American Dissident Voices Broadcast of March 14, 1998

Clinton's Legacy
by Dr. William Pierce


I spoke with you last week about the political instability which is a
consequence of Mr. Clinton's Presidency. This is an extremely important
matter, and I will talk more about it today. As a preliminary, I want to
repeat for emphasis a few fundamental facts I've pointed out on earlier
programs.

Last week I told you that Bill Clinton is a psychologically defective
person. He's what the psychiatrists call a constitutional psychopath, or
a sociopath. He is not only amoral, but he also lacks the judgment and
self-control necessary to conform his behavior to reasonable norms.
Amorality, lack of any inherent morality, is not an uncommon condition
among lawyers and politicians, of course, but most of them manage to
curb their greed and their lust enough to conform to accepted standards
of behavior. A person who wants to get ahead in politics should be a
person who looks ahead and tries to understand the long-range
consequences of current decisions and policies. Bill Clinton has never
had that faculty. For him it's always been doing what he wants to do at
the moment and figuring that later he'll be able to lie himself out of
any problems which arise. He behaves as if he's been lobotomized or as
if he has a substantial non-White component in his genetic makeup. He
displays the type of mentality especially characteristic of Blacks. They
often show a lack of foresight.

When Bill Clinton was a university student during the late 1960s he was
organizing pro-Viet Cong demonstrations. That may have been a very
trendy thing to do in the pot-smoking, coke-snorting crowd to which
Clinton belonged, but it wasn't a very farsighted thing to do for
someone who even then had strong political ambitions. Even the most
amoral and opportunistic person should have understood that publicly
taking the side of your country's enemies during a war could become a
serious liability for a political career in the future. Clinton figured
he'd do what was trendy at the moment and lie about it later, if he
figured at all.

When he was governor of Arkansas there were enough available women to
satisfy any sexual appetite. All that was called for was a reasonable
degree of discretion, but Bill Clinton lacked even that. His womanizing
exceeded all reasonable bounds. Like a Third World potentate making the
rounds of his subjects, he would spot a woman in a crowd who appealed to
him and point her out to a member of his state police bodyguard, who
then would approach the woman and escort her to Clinton's bedroom for a
"quickie." The technique used with Paula Jones was standard operating
procedure in Bill Clinton's Little Rock, as several of his former
bodyguards have testified. Any prudent man, no matter how lustful, could
have guessed that this sort of behavior eventually would lead to serious
problems. But not Bill Clinton.

And Clinton was as reckless in his financial dealings and in his use of
illegal drugs while he was in Arkansas as he was in his bimbo hunting. A
number of witnesses have testified to his use of cocaine at Little Rock
parties while he was governor of Arkansas. For the governor of a state
to behave in such a manner, regardless of his lack of respect for the
law, indicates a shocking deficit of judgment.

As for finances, I reminded you last week that one of his Arkansas
friends, Susan McDougal, a former officer of the failed Madison Guaranty
Savings and Loan, has been sitting in prison for more than six months
now on a contempt charge because she refuses to tell a grand jury what
she knows about Bill Clinton's involvement in Madison Guaranty's illegal
operations. She has been granted immunity from prosecution in return for
her testimony, but she refuses to talk. One can only suspect that
someone in the Clinton crowd is making it worth her while to keep her
mouth shut and stay in prison. And of course, there is the matter of the
box of old bank records which recently turned up in the back of a former
bank employee's car: a box of records everyone thought had been
destroyed. Among the records was a $27,000 check from Madison Guaranty
to Bill Clinton, which Clinton claims he doesn't remember receiving.

As with Susan McDougal, suspicions of "hush money" payments are
associated with several other former Clinton associates: Webster
Hubbell, an old Arkansas pal appointed associate attorney general by
Clinton during his first term as President, later was indicted on felony
fraud charges. He promised prosecutors to tell what he knew about
Clinton's illegal activity in Arkansas in return for lenient treatment.
But various Clinton associates, including Vernon Jordan, stepped in and
arranged for Hubbell to receive $500,000 in so-called "consulting fees."
After the payoff, Hubbell kept his mouth shut about Clinton and went to
prison.

And there's the case of Monica Lewinsky, who traded her promise of
silence in return for a high-paying job in New York, arranged by Vernon
Jordan.

Well, the list goes on and on and on. It's really astounding that one
man has gotten away with so much and managed to stay out of prison --
let alone to stay in the White House! As I said, Clinton's personality
matches that of what the psychiatrists call a "constitutional
psychopath": a person who not only lacks all moral scruples but also
lacks the judgment and self-control necessary for normal social
functioning.

