25/1 Serb’s Boycott Jolie’s Propaganda Film

Serb’s Boycott Jolie’s Propaganda Film

Serbs Say: Boycott Angelina Jolie’s “IN THE LAND OF BLOOD AND HONEY”?

Sir Vojislav Milosevic, Director, Center for Counter-Terrorism&World Peace

Who Really Ordered The Creation Of “IN THE LAND OF BLOOD AND HONEY”?

Saudi Arabia sponsored the movie and Angelina with $10 million.

Oscar-winning producer Graham King’s GK Films has announced that Oscar-winning actress Angelina Jolie will make her feature film directorial debut with a love story set during the Bosnian war.

Based on an original screenplay by Jolie, the ambitious story follows a Serbian man and a Bosnian woman who meet on the eve of the war, and the effect that the war has on their relationship. Angelina had two personal advisers on the screenplay:

VIDEO.

General Wesley Clark, NATO commander who orchestrated 78 days bombing campaign on Serbia & Montenegro, year 1999, and Richard Holbrook, who worked on recognition of terrorist Kosovo Liberation Army, who were put on the list of the world’s most dangerous terrorist organizations by State Department.

Documentary about how Albanians form Brooklyn, New York, are smuggling weapons form the USA to Kosovo via Albania. It also shows that former Clinton administration officials such as Richard Holbrooke and former presidential candidate / NATO supreme commander General Wesley Clark, support The KLA an independence of Kosovo from Serbia.

Richard Holbrooke (U.S. Special Envoy) with the KLA terrorists
The veteran diplomat had been taken to the Washington hospital, after collapsing during a meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Dec. 2010. Soon after, he died

Left to Right: Hashim Thachi (KLA Leader), Bernard Kouchner (UNMIK Chief, suspect on organ dealings of kidnaped Serbs, Russians…), Sir Michael Jackson (NATO Command), Gen. Agim Ceku (Commanding KLA General), Wesley Clark (Commanding NATO General)

War and drugs: Wesley Clark, Richard Holbrook, Florin Krasniqi who smuggling weapons form the USA to Kosovo via Albania.

Angelina Jolie’s directorial debut about a love story between a Serbian policeman and his rape victim has met with sharp criticism among Bosnian Serbs who said the work was biased and anti-Serb.

The movie “In the Land of Blood and Honey” set during the 1992-95 Balkan war has received critical acclaim in the US.

The film is slated to be premiered in Serbia and the Serb-populated part of Bosnia in May, and Jolie has said she would like to attend the screening.

Authorities have turned down a request by some war veterans’ organisations to ban the film.

A. Jolie – who is a goodwill ambassador for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees – has also been exposed to a barrage of criticism from the press and calls for a boycott to “show her she isn’t wolcome“ in the country.

Vecernje Novosti (daily news) : Angelina arrogantly refuses to even consider the real story about Romeo and Juliet from Sarajevo, the real couple murdered on May 19th, 1993. His name was Bosko Brkic, he was Serbian. Her name is Admira Ismic, she was Bosnian. They were both killed when they tried to escape from the Muslim part of Sarajevo on Vrbanja bridge to the Serbian part of the city. They also add the movie In The Land of Blood and Honey states there was 300,000 Bosnians killed, and 50,000 Bosnian women raped, and that it shows only victims on Bosnian side.

At the end of the movie, Angelina present, so called “the facts” about the Muslim’s females who were raped during the civil war, and she put the figure of 50.000 !!!??? Bosnian Foreign Minister, at that time, Haris Silajdzic, claimed the same (see the documentary) fake facts. He talked about the “rape camps, in which 40.000 -60.000 women are raped and are being raped while we are speaking now”. Pure lie: Bosnian Muslim government used inflamed numbers in order to provoke US military attacks on Serbs. And they did.

Newsweek reporter Alexandra Stiegelmayer used the numbers 30.000-50.000, but acknowledge she had no evidence to back up claim.

Draft report of EU talked about 20.000 rapes on all 3 sides in the war: Muslim, Serb and Croat side.

But, after an exhausted investigation the UN concluded that 2.400 rapes have been committed by all 3 sides in Bosnia conflict.

