|June 16th, 2006||#1|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Harz Mountains
The Truth is No Defense: 06/16/2006 #19
Direct mp3 download: http://www.buywhite.net/shoutcast/sh...ttind1948k.mp3
That was George Lincoln Rockwell, confessing back in the 1960s, his second-thoughts about WWII. My own father had similar doubts about that war, though he never stated them so emphatically: yet he always felt lied to, that something fundamentally dishonest was the cause of WWII. These doubts were his private thoughts, rarely mentioned except to his family. There is something else which needs to be said: he never thought he was opposing fascism, liberating Jews, or bringing freedom to the oppressed. If anything it was only Pearl Harbor, and perhaps, a racial suspicion of the Japanese which motivated him, yet I doubt even that was justification, in his mind, for sending him to fight the Japanese in the malaria infested islands of the South Pacific.
Today we are told new lies to justify phoney wars. We are told that America is fighting terrorism and building democracy in Iraq, and that 'evil doers' like Abu Zarkab Al-Zarqawi threaten our righteous mission. Of late Zarqawi's death was all over the headlines. It was a tremendous propaganda victory for the Washington Tyranny, but most commentators quietly acknowledge nothing has changed in Iraq.
You know, for some time now, I've thought Zarqawi to be fictional character, a stereotypical villain used by intelligence agencies to manage the public relations aspect of the war. Like my father, I get the feeling I'm being lied to. In the first chapter of the Zarqawi fiction he was the wily mastermind always one step ahead of the Americans, much like Poncho Villa barely escaping from the American calvary: an exciting villain, one that plays well on news and entertainment channels. In the final chapter Zarqawi made the supreme sacrifice, dying a death which swept the horrible crimes of Haditha off the headlines: ironically a true martyr for ZOG. Slick huh?
Generally I believe little that military spokesman say about this war, they are liars serving Jewish interests, whether military men know this or not is irrelevant. Though, there is one report about this war that I fully accept as truth: the massacre of innocents at Haditha. Because news of this alleged vengeful massacre of civilians by Marines was bottled-up in the Pentagon I tend to see some credibility to the charges, but that is not the only reason; also the US media initially showed little interest in Haditha but as the story grew, and the public began noticing, it was then Zarqawi's dramatic death appeared and swept Haditha from the headlines; and the final reason being that my father served with the First Marine Division in Guadalcanal during WWII and he told me such massacres often occurred there.
The last atrocity story to come out of Iraq was Abu Graib, the incident where Iraqis were systematically sexually tormented by US military authorities. Abu Graib was a clever use of psychological warfare, it not only humiliated the Arab inmates but also struck directly at the Arab male's sense of masculinity. For example, do you remember the photo with the lesbian leading a naked Arab man by a leash?
Just like with Haditha, the US press initially ignored the Abu Graib story. It was only after shocking photos emerged and began circulating on the internet, did the big media pay attention. Then the usual apologists like Rush Limbaugh emerged to assuage the Christians and right-wingers: Limbaugh explained it all away as a "frat boy stunt." Likewise with Haditha, a Jew Lawyer named Clarence Feldman writing in The American Thinker called Haditha an "unfortunate incident of collateral casualties." At National Review, Ashkanazi appeaser Rich Lowry said Haditha was "unrepresentative of the American military." Frankly, killing and massacring is what militaries do, and to say otherwise is to lie or be ignorant.
I grew up listening to my father's WWII stories. He was in the thick of battle in the South Pacific. My brother and I were awed by his stories, really it was all so exciting. But my father never glorified war, he always stated how much he wanted to come home, how much he deplored the deaths, how pointless he ultimately thought it all was, and how many innocents died for nothing. And for these reasons he implored his sons not to join military; he would often add "the army was now full of niggers anyway." His war stories, however action packed, were always told in a rather dry, resigned, and fatalistic tone. Perhaps James Jones' novel The Thin Red Line comes closest to describing how my father saw the war in the South Pacific.