Clinton, of course, grew up during the 1960s, a period of artificial
social upheaval when the Jews were using the mass media to encourage
young people to break all the rules, cut themselves loose from their
roots, and adopt a hedonistic life-style. One of the Jewish instigators
of this upheaval of the 1960s was Jerry Rubin, a leader of the Youth
International Party. In his book titled _Do It!,_ published in 1970 by
the big New York Jewish company Simon and Schuster, Rubin explicitly
urged the sort of behavior manifested by Clinton. He advocated free
money, free drugs, sex whenever and wherever one felt the urge, no
rules, and no responsibility.

Bill Clinton, however, wasn't the only American who grew up during the
1960s, and he really can't use the so-called "counter-culture"
revolution promoted by Rubin and other Jews as an excuse for himself.
Constitutional psychopaths are born, not made. What the 1960s did for
Bill Clinton was provide him with a milieu in which he could operate
without the social disapproval that ordinarily would be directed at a
person like himself. It provided him with a constituency of people who
had grown up with the notion that responsibility and discipline are
"fascist" concepts. These are the sort of people he has surrounded
himself with in Washington.

Gary Aldrich, the FBI agent who was assigned to the Clinton White House
to do security checks on Clinton's staffers, has described these people
in detail in his 1996 book, _Unlimited Access._ Aldrich tells of drug
usage and semi-public homosexual activity encountered in the corridors
and restrooms of the Clinton White House and of the shocking information
uncovered in his background investigations of Clinton staffers. Not a
1960s person himself, Aldrich was distressed by the absence of moral and
behavioral standards he observed among Clinton's associates. In
_Unlimited Access_ he relates a conversation he had with two other FBI
agents. One of them asks him, "What the hell is going on at the White
House, Gary?"

Aldrich replies that he has never seen anything like it. The third agent
says: "Are you =sure= you haven't seen these people before? Think about
it. `Kill the pigs. Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, the Viet Cong are gonna win.'
That's who they are, Gary. They're the people we used to arrest."

I brought Gary Aldrich's observations into this just to let you see that
my conclusions about Bill Clinton are shared by others who have
acquainted themselves with him. Many rank-and-file people in the news
media also understand Clinton's nature, but many of these media people
are 1960s-style people themselves, and they were inclined not to be
critical of his recklessly self-indulgent behavior, until it exceeded
even their limits of tolerance.

Now, the really interesting thing about all of this is not that Bill
Clinton is a constitutional psychopath. There are lots of constitutional
psychopaths running loose in our society these days. The interesting
thing is that a constitutional psychopath has become President of the
United States through the democratic process, and he enjoys a high
degree of popularity among the electorate even after his nature has been
revealed by the recent scandals. =That's= what's interesting.

I want to draw two important conclusions from this: one about the role
of the mass media in the political process today, and one about the
nature of the electorate and what that means for mass democracy.

First, how did a constitutional psychopath become President? To answer
this we need to understand that Bill Clinton is not only a psychopath:
he is a psychopath with charisma. He is a very manipulative psychopath.
He is an intelligent psychopath. With his boyish smile and his "aw,
shucks" manner, he has not only been able to charm countless women out
of their panties, he also has been able to charm their husbands,
fathers, and brothers into voting for him. It was perhaps forgivable for
the local Democratic Party machine in Arkansas to adopt him as a
candidate for governor. They saw in him a natural vote-getter. The
trouble with this, of course, is that they also should have seen the
constitutional psychopath in him and rejected him on that basis.
Clinton's charm and his ability to win votes should not have been the
only considerations.

Politics, of course, always has been a crooked business. But I believe
that the people involved in it used to be a little more careful, a
little more mindful of the consequences of their actions. This wasn't
really indicative of any morality or patriotism on their part: just
normal prudence. The standards seem to be down everywhere these days.
The professional politicians always try to remain closely aware of
public feeling, public attitudes, public tolerances. When they see that
public standards are down, that the public will tolerate behavior today
that it wouldn't have tolerated 20 or 30 years ago, then they are more
likely to put forward someone like Clinton as a candidate. They won't be
quite as discriminating in choosing a candidate as they were earlier.
And of course, usually they get away with this lack of discrimination.
But they didn't get away with it in Clinton's case. Certainly the more
prudent Democratic leaders are wishing now that they hadn't chosen
Clinton as their candidate. They can see that he is still popular, but
they also can see that he endangers the continued existence of the
system from which all the politicians draw their sustenance. They can
see that a system of constitutional democracy, of democracy with rules
and standards, has been degraded to a mobocracy. The mob doesn't care
about rules and standards. The mob cares only about its hero of the
moment.

