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


Occupied Territories: Iraq and America

American Dissident Voices broadcast
August 28, 2004
by Kevin Alfred Strom


The US Army is desperate for recruits to replenish the shell-shocked and the dead in the War for Israel in the Middle East. Now they've come up with a recruiting pitch that's almost as educational as American Dissident Voices. It's been hard recruiting new enlisted men now that the Iraq invasion force has been greeted so warmly -- not with flowers, but with gunpowder and mortar shells -- by the Iraqis. It's even been hard recruiting from the non-White underclass which has formed an ever-increasing percentage of the "volunteer army" in recent years. So US military recruiters have come up with a new technique. They are trolling the restaurants and night spots of southern Florida for likely prospects and arguing that, in addition to all the perks and benefits and free education and $10,000 bonuses, new recruits will actually be safer in Iraq than they are on the streets of Miami.
According to reporter Paul Harris of the UK's Observer newspaper, US Army recruiter Michael Bass says: "I tell them straight up. Miami is the biggest war zone we've got. Every time you turn on the TV we see someone shot." Bass tells his potential recruits that "Nine people from southern Florida have died in Iraq, compared with 338 murders in the Florida region last year...." "They have a better chance in the army than on the streets of Miami."
Well, Sergeant Bass may need to take a course in basic statistics, but his desperate ploy tells us a lot about Iraq and a lot about America. It points up the fact that both are very dangerous places -- both are occupied nations -- both, though nominally "pacified" and "democratic" are increasingly bloody war zones -- and both are ruled by Jewish supremacists, which is the direct cause of the occupations and the bloody conflict.
Iraq was attacked because mostly-Jewish neoconservatives with an Israel über alles agenda hijacked conservatism in the 1990s (like their forbears hijacked leftism nine decades earlier), rose to power within the current Bush administration, and convinced Bush that the 9-11 attacks were an ideal moment for him to become an extremely electable 'war president' and make their dreams of 'remaking' the Middle East come true.
The National Alliance has warned Americans from the beginning that the picture of Iraq painted by Bush and the neocons was a false one and that the price to be paid for invading Iraq and remaking the Middle East for the Jewish state would be a horribly high one. But we weren't alone in our warnings.
George W. Bush's father also served Zionist interests by attacking Iraq when he was president in 1991. But the elder Bush, who has never claimed to hear the voice of God in his head as has GW, held back cautiously from giving the Israel-firsters everything they wanted. With the memory of America's ignominious surrender in Vietnam only fifteen years in the past, George H. W. Bush didn't want to risk a grinding ground war and all its concomitant body bag shipments and dropping approval ratings. So he held back from invading Iraq, though he had no compunction about holocausting a hundred thousand already-surrendered Iraqis with firebombs as they retreated from Kuwait.
Several years ago, long before his son was president, Bush Sr. justified his decision to quit while he was ahead and not march to Baghdad. He said that invading Iraq would have resulted in "Incalculable human and political costs... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect rule Iraq... The coalition would have instantly collapsed. ... Going in and thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations mandate would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. ...Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different -- and perhaps barren -- outcome."
And eight years ago, the older Bush's Secretary of State, James Baker, also expressed the same caution: "Iraqi soldiers and civilians could be expected to resist an enemy seizure of their own country with a ferocity not previously demonstrated on the battlefield in Kuwait. Even if Hussein were captured and his regime toppled, U.S. forces would still have been confronted with the specter of a military occupation of indefinite duration to pacify the country and sustain a new government in power. Removing him from power might well have plunged Iraq into civil war, sucking U.S. forces in to preserve order. Had we elected to march on Baghdad, our forces might still be there." Baker says that in 1991, the military and all the president's senior advisers were "properly dead-set against" an invasion of Iraq.
[ ]
What was the difference between 1991 and 2003? The Jewish neocon revolution, which not only vastly increased the presence of Jewish supremacists and Israel-firsters in the executive branch and especially in positions close to the president, but which also exercised power through the force of neocon-owned media, most notably Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation and its Fox News Channel, William Kristol's Weekly Standard magazine, and the links they have at the highest levels with the Wall Street Journal, National Review magazine, the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and other hijacked conservative institutions. The neocons even invented a new (and very questionable legally) "intelligence" agency, the so-called "Office of Special Plans" headed by Jewish ideologue Abram Shulsky, to bypass the CIA and get neocon war propaganda directly in the president's ear without the usual intelligence safeguards as to accuracy and objectivity.
This symphony orchestra of lies and pressure -- and believe you me, wanting good media coverage is by itself tremendous pressure for any politician -- made up for in loudness what it lacked in finesse and played a siren song for Bush and the deluded American public, particularly the bemused "conservatives," a shocking number of which still don't realize that their "movement" has been taken over and turned on its head. Steve Brouwer in his book, Robbing Us Blind, explains how the orchestra was played:
"Often The Weekly Standard will produce an essay or editorial about a proposed government course of action, only to have it followed up by a policy statement at the White House or a longer, expository article in The Wall Street Journal. This is especially true of foreign policy issues. For example, The Weekly Standard, at the very same time it was virulently attacking President Clinton about his sex life, was relentlessly prodding him to attack Iraq. With help from various scholarly-looking representatives from the right-wing think tanks, they kept a myth alive for the last five years of the Clinton presidency and into the 21st century-they insisted that there was a madman in the Middle East, Saddam Hussein, who was intent on destroying the United States. They linked the threat of the 'Demon Iraq' neatly to the need to support Israel. They said that Israel was entitled to deal very harshly with the Palestinians, who, according to the editors, did not necessarily deserve their own land and nation. This new Israeli aggressiveness would require a similar display of determined force by the United States according to the neo-cons."
 [ ]
And National Review is just a shell of its long-ago independent self. Even its managing editor, Jay Nordlinger, admits "...the dirty little secret is that most of the writers write for both us and the Standard. It's a relatively small pond." Nordlinger himself is a former associate editor at the Standard.
Of course, the neocon takeover is just one facet of Jewish power-seeking activities, but it's the crucial one as far as the current war is concerned. And what are the results of that war and occupation?