Angelina Jolie, listen and read carefully: 2.400 rapes on all 3 sides in Bosnian conflict. You are good will UN ambassador – talk to them, ask for the real facts.

Serbian websites have been flooded with pictures allegedly showing Jolie in pornographic acts before she became a celebrity. The pictures are reportedly accompanied with comments like “once a prostitute – always a prostitute”.

Internationally acclaimed Serbian film director Emir Kusturica has declined to comment on Jolie’s film, calling her a „propagandist“ not a filmmaker.

Emir Kusturica says that he would never invite Angelina Jolie to the festival Kustendorf, saying: She belongs to the cinematography which is actually a hidden propaganda. She came here to make a movie only about Bosnian victims, then the question is – why not about Serbs? That has nothing to do with the reality, she simply knows nothing about our problem.

Emir Kusturica

Angelina Jolie‘s directorial debut In The Land of Blood and Honey could become one of the most controversial movies this year. Press wrote about this movie, we all know the plot, we all know the story. But…do we really?

And that’s where the story starts. I’m about to make this report a little bit personal, just by saying that normal people live in a little European country Serbia. Why am I writing this? Well, simply because I have a lot of friends there, and when we talked about Jolie’s movie I was quite surprised that – they’re about to boycott it.

But why, I asked, the movie stars some famous Serbian actors, you should be happy that a big star like Angelina Jolie is behind the whole thing! Happy with what – they asked – once again we’re the bad guys who rape and kill the poor Muslims. She did not even try to make a movie based on the historical facts, and you call that professionalism? You call that a big directorial debut of a big Hollywood star? It’s not even an original anti-Serbian propaganda and people out here are totally against this movie.

The fact is that Angelina Jolie now tries to give the political context to the movie in American media, but she goes even further – right after the premiere of In the Land of Blood and Honey, in which Serbs were represented as killers and rapists, actress and director announced the action against the “genocidal creation” Republic Srpska.

Petar Djokic, Minister of Labour, Veterans and Disability Protection of Republika Srpska, says that it is clear the whole thing is the part of a new attack on Republika Srpska. Only with a new approach:

Angelina continues an attack on us. Starting with the OHR and other international organizations, their aim was always to bust the RS, and even to abolish it. And now that they have not succeeded, they want to start another war – through art. Hollywood movie should be animated by the world public and that the Serbs are again on a pillar of shame. How is it possible that the Serbs in their own home are criminals and aggressors? It is obvious that Angelina has received a lot of money to do it, it’s all being orchestrated! All of this was commissioned by extreme Islamic policies, that the Serbs would be displayed, normally, like criminals, killers, murderers and rapists. And that it would be presented that the only victims are Muslims, which is a total lie.

And, some comments on Angelina’s work:

Stefan:

It is completely true, and if Angelina Jolie comes toSerbia, i will be there to protest. Hey, it is maybe difficult to believe, but whatever happened inBosniaandCroatiaduring the 90′s was really tragic, and yes Serbs were responsible for war crimes, but for god sake, it was war and we weren’t the only one. Serbs were also killed, massacred, raped, but no one cares about the Serbian victims. Instead, it is only Serbs, the bad guys. We are not monsters, animals, we are human beings and we want to be treated as such, we are not mad animals, killers, we are people like everybody on this planet. Angelina Jolie has no right to film a movie like this, filled with stereotypes, and glorifying one side while spitting in the face of the other, while wrongly telling the facts.

Gorica:

I just can’t believe that someone wrote something like this! Thank you very much! And, yes, we are humans believed it or not! Our anger is a product of political games leaded by USA, to make us war criminals! I just can’t figure out one thing – Americahate Islamic people all over the world, but only here, in Bosnia, they are on Muslim side… They did not commit any crime! I’m Serb from Bosnia, and they killed every single man in my village including a baby from 15 months and including my grandmother (with cutting her head off)! READ THIS ANGELINA AND SHAME ON YOU! You are represented as a good person, adopting children, yeah right, if you really are a good person, you wouldn’t talked about something that you don’t known, because that is very painful issue for all Serbs from the RS! Greetings to the journalist fromSarajevo!

