a330: The Real Bertrand Aristide by William F. Jasper (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Robert Benodin <r.benodin@worldnet.att.net>


The Real Bertrand Aristide
by William F. Jasper
Have American passions subsided enough since last October to allow President
Clinton to press onward again in his ill-fated campaign to "restore
democracy" in Haiti? Will he get public and congressional support for
putting the lives of American soldiers on the line and risking U.S.
entrapment in another Third World quagmire? Will he be able to sell the
American people on the idea of deploying U.S.-UN military forces in a
crusade to install Jean-Bertrand Aristide as president of that pitiful land?
Will we buy the incredible gimmicks of the Saint Aristide marketing blitz?
Will the brazen disinformation campaign succeed in transforming the
psychopathic, Marxist, renegade priest who advocates the most brutal
terrorism into the Mother Theresa of Haiti?
Perhaps -- to all of the above. Perhaps, that is, if the amazing propaganda
organs of the establishment media can sufficiently synchronize their
clamorous advocacy that passes for "news" to orchestrate an overwhelming
compassion-and-outrage symphony: compassion for the suffering masses of
Haiti; outrage over the brutality of the ruling regime and its defiance of
U.S. (i.e. Clinton) and UN mandates. We are already well into the second
movement of this sickeningly familiar tune, which faded briefly into the
background so that other themes dear to the hearts of the new world order
crowd (NAFTA, GATT, Brady bill, nationalizing the police, etc.) could come
to the fore. But now we appear to be building toward a Haitian crescendo.
Expect a dramatic surge of heart-rending photos of starving Haitian children
and horrifying stories of torture and murder in Port-au-Prince to accompany
the Clinton crusade for Aristide's "restoration."
Insider Admission
Does it sound like we are suggesting some kind of connivance among the media
elites and the Clinton Administration to promote a secret agenda? A
conspiracy of sorts? Well, don't take our word for it; take the Washington
Post's. You cannot get much more establishment than that. For too many years
"paranoid right-wingers" have complained about the cozy, conspiratorial
relationship between key members of the major media and top government
officials centering around the private Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
Now comes the Post's Richard Harwood to verify what we "kooks" have known
all along. In his Post column for October 30th, entitled "Ruling Class
Journalists," Harwood admits that CFR "members are the nearest thing we have
to a ruling establishment in the United States."
"The president is a member," Harwood notes. "So is his secretary of state,
the deputy secretary of state, all five of the undersecretaries...." And on
and on he goes, through a litany of the CFR membership roster in the Clinton
Administration. Not much new there for readers of this magazine; we've been
pointing out for years the CFR's clean sweep of the major slots in every
Administration (Republican and Democratic) over the past half century. But
Harwood continues: "What is distinctively modern about the council these
days is the considerable involvement of journalists and other media figures,
who account for more than 10 percent of the membership." He mentions the
CFR's new president, Leslie Gelb, who "for many years was a reporter and
columnist for the New York Times," and "Strobe Talbott of Time magazine, who
is now President Clinton's ambassador at large in the Slavic world."
"The editorial page editor, deputy editorial page editor, executive editor,
managing editor, foreign editor, national affairs editor, business and
financial editor and various writers as well as Katherine Graham, the
paper's principal owner, represent The Washington Post in the council's
membership," observes Harwood. Ditto for the other media giants: the New
York Times, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, NBC, CBS, ABC, et al.
Most revealing was this admission: "They do not merely analyze and interpret
foreign policy for the United States; they help make it" (emphasis added).
Harwood then quotes an article by Jon Vanden Heuvel in the Media Studies
Journal on this influence. Vanden Heuvel says, "By focusing on particular
crises around the world [the media are in a better position] to pressure
government to act .... Humanitarianism has taken on new dimensions as a
component of American foreign policy, and the media are largely
responsible." The CFR-orchestrated, globalist, one-world-view media, that
is. Harwood sees no ethical problems in these "relationships" and no
"conflict of interest" danger "when journalists get cheek and jowl with the
establishment."
Unless many more Americans get wise to this cheek and jowl relationship,
however, the "ruling class journalists" will once again stampede public
support (or the appearance of public support) for U.S. intervention in a
"humanitarian crisis" -- this time in Haiti. This incestuous
CFR-media-Administration affair has been plainly evident in the concerted
disinformation campaign these Insider forces have mounted concerning all
aspects of the Haiti situation.
