ADV Broadcast Of October 23, 2010
Hello, and welcome back to this week’s broadcast of American Dissident Voices, the Internet radio program of North America’s foremost racialist organization, the National Alliance. I’m your host and the Chairman of the Alliance, Erich Gliebe.
Today’s broadcast will by my speech from the National Alliance’s Fall 2010 Leadership Conference.
On behalf of the entire membership of our organization, I’d like to welcome all of you to the Fall 2010 Leadership Conference of the National Alliance. The entire leadership of the Alliance acknowledges the sacrifices in time and expense that are allowing you to be here today, and we appreciate your commitment to Our Cause. It is my hope that the time we spend together over the course of this weekend will result in tangible gains for our organization as we close out 2010 and look ahead to 2011.
As you probably know, our founder Dr. William Pierce never intended for the Alliance to compete on the same footing with mainstream political parties. In fact, he never intended for the Alliance to compete on the same footing with ANY political party, mainstream or otherwise. The Alliance, in other words, was not designed to be a political party at all, certainly not in the traditional sense that we see in a democratic system of representative government.
The National Alliance is instead an organization that promotes a White racialist worldview that is well above and beyond the usual run of the worldly issues that concern politicians, particularly politicians in a mass democracy. While politicians focus mostly on short-range problems – such as crime, the economy, unemployment, and so on – carriers of a worldview like ours view local, national, and world events with a more long-range lens. We look at things more holistically, taking into account what has happened in the past, how those things have gotten us to where we are now, and – if present trends continue – where we are likely to end up at some point in the future. It isn’t that we take no interest in the day-to-day solving of problems in the world of politics (or should I say the day-to-day pushing-around of problems in the world of politics?), but we don’t lose ourselves in the delusion that the outcome of THIS or THAT particular piece of legislation is going to put us back on the road to racial security and racial progress.
Many times over the last four decades since the Alliance was founded, we have been questioned and criticized for not taking a more active role in the democratic process. We have been told things like the following:
“If you want to change the world, you need to get some of your people into Congress.”
“If you would campaign for political offices, more people would get to know what your organization is all about.”
“The anonymity of the secret ballot would give people the confidence to show you that they are on your side without them jeopardizing their own reputation by publicly having to state that they agree with your organization’s program.”
Use of the anonymous ballot is the modus operandi that has been chosen by many European racialist and nationalist groups. They have decided to throw their hat into the political ring and compete for votes on a national scale with every other group that decides to call itself a political party. In defense of our European allies, that is more easily done n the multi-party democratic systems – and in the geographically smaller countries – of Europe than it is in the two-party system and with the comparatively larger geography and population of the United States.
And the European racialist and nationalist groups who have been getting members elected to various local and national bodies deserve credit for their successes. For one thing, I’m sure that everyone in the organization feels good when it captures a seat on a local governing board or in the national legislature. In addition, when a member of a nationalist political party gets elected in Europe, it obviously means that at least SOME people in the organization are doing SOMETHING. Whenever someone runs for public office, there is money that needs to be raised, paperwork that needs to be filled out and submitted, an election campaign that has to be organized and run, speeches that have to be written, speaking and travel schedules that need to be set, and so on. It takes a lot of effort by quite a few people to pull off a successful political campaign in a mass democracy, and the capture of the office is a clear indication that there are many people behind the scenes in European nationalist organizations who are contributing to the effort.
But the National Alliance has yet to jump into mainstream politics. And – no offense to our European allies – we have no plans to do so, either now or in the foreseeable future. For one thing, the cost of campaigning in the United States is enormous. The average cost of a successful campaign to be elected to the House of Representatives is now in excess of one million dollars.
So, if you spend over a million dollars and run a flawless campaign, you might get to be one of the 535 members of Congress. Then, while outnumbered on Capital Hill by a margin of 534 to one, you’ll get to hobnob and rub elbows with a few hundred of the most smooth-talking and corrupt slimebags on the planet. (And the other few hundred, making up the largest professional demographic in Congress, are lawyers.) Then, two years later, you’ll have to spend another million bucks to keep the privilege, and so on.
But, of course, none of that will work AT ALL if the media doesn’t want you in the Congress. And a pattern has been established that whenever a White racialist runs for political office, the Jewish media train their guns on him to ensure that he won’t be elected. And that goes NOT just for outspoken White racialists, but also for anyone who comes off as any type of critic of Israel, racialist or otherwise. So, if it is impossible for us to win elections – especially on a national scale – and if politics is “the art of the possible,” as Otto von Bismarck commented in 1867, then the National Alliance needs to STAY OUT of the democratic process. For us, it is a waste of time and energy and money, and our race can’t afford for us to waste any of these.
But perhaps more important than the practical considerations of staying out of the democratic process is our philosophical stance that democracy – particularly mass democracy – does not have the capacity to lead our race to greater evolutionary heights. When everyone’s vote counts the same, it is the choice of the majority that will be carried out, and it is by no means a certainty that the majority always know what is good for them. Throw in the media, which is controlled by the Jews, and you can guarantee that the voting public won’t be thinking straight and won’t be able to make good decisions…“good” decisions, of course, being the ones that are in the long-term best interests of the White race.