Monika:

She should stick to her photo modeling …it’s the only thing she’s good at. Also, if you are going to make a movie that has smth to do with our history, perhaps you should first open a book and learn smth about it. Shame on you! There are a lot of Serbian families inBosniawhose children, husbands, wives, mothers etc were raped, tortured and murdered, they don’t deserve this kind of humiliation! You don’t know how that feels, the worst thing that has happened to you is probably breaking a nail! You are just another ignorant American who probably doesn’t even know her own history! Funny how you weren’t “inspired” by what Naser Oric was doing!!! There are a lot of movies based on these years and history! What decent woman would have an affair with a married man and then say how she’d never do that because her dad left her mom when she was a kid, and then you do what the other woman did to your mom?!

Marko:

You are a horrible person, adopting kids is just your mask to hide what kind of person you really are! Don’t stick your fake nose in smth you don’t know! You’ve never seen someone kill and torture your family and friends in front of you! I hope you burn in hell! You are only popular because of physical appearance, you are a horrible actress and an even worse “director”!

Milos:

Thank you for your support. I hope you will once come toSerbiato see whit kind of people lives here! I would like to ask A.J. what about NATO bombing ofSerbia? What about bombing childe hospital in the center ofBelgrade, what about little girl Milica, what about all other victims of NATO bombing? Where is your story about cluster bombs thrown over Serbian cities, what about Uranium ( 4.5 Billion years of poison!!!) What about your army killing all over the world, Guantanamo etc. What about… AMERICAN GENOCIDE?! You are the last one on this planet that have right to talk about genocide and crime!

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/01/25/181368/

3 responses to “25/1 Serb’s Boycott Jolie’s Propaganda Film

  1. well, we can’t forget that the media portrayal of Serbs, as well of Angelina Jolie, are products of the same PR/marketing companies. I have this excerpt from an article about this-
    Media deception and the Yugoslav civil war (excerpt)

    Barry Lituchy

    It is said that the first casualty of war is the truth. Of course, today with the appalling spectacle of the civil war in Yugoslavia filling our TV screens and newspapers, this old axiom has taken on an uglier, more sinister meaning. If four years ago we could say that the American public was totally uninformed about the conflict ready to unfold, today we can say with equal justification that Americans are doubly or triply misinformed, and dangerously so, about this tragic and completely unnecessary war.

    And there’s a very good reason why. A malicious campaign of war propaganda, anti-Serb hatred, and just plain lies has flooded the American media. It has been financed and run through public relations firms, non-governmental organizations and human rights groups with the patronage of various governments, all with the single purpose of mobilizing public opinion on the side of the Bosnian Muslims and Croats, and against those “horrible people,” the Serbs. The truth, the lives of innocent people, and the real dangers of a wider war are all forsaken; the main thing is to twist or to invent the facts so that they fit in with America’s foreign policy objectives in Bosnia. Every step of the way, the media has acted as a co-belligerent, with the aim of whipping up anti-Serbian sentiment and support for military intervention on the side of the Muslim and Croat forces.

    Many of the stories on the Bosnian conflict that we read about and see on TV are actually fed to the media by public relations firms. Jim Harff, President of Ruder Finn Global Public Affairs, the public relations firm that handles the accounts of Bosnia, Croatia, and the Albanian opposition in Kosovo, argues that modern wars cannot be fought and won today without good public relations work. “In terms of persuading and convincing the UN to take proper measures,” says Harff, “it’s even more important.” According to U.S. Justice Department records, Bosnia and Croatia pay Ruder Finn more than $10,000 a month plus expenses “to present a positive image to members of Congress, administration officials, and the news media.(1)”

    The amount of covered “expenses” is many times greater than the disclosed fee. Harff is himself an insider in Washington, where he has worked for three different Representatives over the past decade. Because of international economic sanctions imposed on the Serbs by the UN—largely due to false stories in the media—the Serbs, ironically, are barred from hiring a public relations firm.

