A Time For New Methods
ADV Broadcast Of December 25, 2010
Hello, and welcome back to another 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.
It’s a sad thing when a country’s politicians exhibit all kinds of defective personality traits. The highest-ranking politicians make the simplest examples to cite. Democratic Presidents John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton both suffered from their inability to keep their zippers up in the presence of most any young female. For the Republicans, former President Ronald Reagan was so enthralled with numerology, fortune-telling, and other superstitious nonsense that he would routinely base his very busy schedule on such hocus-pocus, setting up or canceling meetings and appointments based on the “alignment of the stars,” so to speak.
But what is worse than persons of questionable character running the government is the absolute circus of inactivity that IS the system of American government. With all of the nitpicking, congressional inquiries, interviews, haggling, and finger-pointing, it’s no wonder that we can’t address and deal with any problem we have in this country: questionable petroleum supplies, illegal drugs on the streets, crime, gangs, the state of the environment, the pitiful state of our educational system, and an economy that doesn’t produce anything but instead just pushes information around.
And note that these problems are just ones that almost any-old-Joe would say needed fixing. Problems that are important to White racialists are another can of worms altogether: the halt of non-White immigration, the geographic separation of the races in North America; the disproportionate Jewish presence in the mainstream media; and the cutting-off of all U.S. aid to Israel, just to name a few. Whatever may have been true in the past, our system of government is inadequate to solve our problems of today, and it is certainly inadequate for the needs of our White racial state of the future. I don’t know what that system will look like or should look like, and it wouldn’t hurt for some of our best minds to start looking into the problem now.
In his book Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler includes his thoughts on parliamentary democracy. As a young man, Hitler spent time in Vienna and often visited the national legislative house while it was in session. As I recall from reading the book some years ago, Hitler’s biggest complaint about parliamentary democracy – which is essentially what the American government IS – was on the lack of responsibility taken by members of the legislature. If something didn’t go as planned, a representative could – with a fair degree of truth – claim that it wasn’t his fault, that there were many other representatives who are to blame for it. On the other hand, if something went as a representative wanted, he was the first to claim credit for the success. This lack of negative responsibility is evident today in the United State Congress, where statistically incumbents maintain a large advantage over challengers, despite the incumbents’ many failures to fix problems that are in need of fixing, many of which I mentioned earlier in this broadcast.
Another problem that Hitler noted about parliamentary democracy was that each representative had an equal vote. Many of these legislators represented different positions on a given issue, and would argue with each other until they were blue in the face, trying to change each other’s minds about the issues. Therefore, the challenge for representatives was NOT to present facts and opinions about the issue that would be in the best interest of the country, but rather to garner enough votes so that a particular viewpoint prevails. These are two totally different approaches to policymaking, and I’d like to give you a simple analogy to explain what I mean.
Imagine a classroom full of children. Something has happened on the playground between two boys, and the two boys are making their cases to the teacher with the rest of the class quietly observing. The playground exchange between the boys took place over such a short time that none of the boys’ classmates saw the encounter in its entirety, and what is supposedly known by most of them is based mostly on hearsay and from what one or both of the boys said or did on the way back into the building after the bell.
Anyway, despite the lack of information on the part of the rest of the class, a large majority of them clearly favor one boy’s version of the story over the other’s. It turns out that that boy is more popular than the other one, and his personality is such that the rest of the class understand that he gets his way most of the time. Anyway, upon further questioning, the teacher finds that there are holes in this boy’s story that he cannot satisfactorily fill and, moreover, the teacher finds that hardly any of the class actually witnessed the encounter and so have no new information to add. In fact, the one student who says he saw the whole thing has a questionable character and is best friends with the favored boy.
The other boy’s story is more consistent and has few or no holes. Despite this consistency and this boy’s reputation for telling the truth and staying out of trouble, the class collectively rejects his version of the story.
What is the teacher to do?
As adults, we realize that the popularity of a student doesn’t make his opinion always right. We realize that no matter how many students may agree with a certain position, it might not be right. And we realize that often it is up to a conscientious teacher to make an appropriate decision, even if it is opposite to what a majority of the students want or believe is good for them. Parents experience the same scenario with their school-age children; the objection, “Well, everyone else’s parents let them do it,” doesn’t hold much water.
For a teacher to leave to the class a decision for the case I described above is analogous to what happens in the legislative halls of democratic nations. What is RIGHT is peripheral; what is BEST is peripheral; what is MOST POPULAR is what goes. Agreement carries the day; validity and correctness are, at root, immaterial. This isn’t to say that parliamentary democracies are incapable of doing what is right; it isn’t to say that the popular kid and his approving classmates are lying in order to set up the quiet kid for disciplinary action; it simply says that there is no guarantee that the choice of the majority is right or best.