Establishment Darling
The fix was in long before Father Jean-Bertrand Aristide was invited to the
heart of the American Establishment, CFR headquarters in New York, on
September 25, 1991, to deliver a speech entitled "Haiti: The New Approach to
Democracy." As we shall see, that "new approach" bears striking resemblance
to approaches we have witnessed elsewhere. When Aristide's seven-month-old
regime was overthrown just four days after his speech to the CFR, the entire
globalist-leftist Establishment came rushing to his aid. He is the darling,
for example, of the Socialist International (SI) and enjoys the active
support of Socialist French President Francois Mitterrand and his activist
wife, Danielle. Michael Barnes (CFR), the former Democratic congressman from
Maryland, who as chairman of the House Subcommittee on Western Hemispheric
Affairs did so much to aid the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and the FMLN
terrorists in El Salvador, came on board as Aristide's attorney and chief
image doctor. The politically correct literati and the Hollywood "gliterati"
shower him with money and affection.
Aristide's cause has not been hurt, of course, by the fact that Haiti's
history since independence in 1804 has been one of continuous upheaval and a
long series of corrupt, oppressive regimes. The (U.S.) overthrow in 1986 of
the 30-year-old Duvalier dynasty initiated a succession of coups and
counter-coups which culminated in the current military government under
Lieutenant General Raoul Cedras. No one claims the general is a choirboy,
but the effort to paint his admittedly brutal regime even blacker than it is
serves principally to provide a pretext for the forcible return of Aristide
to power by "the international community."
To this noble end, nowhere has the Haiti disinformation been more blatant
than in the media's sanctification of "Father" Aristide. Although smaller in
magnitude and intensity than the massive, adulatory media orgy accorded
Nelson Mandela, the Aristide campaign was torn from the same handbook: "How
to Deify a Communist Terrorist in One Easy Lesson." It is a well-worn manual
that has been used time and again by the CFR "ruling class journalists" to
elevate murderous, revolutionary thugs (Mao, Ho, Fidel, Che, Ben Bella,
Tito, Stalin, Lumumba, Machel, Bosch, Jagan, Arafat, Gorbachev come readily
to mind) to the divine pantheon.
New York Times reporter Elaine Sciolino (CFR) writes, "Among Haitians who
elected [Aristide] ... he is a beatific visionary, a brave leader who knows
eight languages, writes poetry and composes hymns on his guitar and is
willing to risk his life for his people." Which is pretty much the way Ms.
Sciolino's CFR colleagues have presented him to us.
The Dark Side
That same elite fraternity recoiled in collective horror and derision when
Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) challenged their carefully nurtured fraud by
calling Aristide a "psychopath." Speaking on the floor of the Senate on
October 20th, the senator declared: "I do not think we have any business
whatsoever ... risking the life of one soldier or one sailor or any other
American to put Aristide back into office."
How did the senator arrive at his decidedly contrarian view of the Haitian
demigod? By simply taking a look at the objective evidence concerning
Aristide -- evidence that Harwood's "ruling class journalists" have
consciously suppressed. The real Aristide is not a pretty picture. He has
borrowed heavily from his mentors, Nelson and Winnie Mandela and their ANC
(African National Congress) terrorist thugs. Aristide has proven himself a
quick study in ANC-style mob violence and has adopted as his trademark the
ANC's "necklace," which he calls Père Lebrun.
The necklace, of course, is a terrifying instrument of torture and murder
that members of the ANC have used on thousands of fellow black Africans. For
those unfamiliar with this "beautiful tool" (Aristide's words), it is an
automobile tire filled with gasoline or diesel that is put around the neck
of a helpless victim and set aflame. Unfortunately for Aristide and his
image doctors, he was caught on television cameras in a murderous harangue
inciting his followers to necklace the opposition. Embarrassing (and
damning) video footage of Aristide's speech to his tire-and-gasoline-toting
supporters in Port-au-Prince on September 27, 1991 is a little tough to
reconcile with the saintly image. Here's a sample of the gospel according to
Jean-Bertrand:
A faker who pretends to be one of our supporters, just grab him; make sure
he gets what he deserves with the tool you now have in your hands [referring
to the tire "necklaces"]. The burning tire -- what a beautiful tool! What a
beautiful instrument! It's fashionable. It smells good. And wherever you go,
you want to smell it.
But this damning video footage is just one straw in a whole haystack of
terribly unflattering evidence against this "man of God" that keeps
surfacing despite the best efforts of the "news" managers to cover it up.
Like, for example, Aristide's prized painting depicting him in his Père
Lebrun glory. Senator Helms described it in his October 20th Senate speech:
President Aristide kept this painting on the wall of his presidential
office. It depicts Aristide smiling down on a crowd brandishing the
automobile tires. On the other side is another pile of tires and a bottle of
gasoline and a book of matches. And on the painting are these words [in
Creole], which translated read: "If our power is threatened, Little
Aristide, if you have a problem, command us to march and solve them with
necklacing."