    The use of public relations firms to manufacture “the news” and shape public opinion is a dangerous phenomenon that threatens the lives and freedom of people around the world. But it is not entirely new. It was used to devastating effect during the Gulf War. John R. MacArthur, publisher of Harpers magazine and author of Second Front, an exposé of media disinformation during the Gulf War, has compared media coverage of the Bosnian conflict to that of the Gulf War.

    • Cheers!
      Funny thing is, it’s carrying on day after day, we had the IRAQ and Afghan lies, Libya and now Syria,

      John Beaty

      The author of The Iron Curtain Over America has written, or collaborated on, a dozen books. His texts have been used in more than seven hundred colleges and universities, and his historical novel, Swords in the Dawn, published originally in New York, had London and Australian editions, and was adopted for state-wide use in the public schools of Texas. His education (M.A., University of Virginia; Ph.D., Columbia University; post-graduate study, University of Montpellier, France), his travel in Europe and Asia, and his five years with the Military Intelligence Service in World War II rounded out the background for the reading and research (1946-1951) which resulted in The Iron Curtain Over America.

      http://www.iamthewitness.com/books/John.Beaty/Iron.Curtain.Over.America.htm

      WW2 We were fed the lie that we were fighting Fascism, not that we were fighting to help Communism, which is the true fact.

      THE BLACK HOOD OF CENSORSHIP

      Over his head, face, and neck the medieval executioner sometimes wore a loose-fitting hood of raven black. The grim garment was pierced by two eye-holes through which the wearer, himself unrecognized, caused terror by glancing among the onlookers while he proceeded to fulfill his gruesome function. In similar fashion today, under a black mask of censorship, which hides their identity and their purpose, the enemies of our civilization are at once creating fear and undermining our Constitution and our heritage of Christian civilization. In medieval times the onlookers at least knew what was going on, but in modern times the people have no such knowledge.

      Without the ignorance and wrong judging generated by this hooded propaganda, an alert public and an informed Congress would long since have guided the nation to a happier destiny.

      The black-out of truth in the United States has been effected (I) by the executive branch of the national government and (II) by non-government power.
      In the mention of government censorship, it is not implied that our national government suppresses newspapers, imprisons editors, or in other drastic ways prevents the actual publication of news which has already been obtained by periodicals. It is to be hoped that such a lapse into barbarism will never befall us.

      Nevertheless, since the mid-thirties, a form of censorship has been applied at will by many agencies of the United States government. Nothing is here said against war-time censorship of information on United States troop movements, military plans, and related matters. Such concealment is necessary for our security and for the surprise of the enemy, and is a vital part of the art of war. Nothing is said here against such censorship as the government’s falsification of the facts about our losses on December 7, 1941, at Pearl Harbor (Pearl Harbor, The Story of the Secret War, by George Morgenstern, The Devin-Adair Company, New York, 1947), though the falsification was apparently intended to prevent popular hostility against the administration rather than to deceive an enemy who already knew the facts.

      Unfortunately, however, government censorship has strayed from the military field to the political. Of the wide-spread flagrant examples of government blackout of truth before, during, and after World War II the next five sections (a to e) are intended as samples rather than as even a slight survey of a field, the vastness of which is indicated by the following:

      Congressman Reed (N.Y., Rep.) last week gave figures on the number of publicity people employed in all the agencies of the Government. “According to the last survey made,” he said, “there were 23,000 permanent and 22,000 part-time” (From “Thought Control,” Human Events, March 19, 1952).
      Our grossest censorship concealed the Roosevelt administration’s maneuvering our people into World War II. The blackout of Germany’s appeal to settle our differences has been fully enough presented in Chapter IV.

      Strong evidence of a similar censorship of an apparent effort of the administration to start a war in the Pacific is voluminously presented in Frederic R. Sanborn’s heavily documented Design for War (already referred to). Testimony of similar import has been furnished by the war correspondent, author, and broadcaster, Frazier Hunt. Addressing the Dallas Women’s Club late in 1950, he said, “American propaganda is whitewashing State Department mistakes . . .the free American mind has been sacrificed. . . We can’t resist because we don’t have facts to go on.”