Before it became Politically Incorrect to test the general intelligence of children, it was commonly known that human IQ follows a so-called “bell curve.” IQ testing is still done on American school children today, but little stock is placed in the results.
With regard to the IQ bell curve, there are comparatively few people at the extreme low end of the IQ range, so the curve is very short at that end. As measured IQs increase, so does the number of people with each of those IQs until, at some median IQ – say, an IQ of 100 – the curve is at its highest point, because more people have a “best-average IQ” of 100 than an IQ of any other number. But, as IQs increase yet further, the number of people demonstrating each of THOSE measured IQs begins now to decrease, following exactly the reverse trend as before, so that – at the extreme high end of the IQ range – the curve is again very short, due to the relatively few people who possess that IQ. The curve is, obviously, bell-shaped, and hence the name.
Now, some people think IQ scores are REALLY important. (Perhaps not coincidentally, such people generally have scored well on IQ tests.) Others feel that IQ scores are at best overrated and at worst meaningless. I personally think that IQ scores accurately assess the mental processes that they are meant to assess, but that a given IQ score does not pigeonhole a person as “capable” or “incapable,” and certainly not “worthy” or “unworthy.” There are many other ways that the human mind can demonstrate competence other than an IQ test.
We’ve probably all known people who are “really smart” but who have certain mental deficiencies. Stereotypes such as the guy who “can’t walk and chew gum” and the “absentminded professor” illustrate the point. Such people are gifted in the mental characteristics measured by IQ tests, but they are “challenged” – to use a Politically Correct term – in other areas.
On the other hand, many people who did poorly in school and perhaps on the IQ tests that they took have successful careers doing remarkable work that no IQ test could possibly measure. We might wonder how well Arno Breker, the great classical artist whose best work was done during the National Socialist period in Germany, would have fared on a standard IQ test. The same goes for Mozart, or Beethoven, or Rembrandt. One of the greatest White warriors of all time, the German Luftwaffe pilot Hans Ulrich-Rudel, is known to have struggled in school. Likely, his IQ score would have been average, at best. Was he, then, “unworthy?” Clearly not, and so it is apparent that IQ scores – not that they are meaningless – simply don’t tell the whole story.
But perhaps we could use an idea related to the IQ score to our advantage. Suppose we imagine that bell curves were made on the basis not just of IQ, but also of every other trait that is found to be valuable to the survival and progress of the race. For example, suppose there was a bell curve for bravery. Where would you fall on it? Hans Ulrich-Rudel would fall at the extreme, EXTREME rightmost end of THAT curve, even though he was nowhere near that same location on the IQ curve.
What other bell curves might exist? How about one for what we might call “spatial reasoning” – the ability to think in three-dimensions and to manipulate objects mentally and so to envision what needs to be done to create them. When I worked as a tool and die maker, spatial reasoning was a good mental attribute to have; if you didn’t have some degree of it, you probably weren’t a very good tool and die maker. The quality casting and forming of the products made by a tool and die maker requires competence in this area. You can bet that Arno Breker would have fallen on the far right end of the spatial reasoning bell curve. Where he might have fallen on the IQ bell curve doesn’t mean a single thing about the impact he made on the White world and White culture of his time and of ours.
So the question for you becomes: On what bell curves do I find myself on the far right end? The “leadership” bell curve? The “people skills” bell curve? The “producing an error-free final product” bell curve? The “persuasive speech” bell curve? The “organizing” or “writing” or “working-out-the-details” bell curve? The “dedication” or “loyalty” or “never-say-die” bell curve? We can imagine that there are as many bell curves out there as there are attributes of people. And if you can figure out on which bell curves you fall above average – or maybe well above the average – now you have a starting point for your work in this organization and obviously in your life as well.
And although the pencil-neck sociology researchers haven’t measured every aspect of every person and made bell curves for all of the traits mentioned above and many more, the idea that a multitude of bell curves could, in theory, exist seems reasonable. It also seems reasonable that, if those curves could be created, each of us is on the far right end of a few of them, on the far LEFT end of a few of them, and somewhere near the middle on MOST of them. Therefore, as I said before, if we can identify where we, as individuals, fall on the various bell curves, then we are armed with some good information for living a productive life.
We can now look at one of the key problems with democracy in a new light. Along with the many other bell curves that exist, let’s assume that there exists a bell curve with the rather lengthy title: “The Ability to Make Governing-Related Decisions Based NOT on Personal Considerations, but Rather Based on Collective Considerations.” Like all bell curves, the range of ability for this trait covers the entire spectrum. On the far left end is the relatively few number of people who NEVER take into account the well-being of the group in ANY decision they make, OR who take no interest at all in the fate of the group.
In the middle, where the curve bulges vertically, are the majority of people who, when making decisions, sometimes weigh their personal considerations above group considerations, but will also sometimes subordinate their own well-being so that the group’s well-being is enhanced. This majority in the middle stays semi-informed – but not fully informed – about the issues that affect the health and well-being of the group.