For one thing, the war is not over. In fact, there is no end in sight. It's been a year and a half since Bush declared victory, but more have died since "victory" than died before Bush's pronouncement. There have been more than 1,000 coalition deaths, including about 900 American soldiers, and over 5,000 casualties -- that's three times the rate of the early years of the Vietnam war, and those figures don't include the mercenaries who have died. We don't know how many Iraqi military deaths there were, but it was certainly well up in the thousands. And civilian Iraqi deaths continue to mount, topping 37,000 in a recent survey.
[ ]
And those losses don't even count the hundreds of thousands who were killed by the US government's Jewish-inspired sanctions against Iraq and the previous Gulf War, which ratchet those figures up to 1.5 million, many of them children. It's very unlikely that Iraqis, whatever their opinion of Saddam Hussein, are going to welcome Americans as "liberators" or friends anytime soon. And Iraq is only a small part of the charnel house of death that American money, American soldiers, and America's pro-Israel policies have built in the Middle East.
Using United Nations population data, Australian academic Dr. Gideon Polya has done a study on the excess mortality caused by Israel's wars and proxy wars in the Middle East since 1950. The figures are quite shocking:
"In order to compare different countries and regions it is useful to express the post-1950 "excess mortality" as a percentage of the present population, this giving an estimate of how many people died AVOIDABLY in a country for every 100 people alive in that country today. ...Post-1950 "excess mortality" for Arab countries with which Israel has been at war are sobering ("excess mortality" in millions; "excess mortality" percentage score also given in parenthesis): Egypt (20; 27%); Iraq (5; 20%); Jordan (0.6; 11%); Lebanon (0.5; 14%); Occupied Palestinian Territories (0.7; 18%); and Syria (2; 12%). The total post-1950 "excess mortality" of Israel's immediate Arab neighbours has totalled about 24 million. The "excess mortality" in the Occupied Palestinian territories has totalled 340,000 since occupation by Israel in 1967."
In contrast, Israel's own excess mortality in her wars has only been 100,000, or 2 per cent.
With all due respect to Dr. Gideon Polya and his study of excess mortality caused by the activities of the Jewish supremacists in the Middle East, someone needs to do a similar study of the deaths of White Europeans, including Americans, due to the power-seeking activities of organized Jews. The figures would be equally astounding, I am sure. We'd have to include the deaths of irreplaceable young heroes in World War I, since America was brought into the war largely because of a deal between the Zionist Jews who controlled Wilson and the British Empire, which controlled Palestine at the time; the deaths of World War II, also fought largely for Jewish interests, the deaths of American troops from Lebanon to Afghanistan to Iraq; the deaths of White Americans in the Zionist-inflamed 9/11 attacks; and all of the countless deaths and White children never born that can be laid at the feet of Jewish feminism and multiracialism.
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
With the situation in Iraq getting worse and worse, and with Americans sitting ducks for the resistance fighters the National Alliance warned you about, what is the response of the bought-and-paid-for US government? More wars -- now the saber-rattling is directed against Iran and Syria, just as we predicted it would be. And as fewer and fewer "volunteer" to join the "volunteer" military, "stop-loss" policies forcing troops to stay longer in the killing fields and preventing them from retiring, resigning, or relocating have kicked in, along with pushes for a new draft to directly enslave our sons and daughters who are so selfish that they don't want to die for Ariel Sharon. And, to bring us back full circle to where I started this program, they're even trying to convince young people scarcely out of high school to join the Army by telling them that it's safer in Mosul than Miami.
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
I think that those recruiters have just about got it right. So did the man who was the first one to say what millions on the left and right are saying: We're all Palestinians now.
The Jewish power structure is fomenting war after escalating war, all of them utterly unnecessary from a Western point of view, wantonly killing millions, and destroying centuries-old cultures in its insane drive to make the Middle East safe for the worthless and utterly artificial state of Israel -- and causing rage and retaliation against us in return. None of this would have happened without toxic Jewish power.
That same Jewish power structure is behind the drive for unlimited immigration -- including Muslim immigration -- into the United States and the rest of the European world, destroying our millennia-old culture, the culture that began in ancient Greece and gave us almost everything we love and treasure, in the process. Worse than that, the Jewish media and academic and political operatives are also literally murdering us genetically: As they import millions of non-Whites into our ancient homelands, they simultaneously promote an inverted "morality" that deems racial mixture to be an unalloyed good and opposition to racial mixture the very definition of evil. And they use their kept politicians to persecute those who make a public stand for racial integrity.
America is occupied every bit as much as Iraq. Just because crypsis was used instead of firebombs does not change the fact that the consequences will be just as devastating. National Vanguard writer Josiah Nott put it this way:
"This is a fundamental point about immigration that Americans and Westerners in general seem unable to grasp: the reason that most non-Whites come to Western countries is that their countries don't work. But they are the reasons their countries don't work. Ergo, when sufficient numbers of them come to our lands, our nations will also cease to work, which is precisely what is happening all over the Western world....
"The principal difference between the Iraqi people and we Westerners is that the Iraqis know their country is occupied--and they don't like it.
"I suggest that we adopt the language of the Iraqis.
"That huge mass of Chinese people in Monterey Park, CA (for example) is an occupation force, pure and simple. Because no guns were involved in this invasion, conquest, and occupation, Americans do not see it for what it truly is. But there is no relevant difference: population displacement and population replacement are the same phenomena whatever the means used to bring them about might be.
"When the U.S. Southwest becomes entirely Mexican, which it will be soon enough, it will make no difference that this was accomplished through 'peaceful' means and that the government of Mexico did not actually send a military invasion force into the Southwest. We all need to start thinking in terms of CONSEQUENCES."
[ ]
[ ]
Our perilous situation as a people requires us to see the consequences of our actions in coldly objective and rational terms. And the undeniable truth that we must face is that we have been parasitized and stand on the brink of racial and cultural extinction. Our nation is occupied by the biomass of the Other -- and the illegitimate power of the Opponent. And the force that has parasitized us also uses us to attack others which might challenge its power -- as we are now doing in Iraq. Our nation is also an occupier, making the Mideast safe for the Opponent to establish his financial and media power on new territory. Breaking the hold of the Opponent upon our brothers and sisters is the key to everything. Only those who understand that can bring an end to the bloodshed and to the death march of our people.