When the news of the Haditha broke I thought of a story my father told about the massacring of Japanese soldiers by Americans. Initially he said the killing was provoked by Japanese suicide attacks. "Japs" he said would emerge from the jungle naked and make known their intention to surrender, perhaps one man might be waving a white flag. When the group got close to the American captors the Japs would raise their arms, in the manner in which people surrender, and then grenades would fall from their armpits killing themselves as well as nearby American soldiers. From that point on the American boys shot on sight surrendering Japanese soldiers, who rarely surrendered anyway. My father also told of captured Japanese having gashes bashed in their head by angry American soldiers using their rifle butts, the wounded men would then be left to sit in the sun to be attacked by flies.
Commanding officers became aware of this and then ordered American solders not to shoot surrendering Japanese soldiers, and the orders also stated that the American soldier to whom the Japanese had surrendered had to be fed with that soldiers own water and food rations until the prisoner could be evacuated. On Guadalcanal the only way to be evacuated was to be killed in action, and there was little food or clean water. Of course, one could always shoot an escaping prisoner. Many would entice a prisoner to do just that, by pretending to fall asleep while on watch, or putting the soldier in a cell whose perimeter was made of thin string and then walk away.
In that war my father saw, and did, a lot of killing. He said it wasn't just Japanese and Americans killing each other - it was also Americans killing Americans: sometimes it was accidental from so called "friendly fire," but other times it was intentional. Incredibly my father told of one artillery company which was shelling a position of Marines. Whether due to obstinately or ignorance the artillery crew refused to stop shelling the marine detachment, so a few of those Marines hunted down those artillery pieces and shot the men manning them. Yes, that is what he told me. In other cases "shell shocked" marines who had what was called the "1000 yard stare" might shoot another soldier at the slightest provocation, as almost occurred, as my father witnessed, when an officer ordered one shell shocked marine to surrender his food provisions. In this case the officer was not shot, since he was warned to back down.
In another story, newly arrived soldiers were mowed-down like grass when they refused to take the advice of veterans. The navy had finally ferried in reinforcements, months after the Marines had been repeatedly advised to burn their personal effects, such as letters from home, lest they fall into the hands of the enemy when they were killed by overwhelming enemy force. Fortunately, that didn't happen. Upon the arrival of reinforcements the veterans quickly informed the fresh soldiers that at midnight, that very night, the Japanese would attack with mortars and machine gun fire and they must dig foxholes to protect themselves. Instead the green soldiers laughed and called the vets "shelled shocked" and "mad". And, like clockwork, the Japanese attacked, the fresh soldiers unable to find cover were slaughtered, many crying out for help only to be met with jeers like "go to hell" and "die you shell shocked sons-a-bitches".
I think war is innate in the human condition, though many wars are avoidable. America has been involved in too many senseless overseas wars. Who benefits from these massacres and senseless killings, whether they be at Guadalcanal in 1942, Vietnam in 1968, Somalia in 1992, or Haditha, Iraq, in 2006? When Gulf War I came around in 1990 my father was resolutely opposed to it. I suppose he suspected the same waste and lies were operating at 1990 as they were in 1941, though he had not tools and understanding White Nationalists now possess. For instance nobody in 1941 knew that FDR was provoking war with Japan via trade policy and outright provocation of the Japanese Navy. We know hard facts about Iraq. We know this war was concocted by Neo-Conservative Jews, as outlined in Richard Perle's "Clean Break" and sold in the media by the William Kristol's Weekly Standard and Fox News. Lies got us into WWII and lies got us into Iraq.
Lets recap what happened at Haditha, Marines while on patrol encountered an improvised explosive device which exploded, killling a soldier and injuring other Marines. In response, the Marines entered nearby homes allegedly slaughtering old men, women, and children at point blank range - presumably out of frustration and revenge. Given my father's experience in war this event seems credible.
Really, rather than be shocked we really ought to ask how many other "Hadithas" go unreported? Such atrocities always happen in wars, though some more than others. With that said, know that we are in Iraq because of lies; lies concocted by a cabal of scheming Jews manipulating evidence and using their power in the presidency and their tongues in media. Those boys in Haditha who allegedly massacred innocents were put into an impossible situation by a corrupt system. That system is our true enemy.
Thanks for listening.
A White World (Pierce's Vision for our Race):