In order that more of his colleagues might become familiar with this
evidence and many other discomfiting facts about the vaunted Haitian
messiah, Senator Helms proposed to Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell
(D-ME) and Minority Leader Robert Dole (R-KS) that they immediately request
the Administration to send over from the CIA "a knowledgeable and candid
representative to discuss the situation in Haiti." Amazingly, they did just
that. Even more amazingly, the CIA also complied. That very afternoon, in
the secure room on the fourth floor of the Capitol, the senators were given
a classified briefing on Aristide that amply verified the North Carolina
senator's concerns. Unfortunately, only 13 Senators attended the briefing:
McCain, Cohen, Bennett, Helms, Kerry of Massachusetts, Exon, Nickles, Burns,
Pell, Dole, Domenici, Pressler, and Murkowski.
Many of the other members of that august body decided not to be bothered
with the facts, and opted instead to go to a love-in with President Aristide
on the first floor of the Capitol. At that media event, Aristide denied
Senator Helms' charges and the evidence Helms had presented.
But Helms was not about to let Aristide off the hook. The next day, October
21st, he exposed the Haitian's duplicity. "Aristide said yesterday that he
did not know anything about the painting," Helms noted. "I just happen to
have here a photograph of Aristide holding a photograph of that painting." A
devastating counterpunch, but, as usual, the "ruling class journalists" were
not interested in any evidence that might blemish their champion's hallowed
image.
Religion of Violence
These same media mavens studiously ignore the unpleasant information on
Father Aristide available from the religious order to which he once
belonged, the Salesian Missions. Fr. Edward Cappelletti, director of the
Salesian Missions in New Rochelle, New York, could tell them a great deal
that runs counter to the popular myth. Father Aristide "was asked to leave
the Salesian Society because of his continued involvement in politics,"
Father Cappelletti told THE NEW AMERICAN. "For two years we were after him
to drop his political activism. We told him it's either one or the other. He
chose politics."
Not just any politics, mind you. "He was using the Holy Sacrifice of the
Mass as a vehicle for violence," the Salesian director explained. "At the
Offertory of the Mass, for instance, he would have his followers come up and
'offer' their machetes, lay their machetes on the altar. Then he would name
the enemies who were to be killed and send his people out with their
machetes and 'necklaces' to kill them."
What about Aristide's much-praised commitment to the poor? Fr. Cappelletti
explains that there are 40,000 Salesian priests, brothers, nuns, and lay
missionaries "working with the poorest of the poor" in 114 countries,
operating 365 trade schools and 200 orphanages. "But we've never confused
our work or the Gospel with Marxism and Liberation Theology, as some others
have." The only other case that Father Edward could recall remotely
paralleling Aristide's was that of a Fr. Gerardi "back in the 1960s, when
everything was going wild."
Moreover, says the Salesian director, "Father Aristide didn't really work
with the poor, as is usually told. He did work at one of our trade schools
for a while, but he stayed away from the really poor shanty town areas. His
supporters claim he runs an orphanage, but it is really a front, it hasn't
done anything that amounts to anything for the children."
And how about the claims that he is mentally unbalanced? "He has been
described as a psychopath, and that is true, he really is one," Fr. Edward
told THE NEW AMERICAN. "He's definitely had serious psychological problems.
There were reports recently in the media that investigators went to
Port-au-Prince and could find no psychiatrists who could verify the charges.
Well, no one is going to talk now, for fear of losing his life ... Father
Aristide is like a Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde. We sent six superior generals
down there to see him. Each time he would humbly agree to change his ways,
but as soon as they were gone he would go his own way again ... He is
usually very disarmingly mild and softspoken, but when he gets up to deliver
one of his tirades he is transformed into something entirely different."
Use of Voodoo
Does Aristide use voodoo to further his revolutionary political agenda? Most
definitely, says Fr. Edward, noting the common expression that Haiti is "85
percent illiterate, 80 percent Catholic, and 110 percent voodoo." Haitians
are very superstitious and voodoo permeates their entire society and
culture. "Every night, as soon as it gets dark, the voodoo drums start ...
If you look at the symbol of Aristide's campaign, you'll see that it is the
cock, which is a powerful symbol in voodoo. He is using voodoo to build up
his own cult following just like Papa Doc [Duvalier]."
While acknowledging the sorry state of human rights under the current
regime, if Aristide returns to power Fr. Edward expects things to worsen,
especially for members of the clergy. "His followers claim that when they
are in power they will kill all the white missionaries and rape all of the
nuns." There is little reason to doubt their threats.
The U.S. government would have no business or authority committing American
blood and treasure to "restoring" Aristide to power even if he were the
saintly statesman his public relations lobby swears he is. In light of the
overwhelming evidence that he is clearly a vicious and murderous thug, it is
not only unconscionable, but criminal, for our leaders to continue any
support for this dangerous and immoral UN misadventure.