      For a startling instance of the terrible fact of censorship in preparing for our surrender to the Soviet and the part played by Major General Clayton Bissell, A.C. of S., G-2 (the Chief of Army Intelligence), Ambassador to Moscow W. Averell Harriman, and Mr. Elmer Davis, Director of the Office of War Information, see Lane, former U.S. Ambassador to Poland (The American Legion Magazine, February, 1952). There has been no official answer to Mr. Lane’s question:

      Who, at the very top levels of the United States Government, ordered the hiding of all intelligence reports unfavorable to the Soviets, and the dissemination only of lies and communist propaganda?

      Professor Harry Elmer Barnes’s pamphlet, “Was Roosevelt Pushed Into War by Popular Demand in 1941? (Freeman’s Journal Press, Cooperstown, New York, 1951, 25c) furnishes an important observation on the fatal role of government censorship in undermining the soundness of the public mind and lists so well the significant matters on which knowledge was denied the people that an extensive quotation is here used as a summary of this section:

      Fundamental to any assumption about the relation of public opinion to political action is this vital consideration: It is not only what the people think, but the soundness of their opinion which is most relevant. The founders of our democracy assumed that, if public opinion is to be a safe guide for statecraft, the electorate must be honestly and adequately informed. I do not believe that any interventionist, with any conscience whatever, would contend that the American public was candidly or sufficiently informed as to the real nature and intent of President Roosevelt’s foreign policy from 1937 to Pearl Harbor. Our public opinion, however accurately or inaccurately measured by the polls, was not founded upon full factual information.

      Among the vital matters not known until after the War was over were:

      (1) Roosevelt’s statement to President Benes in May, 1939, that the United States would enter any war to defeat Hitler; (2) the secret Roosevelt-Churchill exchanges from 1939 to 1941; (3) Roosevelt’s pressure on Britain, France and Poland to resist Hitler in 1939; (4) the fact that the Administration lawyers had decided that we were legally and morally in the War after the Destroyer Deal of September, 1940; (5) Ambassador Grew’s warning in January, 1941, that, if the Japanese should ever pull a surprise attack on the United States, it would probably be at Pearl harbor, and that Roosevelt, Stimson, Knox, Marshall and Stark agreed that Grew was right; (6) the Anglo-American Joint-Staff Conferences of January-March, 1941; (7) the drafting and approval of the Washington Master War Plan and the Army-Navy Joint War Plan by May, 1941; (8) the real facts about the nature and results of the Newfoundland Conference of August, 1941; (9) the devious diplomacy of Secretary Hull with Japan; (10) Konoye’s vain appeal for a meeting with Roosevelt to settle the Pacific issues; (11) Roosevelt’s various stratagems to procure an overt act from Germany and Japan; (12) Stimson’s statement about the plan to maneuver Japan into firing the first shot; (13) the idea that, if Japan crossed a certain line, we would have to shoot; (14) the real nature and implications of Hull’s ultimatum of November 26, 1941; and (15) the criminal failure to pass on to Admiral Kimmel and General Short information about the impending Japanese attack.

      If the people are to be polled with any semblance of a prospect for any intelligent reaction, they must know what they are voting for. This was conspicuous not the case in the years before Pearl Harbor.

      Almost, if not wholly, as indefensible as the secret maneuvering toward war, was the wholesale deception of the American people by suppressing or withholding facts on the eve of the presidential election of 1944. Three examples are here given.

      First of all, the general public got no hint of the significance of the pourparlers with the “left,” which led to the naming of the same slate of presidential electors by the Democratic, American Labor, and Liberal parties in New York – a deal generally credited with establishing the fateful grip (Executive Order of December 30, 1944) of Communists on vital power-positions in our government. Incidentally the demands of the extreme left were unassailable under the “We need those votes” political philosophy; for Dewey, Republican, received 2,987,647 votes to 2,478,598 received by Roosevelt, Democrat — and Roosevelt carried the state only with the help of the 496,236 Liberal votes, both of which were cast for the Roosevelt electors!

