshades and the alleged human-fat soap, which are now generally regarded as not being what they were claimed to be.
With all the lying that you have witnessed in this current war, you should not find it incredible when I say that the Jewish ‘Holocaust’ is also a pack of lies.
I have urged truthfulness in the assessment of Saddam Hussein because it is for our benefit not to be motivated by delusions.
I hope that an awareness of the prevalence of untruth in wartime will not only inform the way you view future conflicts but also provoke a reassessment of past conflicts, most importantly in the case of World War II. The permanent demonization of that era’s Germany by the Jews has had profound detrimental effects on the entire world.
The State of Israel uses the ‘Holocaust’ as an excuse for its own terrorism. And at the same time it is also used to attack and suppress racial pride and self-determination among White people. As an introduction to this matter I recommend reading the booklet Did Six Million Really Die? which you can purchase from National Vanguard Books. Did Six Million Really Die? is our item number 386, and is available for $8 postpaid from National Vanguard Books, PO Box 330, Hillsboro WV 24946 USA.
Until next week, this is Kevin Alfred Strom reminding you that free men are not equal, and equal men are not free.




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.