* * *

The philosopher Savitri Devi called it 'enthralling.' Dr. William Pierce called it "a survival manual for the White race." Revilo Oliver of the University of Illinois, one of the leading classicists of the last century, called it "unique... a veritable encyclopedia of everything that is directly pertinent to our race's position in the world today."
The book is William Gayley Simpson's Which Way Western Man?, which was unavailable for years and which has just been republished in a new edition by National Vanguard Books.
William Simpson began his career as a graduate, summa cum laude, of a major theological seminary, and became a Franciscan brother working among the poor and disenfranchised in an attempt to make a better world. Simpson saw the magnitude of the problems he and his comrades were trying to solve, and realized that the ameliorative work in which they were engaged would never solve the problems they were tackling, and could at best only slow down the steady decline of our civilization and of human quality generally.
He read the great philosophers, particularly Nietzsche, and from the 1920s to 1980 kept a written record of his quest for truth and for the meaning of life, which he found in the never-ending quest to increase human excellence and quality. Which Way Western Man? is the result of that quest, and it is one of the most important books of the last 100 years.
Published in 1980, the first edition sold out within a few years and was not reprinted, as the author was working, throughout the 80s and until his death in the 1990s, on a series of revisions and additions which reflected his new knowledge and mature final insights. At last, the monumental job of revision has been completed and the second edition of Which Way Western Man? is now available.
Which Way Western Man? is more than just a work of history, philosophy, and science, although it is all of that -- it is also the story of a life, the life of an unusually sensitive and compassionate man, a man who could understand the mission of St. Francis as well as that of Nietzsche -- a man who could see our position in the universe and relate it to the ordinary reader in a way that no other writer has ever done. I recommend Which Way Western Man? with my highest commendation. It is a life-changing book.
Which Way Western Man? is available as item number 407 from National Vanguard Books. This huge, encyclopedic work of 1070 pages is $39.95 plus $3 shipping and handling in the U.S., $5 elsewhere in the world. That's item 407 for $39.95 plus $3 in the U.S., $5 world, to National Vanguard Books, Box 330, Hillsboro WV 24946 USA. Or you can order online by clicking on the book's image at
Until next week, this is Kevin Alfred Strom reminding you of the words of Richard Berkeley Cotten: "Freedom is not free; 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.