      As another example of catering to leftist votes, the President arrogantly deceived the public on October 28, 1944, when he “boasted of the amplitude of the ammunition and equipment which were being sent to American fighting men in battle.” The truth, however, was that our fighting men would have sustained fewer casualties if they had received some of the supplies which at the time were being poured into Soviet Russia in quantities far beyond any current Soviet need. It was none other than Mrs. Anna Rosenberg, “an indispensable and ineradicable New Deal ideologist, old friend of Mrs. Roosevelt” who, about a month before the election, “went to Europe and learned that ammunition was being rationed” to our troops. “It apparently did not occur to Mrs. Rosenberg to give this information to the people before election day.” After the election and before the end of the same tragic November, the details were made public, apparently to stimulate production (all quotes from Westbrook Pegler’s column “Fair Enough,” Nov. 27, 1944, Washington Times-Herald and other papers).

      A third example of apparent falsification and deception had to do with President Roosevelt’s health in the summer and autumn of 1944. His obvious physical deterioration was noted in the foreign press and was reported to proper officials by liaison officers to the White House (personal knowledge of the author). Indeed, it was generally believed in 1944, by those in a position to know, that President Roosevelt never recovered from his illness of December, 1943, and January, 1944, despite a long effort at convalescence in the spring weather at the “Hobcaw Barony” estate of his friend Bernard Baruch on the South Carolina coast. The imminence of the President’s death was regarded as to certain that, after his nomination to a fourth term, Washington newspaper men passed around the answer “Wallace” to the spoken question “Who in your opinion will be the next president?’ Former Postmaster General James A. Farley has testified that Roosevelt “was a dying man” at the time of his departure for Yalta (America Betrayed at Yalta,” by Congressman Lawrence H. Smith, National Republic, July, 1951). The widespread belief that Roosevelt was undergoing rapid deterioration was shortly to be given an appearance of certitude by the facts of physical decay revealed at the time of his death, which followed his inauguration by less than three months.

      Nevertheless, Vice Admiral Ross T. McIntire, Surgeon-General of the Navy and Roosevelt’s personal physician, was quoted thus in a Life article by Jeanne Perkins (July 21, 1944, p. 4) during the campaign: “The President’s health is excellent. I can say that unqualifiedly.”
      In World War II, censorship and falsification of one kind or another were accomplished not only in high government offices but in lower echelons as well. Several instances, of which three are here given, were personally encountered by the author.

      (1) Perhaps the most glaring was the omission, in a War Department report (prepared by tow officers of Eastern European background), of facts uncomplimentary to Communism in vital testimony on UNRRA given by two patriotic Polish-speaking congressmen (both Northern Democrats) returning from an official mission to Poland for the House Foreign Affairs Committee. An investigation was initiated but before it could be completed both officers had been separated from the service.

      (2) News was slanted as much as by a fifty-to-one pro-Leftist ratio in a War Department digest of U.S. newspaper opinion intended, presumably, to influence thought including the thought of U.S. soldiers. For example, the leftist PM (circulation 137,000) in one issue (Bureau of Publications Digest, March 14, 1946) was represented by 616 columnar inches of quoted matter in comparison with 35 1/2 columnar inches from the non-leftist N.Y. World-Telegram (circulation 389,257). There was also a marked regional slant. Thus in the issue under consideration 98.7 percent of the total space was given to the Northeastern portion of the United States, plus Missouri, while only 1.3 percent was given to the rest of the country, including South Atlantic States. Gulf States, Southwestern States, Prairie States, Rocky Mountain States, and Pacific Coast States.

      (3) Late in 1945 the former Secretary of War, Major General Patrick D. Hurley, resigned as Ambassador to China to tell the American government and the American people about Soviet Russia’s ability to “exert a potent and frequently decisive influence in American politics and in the American government, including the Department of Justice” (for details, see Chapter VI, a). General Hurley was expected to reveal “sensational disclosures” about certain members of the State Department’s Far Eastern staff in particular (quoted passages are from the Washington Times-Herald, December 3, 1945); but he was belittled by high government agencies including the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate, and large sections of the press connived to smother his message. A scheduled Military Intelligence Service interview arranged with General Hurley by the author was canceled by higher authority. Be it said for the record, however, that the colonels and brigadier generals immediately superior to the author in Military Intelligence were eager seekers for the whole intelligence picture and at no transmit the order just referred to.