So, in this day and age, the ideas with the biggest followings rule the roost. The issues that more people can get behind are the ones that take precedence over all others. And what that means is that the people who inform the rest of the population are in a unique position. They can give lots of publicity to a news event that draws attention to any issue under the sun. On the other hand, they can effectively ignore news events that attract notice in another direction. By selectively managing the news in this way, the people in the media affect the thoughts, beliefs, and votes of the electorate. And that means that they can, if they choose, control the lawmakers.
As if I and every other racialist haven’t said it a thousand times already, it is the Jews who are disproportionately represented among the owners, editors, and producers of essentially all of the major media corporations of America. With our governmental system being set up the way it is – that is, with “most popular” trumping “what is right” – we have given control of our government to the media masters. I believe that this is the very reason that the Jews were moved to acquire media power in the first place.
With our system, “most popular” has always trumped “what is right,” but our governmental system hasn’t always been so inadequate. In the early days of the American Republic, of course, there were almost no Jews on this continent, and so they were a non-issue in America. Especially during the time when America was expanding between the oceans, the electorate wasn’t too polarized on the pressing issues of the day, and what was popular and what was right were more closely aligned.
But even as early as the middle of the 19th Century, the media were starting to play too big a role in pushing the country one way or another. The question of Black slavery resulted in an especially sharp division throughout the country. And the media at that time – that is, the newspapers – played a prominent role in the debate on that question. Unfortunately, because our nation couldn’t come to a consensus on what SHOULD have been the slavery non-issue, we White Americans fought and died over who was right about it, to the tune of more than 600,000 dead American Whites, more Americans than have died in all the rest of America’s wars combined.
So it is clear that a consensus can’t always be achieved, and it’s clear that the media’s power over the masses must be held in check. What’s the solution, which we’ll hopefully be able to implement when we have secured a White homeland?
Here are a few ideas worth considering.
I do believe that people need to have a chance to voice their concerns and opinions, but also I am firmly convinced that the ultimate decisions must be made by a single person, after consultation with various advisors and after careful consideration. This is especially true for the “big” decisions, the ones that will affect the entire country. At the discretion of the chief executive, “smaller” decisions can be made by other individuals, designees of the chief executive, each of whom is a specialist in a particular field of knowledge and policy. Each of these individuals – including the chief executive – would be completely responsible for the outcome of his decisions, and would continue in office or be sacked, as appropriate. It’s not as though there wouldn’t be any freedom in such a system; the many questions at the local level could often be addressed by local people, except in the case of certain policies that are mandated from above.
Earlier, I said that in a democratic system, there is no guarantee that decisions made by popular vote are best for the society. This truth holds equally well for a system like what I’ve just described. There is no certainty that individuals can make better decisions than groups can. But at least the right individual can be guided by what is best for the society in the long run, whereas democratic representatives as a whole cannot. And at least there would be accountability; if something goes wrong, we’ll know right who to turn to.
It would do us well to remember that every successful business is run in just the way that I am proposing for the government of our future White homeland. There are a CEO and a few hand-picked people at the top. There are (hopefully) competent managers all along the chain of command, and throughout the company there are people who believe in it and who contribute to its success. And the successful companies are the ones who take care of their employees and who listen to their ideas and concerns.
The armed forces of any country are set up similarly. Can you imagine a democratic armed forces, with every member of the services getting an equal vote, and the most votes determining policy? What a joke! But our government is set up this way, which is one reason it doesn’t work and why we’ll need something different when our race goes its own way.
Nothing is perfect, but the system of government we currently have in the U.S. will have to go. As I’ve said elsewhere, that government can continue to exist once we have secured our White homeland. I’m simply saying that the National Alliance’s view for a White government in that homeland will be a little different than the noisy and chaotic democracy we have in America today.
Now, once we’ve secured our homeland and set up our government, finding the right type of men for such positions and deciding who should go into what position and how that should be done...those are perhaps the biggest questions of all. We don’t know the answers yet, but we’re working on it.
Certainly, we can’t have men with serious character flaws leading our society of the future. Government is a complicated business, and we need men of principle, men who understand the long-term needs of our people, and men who are selfless and totally dedicated to our race. But with a sure and workable form of government that is run by patriotic men and women who make decisions not based on what is popular but on what is best for the race in the long run, I think we’ll be able to solve some the so-called intractable problems that we just push around today.
I’m Erich Gliebe, and thanks for being with me again today.