Did Clinton steal money from the public in his dealings with Madison
Guaranty? "Who cares?" roars the mob. Did he use cocaine while he was
governor of Arkansas? Has he broken laws in accepting money from Chinese
gangsters? "Leave the poor man alone. We like him!" screams the mob. Has
he committed perjury and obstructed justice by arranging payoffs to
Susan McDougal, Webster Hubbell, and Monica Lewinsky? "That's not
important!" shouts the mob. "Let him do his job!" 

Now, the mob may not understand the danger in this sort of situation,
but others do understand. There are many thoughtful and responsible
Americans who accepted democracy only because of the safeguards designed
to keep it from becoming a mobocracy: safeguards which obviously have
failed. Until now democracy has been sort of a secular religion in the
United States, but the intelligent and independent-minded segment of the
public is becoming cynical about that religion. They are losing their
faith in it. They will withdraw their consent to be governed by it. That
may not worry the mob, because the mob is drunk with its own power, with
its numbers. But mobs never rule for long, regardless of their numbers.
There will be a revolution, and the mob will lose its power -- which is
a good thing, of course, but we want to be very careful about who gets
the power.

There's one more extremely important element in our situation, and that
element is the power of the mass media. Before the rise of the mass
media, candidates for office had more or less direct contact with the
voters. The public's evaluation of candidates was guided by community
standards and by local community leaders. Community leaders were usually
a cut above the village idiots and the food-stamp recipients and the
trendy airheads who always went chasing after the latest fad, and
because they were a cut above the rabble in terms of judgment and sense
of responsibility these local community leaders gave a degree of
stability to democracy. As long as the voters took their lead from
people in the community who were respected, democracy was not likely to
become mobocracy.

During this century, however, American society has undergone profound
changes. For all practical purposes, there no longer are communities or
respected community leaders in most parts of America. During this
century the mass media have risen to take the place of community contact
and community guidance in the lives of most Americans. This has been
especially the case since the Second World War and the advent of
television. Now candidates for public office are presented directly to
the voters through the mass media. The image of a candidate that a voter
sees is the image shaped by the media, and the media are far from
neutral. Of course, charisma and personal charm and likability are still
important for a candidate's vote-getting ability, but the media make a
big difference in the way these characteristics are perceived by the
public. The types of questions that reporters ask during press
conferences and interviews, the manner in which they ask questions, and
the way in which the interviews are edited before being presented to the
public make an enormous difference in the way the public perceives a
candidate. There always are things in a candidate's background, in his
past life, which are capable of influencing the public's attitude toward
a candidate. The people who control the media scrutinize these things
and decide which ones to present to the public and which ones to keep
quiet about.

Did the candidate demonstrate on behalf of America's enemies during the
Vietnam war, as Bill Clinton did? Not important, the media bosses
decide. No need to remind the public of that. Did the candidate ever
make a remark about limiting immigration or cutting back on welfare or
eliminating affirmative action programs? Well, now, that's something the
media bosses certainly will want to tell the public about; they'll want
to tell the public that the candidate is a "racist," and they'll figure
out the most damaging way to do it.

On top of this control of candidates' images by the mass media, there
also is the more general effect that the media have on public attitudes.
Two generations of Americans have been raised on television now.
Television has been the baby-sitter and the teacher for two generations.
And during these two generations Jews have had a vastly -- an enormously
-- disproportionate role in controlling what television has taught to
Americans. Jews, whether as scriptwriters or as network bosses, have
shaped much of the public's attitudes and values. And that fact is the
key to understanding why Bill Clinton still has a very high public
approval rating even after being exposed for what he is.

In summary: Bill Clinton did not make the political system in America
what it is today. He did not change a constitutional democracy into a
mobocracy. That change took place without his help, over a period of
decades. Bill Clinton has simply made that change manifest -- and by
making it manifest he has undermined the whole system. He has destroyed
any remaining respect and support the system had among thoughtful and
responsible and moral Americans. That is what history will remember Bill
Clinton for.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The text above is based on a broadcast of the American Dissident
Voices radio program sponsored by National Vanguard Books.
For more information about National Vanguard Books or the
National Alliance see our web site at http://www.natvan.com or
http://www.natall.com.

To contact us, write to:
     National Vanguard Books
     Attention:  ADVlist
     P.O. Box 330
     Hillsboro, WV  24946

or e-mail:  national@natvan.com please tell us if we can post your
comments and if so whether you want your name or e-mail address
given.

(c) 1998 National Vanguard Books