      Incidentally the brush-off of General Hurley suggests that the leftist palace guard which was inherited from the Roosevelt administration had acquired in eight months a firmer grip on Mr. Truman that it ever had on the deceased president until he entered his last months of mental twilight. Roosevelt’s confidence in Hurley is several times attested by General Elliott Roosevelt in As He Saw It. In Tehran the morning after the banquet at the Russian Embassy the President said: I want you to do something for me, Elliott. Go find Pat Hurley, and tell him to get to work drawing up a draft memorandum guaranteeing Iran’s independence. . . I wish I had more men like Pat, on whom I could depend. The men in the state Department, those career diplomats . . .half the time I can’t tell whether I should believe them or not (pp. 192-193).

      At the second Cairo Conference the President told his son:

      http://www.iamthewitness.com/books/John.Beaty/Iron.Curtain.Over.America.htm#the black hood

      America has gone too far, since John wrote this excellent book….

      AMERICA CAN STILL BE FREE

      In the speech of his play King John, Shakespeare makes a character say:
      This England never did, nor never shall

      Lie at the proud foot of a conqueror

      But when it first did help wound itself.
      In June, 1951, before the members of the Texas Legislature in Austin, General of the Army Douglas MacArthur made a speech of which the above quotation might have been the text. He said in part: I am concerned for the security of our great nation, not so much because of any potential threat from without, but because of the insidious force working from within which, opposed to all of our great traditions, have gravely weakened the structure and tone of our American way of life.
      The “insidious forces working from within” and “opposed to all our great traditions” are the first and most serious challenge that faces America. There are those who seek to corrupt our youth that they may rule them. There those who seek to destroy our unity by stirring up antagonism among the various Christian denominations, There are those who, in one way or another, intrude their stooges into many of our high military and executive offices. Effective in any evil purpose is the current menace of censorship, imposed not by those of alien origin and sympathy within our country, but by alien-dominated agencies of the United Nations.
      Moreover, and even more significant, it must not be forgotten that an undigested mass in the “body politic,” an ideologically hostile “nation within the nation,” has through history proved the spearhead of the conquerors. The alien dictators of Rumania, Hungary Poland, and other Eastern European countries have been discussed in Chapter II. Throughout history members of an unassimilated minority have repeatedly been used as individual spies – as when the Parthians used Jews in Rome while the Romans used Jews in Parthia for the same purpose. Recent instances of espionage – discussed above in Chapter II – involved the theft of atomic secrets from both Canada and the United States.

      In addition to working individually for the enemies of his country, the unassimilated alien has often worked collectively.