And on the far right end we have the minority of men who ALWAYS consider the well-being of the group before their personal well-being. Furthermore, this minority takes an active intellectual and emotional interest in all issues that affect the group, and so is well-informed as to what actions should be considered to ensure the group’s survival and progress.
There is nothing too special about the “The Ability to Make Governing-Related Decisions Based NOT on Personal Considerations, but Rather Based on Collective Considerations” bell curve. Like all of the others, it is for a specific trait and, like all of the others, it shows that human beings differ in their possession of that trait. Finally, like all of the others, it shows that there is a minority of men who consistently will put their own interests aside AND stay informed about group issues in order to promote the well-being of the group.
According to those who believe democracy is the highest form of government, the bell curve I just described doesn’t exist. According to them – and according to democratic philosophy – ALL men are equally able to make governing decisions. ALL men are equally interested in taking an active role in governing themselves. ALL men are equally concerned about acquiring the massive quantity of information needed to govern. And ALL men weigh personal considerations versus group considerations with the same scale.
In fact, if reality IS the way democratic theory SAYS it is, we would get a very strange looking curve. Suppose we measured the trait under consideration. Let’s give it a name: the Governing Quotient; we’ll call it the “GQ score.” According to democratic theory, everyone will get the same GQ score (let’s call it a score of 100). Well, when we plot the results, there will be NO left end of the curve and NO right end of the curve. All we’d have is a single HUGE vertical line at the GQ score of 100. That single huge vertical line means, in essence, that EVERYONE is average with respect to the ability to participate in governing.
Clearly, that idea is ludicrous. Like all traits, the ability to participate in the governing of a nation varies among the population. That is, like the IQ scores, our hypothetical GQ scores follow a bell curve, with a comparatively few number of men who have the requisite skills for successfully leading the masses of their countrymen. Incidentally, I should point out here that one’s location on the IQ bell curve is not necessarily related to one’s location on the hypothetical GQ bell curve. You and I both can bring to mind very bright – very high-IQ – people who have no interest in participating in the charting of the race’s path through time via governing. On the other hand, some men with merely average or slightly above average IQs could be otherwise well-suited to being a leader of men.
So democracy is a flawed system of government. If you object that ALL systems of government are flawed, then I would respond that democracy is more flawed than some others. In many cases, it is VERY MUCH more flawed than some others.
And this is especially true when our racial enemies have near-total control over the mass media of news and entertainment. THEY know just as well as we do that democracy is a bunch of hogwash. The only difference is that – unlike us – they have their hands on the levers of power that control that river of hogwash, and so they can steer it wherever they want to. And in the process, our people are being swept into the sewers of history.
So the National Alliance will NOT become a democratic political party. Our worldview is based on the facts of biology and of history, as best we can ascertain them at a given time, and we will NOT hitch our wagon to a system – namely, democracy – that is based on the lie that all men have the same GQ score. They do not.
And the fact that the Jewish Establishment – in particular, the Jewish mass media of news and entertainment – LIES to the public in order to keep the lie of democracy going, just because it is running in their favor, is just another road sign that keeps our organization, the National Alliance, on the path of truth… away from democracy.
So the path for us is clear: Continue building connections with our kinsmen, both here in the United States and worldwide. We’ll do that by improving and expanding our own media. We’ll do that by strengthening our presence in communities in which we are already organized, and by becoming a presence in communities where we don’t currently have a presence. We’ll continue strengthening our own National Alliance community, by getting together for work and fellowship, as we are here at the National Office this weekend.
And we’ll stay out of the fetid mire of democracy. Instead of using democratic principles to guide us, we’ll go about our work in the Alliance using the leadership principle.
The leadership principle, by which anyone can rise in the organization, as long as he demonstrates commitment and tangible results.
The leadership principle, by which anyone’s voice is welcome to be heard, but it is at the leader’s discretion as to how to move the larger group forward.
The leadership principle, in which quality always takes precedence over quantity.
The leadership principle, which is firmly in tune with the way of the natural world and with the heartbeat of all biological progress.
The leadership principle – and not any democratic principle – is what guides the functions within this organization, and each member of the Alliance – including, and ESPECIALLY, each of you in attendance today – is encouraged to become an active part of that leadership.
And the leadership principle is how we, as an organization as a whole, approach the problems our people face in the world today. We accept the responsibility of assuming the leadership of our race, in order to steer it away from the hazards that threaten it so that we may once again proceed along the way of evolutionary progress, to our destiny.
That is a vast responsibility that we in the Alliance have accepted, but it is a way we have chosen based on truth: the truth about who we are, unique among the races; the truth about our purpose, which is to pave the way today for higher life in the future; and the truth about why we struggle, not out of hatred for others but out of respect for our ancestors, for ourselves, and for our descendants.
So while democracy rattles its sabers for numbers and votes and public opinion, we will quietly stick to the truth.
About everything. And eventually, we – armed with the truth – will prevail.