      According to A History of Palestine from 135 A.D. to Modern Times, by James Parkes (Oxford University Press, New York, 1909), Persians in 614 A.D. invaded Palestine, a part of the Christian Roman Empire of the East, and took Jerusalem. Here is Mr. Parkes’s account:
      There is no doubt that the… Jews aided the Persians with all the men they could muster, and that the help they gave was considerable. Once Jerusalem was in Persian hands a terrible massacre of Christians took place, and the Jews are accused of having taken the lead in this massacre. (op. cit., p. 81).
      Mr. Parkes concludes that it “would not be surprising if the accusation were true.”
      Another famous betrayal of a country by its Jewish minority took place in Spain. In his History of the Jews, already referred to, Professor Graetz gives an account (Vol. III, p. 109) of coming of alien conquerors into Spain, a country which had been organized by the Visgoths, a race closely akin in blood to the English, Swedes, Germans and other peoples of the North Sea Area:
      The Jews of Africa, who at various times had emigrated thither from Spain, and their unlucky co-religionists of the Peninsula, made common cause with the Mahometan conqueror, Tarik, who brought over from Africa into Andalusia an army eager for the fray. After the battle of Xeres (July, 711), and the death of Roderic, the last of the Visigothic kings, the victorious Arabs pushed onward, and were everywhere supported by the Jews. In every city that they conquered, the Moslem generals were able to leave but a small garrison of their own troops, as they had need of every man for subjection of the country; they therefore confided them to the safekeeping of the Jews. In this manner the Jews, who had but lately been serfs, now became masters of the towns of Cordova, Granada, Malaga, and many others. When Tarik appeared before the capitol, Toledo, he found it occupied by a small garrison only, the nobles and clergy having found safety in flight. While the Christians were in church, praying for the safety of their country and religion, the Jews flung open the gates to the victorious Arabs (Palm Sunday, 712), receiving them with acclamations, and thus avenged themselves for the many miseries which had befallen them in the course of a century since the time of Reccared and Sisebut. The Capital also was entrusted by Tarik to the custody of the Jews, while he pushed on in pursuit of the cowardly Visogoths, who had sought safety in flight, for the purpose of recovering from them the treasure which they had carried off.
      Finally when Musa Ibn-Nosair, the Governor of Africa, brought a second army into Spain and conquered other cities, he also delivered them into the custody of the Jews.
      The “miseries” which prompted the Jews of Spain to treason are explained by Professor Graetz. King Sisebut was annoyingly determined to convert them to Christianity, and among the “miseries” inflicted by King Reccared “the most oppressive of all was the restraint touching the possession of the slaves. Henceforward the Jews were neither to purchase Christian slaves nor accept them as presents.” (History of the Jews, Vol. III, p. 46) The newly Christianized east German Goths of Spain were noted for their chastity, piety, and tolerance (Encyc. Brit., Vol. X, p. 551), but the latter quality apparently was not inclusive enough to allow the wealthy alien minority to own the coveted bodies of fair-haired girls and young men.

      There is a lesson for Americans in the solicitude of the Visigoths for their young. Americans of native stock should rouse themselves from their half-century of lethargic indifference and should study the set-up which permits the enslavement of young people’s minds by forces hostile to Western Christian civilization. Our boys and girls are propagandized constantly by books, periodicals, motion pictures, radio, television and advertisements; and from some of the things that they read and see and hear they are influenced toward a degraded standard of personal conduct, an indifference to the traditional doctrines of Christianity, and a sympathy for Marxism or Communism. American parents must evolve and make successful a positive – not a negative – counter – movement in favor of the mores of Western civilization, or that civilization will fall. It is well known that the Communists expend their greatest effort at capturing the young; but in this most vital of all fields those Americans who are presumably anti-Communistic have – at least up to the summer of 1952 – made so little effort that it may well be described as none at all.

      (Editors note: the author had no knowledge of M-TV the new personal computer age, internet nor the pornography and smut that is so prevalent in all. It is apparent few took his warning to stop the Communist dream of just such a saturation of pornography, perversion, and moral depravity, as it has occurred on a massive scale rendering nearly a whole generation devoid of true Christian morals so necessary for the preservation of our Republic).
      Since President Franklin Roosevelt’s recognition of the Soviet masters of Russia (November 16, 1933), the United States has consistently helped to “wound itself” by catering to the “insidious forces working from within” (Chapter II and III), who are “opposed to all our great traditions” of Christian civilization.

      These powerful forces have been welcomed to our shores, have become rich and influential, and nothing has been expected of them beyond a pro-American patriotism rather than a hostile national separatism. In spite of all kindnesses, they have indeed ever, stubbornly adhered to their purposes and have indeed “gravely weakened the structure and tone of our American way of life.” But the wealth of our land and the vitality of our people are both so great that the trap has not yet been finally sprung; the noose has not yet been fatally drawn. Despite the hostile aliens who exert power in Washington; despite the aid and succor given them by uninformed, hired, or subverted persons of native stock; despite the work of the “romantics, bums and enemy agents” (Captain Michael Fielding, speech before Public Affairs Luncheon Club, Dallas, Texas, March 19, 1951) who have directed our foreign policy in recent years, there is a chance for survival of America. A great country can bee conquered only if it is inwardly rotten. We can still be free, if we wish.
      Basic moves, as indicated in preceding chapters, are three:

      http://www.iamthewitness.com/books/John.Beaty/Iron.Curtain.Over.America.htm#america can still be

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s