The future ahead is unclear, but we won't have to wait much longer for the fog to lift, either on what's going to happen within the Democratic Party nor what's going to happen in the larger, two-party election.
Hello, and welcome back to another edition of American Dissident Voices, the Internet radio program of the National Alliance. I'm your host and Chairman of the Alliance, Erich Gliebe.
Now that the primaries are well under way, this is a good chance for us to take a look at what's happening from a racialist perspective.
At the time of this writing, the Democratic race between New York Senator Hillary Clinton and Illinois Senator Barack Obama is too close to call. (Pardon the expression "Democratic race." Shall I say, "Democratic contest" instead, so as not to drag the concept of race into the discussion?) Super Tuesday failed to reveal a clear front-runner for the Democrats, with the number of delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Denver being almost evenly split between Clinton and Obama, with Clinton clinging to an ever-so-slim lead. The future ahead is unclear, but we won't have to wait much longer for the fog to lift, either on what's going to happen within the Democratic Party nor what's going to happen in the larger, two-party election. It should be an interesting 2008, even without all of the economic uneasiness, random shootings, and strange weather patterns. The last of these, there can be little doubt among knowledgeable people, most probably is connected with global warming and other man-made climate change issues.
While much is clouded on the American political horizon, there are a few things that are crystal clear. One is that Black people, when they get the chance, overwhelmingly vote Black. The groundswell of the Black vote throughout the United States has buoyed Obama into what is essentially a tie for first place among Democratic voters. Now, the fact that Black people bloc-vote, especially when a candidate is one of them, is just about the oldest piece of news in the politics of multiracial America. All American politicians, both Left and Right, know this fact and constantly apply it to their campaign strategies.
The result is that Black Americans are treated as a single voting unit in the campaigning strategies of both of the major political parties. It boils down to the Democrats currying the Black vote as much as possible and the Republicans doing everything in their power to NOT tick off the Black vote. It is entirely a race-based campaign on both sides -- a one-dimensional campaign -- with, ironically, race usually being mentioned rarely, if ever, throughout the campaign. No matter what comes out in the campaign about universal health care, economic reform, or domestic policy in general, it is assumed by all that once the Black community has decided whom to vote for, other candidates had better start looking elsewhere for votes.
The same sort of thing is true of the sizeable Hispanic population in the United States. And here, we're talking about the large Hispanic population that is in the U.S. legally and is afforded the right to vote. The MILLIONS and MILLIONS of Latinos here illegally are another question altogether, but apparently they aren't enough of an issue to any of the major party candidates to induce the candidate to make a strong call for the U.S. to enforce its own immigration laws and to safeguard the border with Mexico that leaks like a sieve. Our border policy is "as worthless as a screen door in a submarine," according to an elderly gentleman I've spoken with.
But, aside from our leaky border, the Hispanic vote -- like the Black vote -- is entirely race-based. Like the Black vote, it is issue-based only in the sense that certain issues affect the race. Blacks and Hispanics both look at every issue from a racial perspective and then vote en masse based on how those issues affect the larger race.
This racialist type of thinking and voting on the part of Blacks and Hispanics is a distinct point in their favor. I wish my people were just as unified and just as race-conscious, and I wish they would act as a single unit like the Blacks and Hispanics do. Of course, I'd like that action to be NOT lever-pulling in a voting booth, but rather REAL action like building a new, White civilization here in the Western Hemisphere that will serve as the vehicle for a new effort of biological evolution for our race. Lever-pulling won't achieve that aim because it is a passive activity; once it's done, the lever-puller just walks away and assumes that whomever he pulled the lever for will do whatever needs to be done. What the White race needs is a unified racial program, one in which every member of the society makes an active contribution.
So, in stark contrast to the Blacks and Hispanics, who are completely unified, the White population is scattered all over the place, with each segment homing in on one or more issues that are assumed -- by the average White person -- to be raceless issues, each of which occupies the place of greatest import for a given individual White. For the average White, race isn't thought to be a part of any issue or, if it is, it is just a minor part that doesn't really matter. And the Jewish media only reinforce the false notion that if Whites DO start to believe that an issue is about race, that they should squelch that thought in their minds and feel guilty about even thinking it.
And so the political strategists and the Jewish media try to bring certain segments of the White population into the fold of one candidate or another, or one party or another, all the while discounting the impact of race on every issue… as well as every issue's impact on race. The political gurus have diced us up according to our pet-peeve issues, and have formulated ways to approach every sub-group of Whites: White businessmen and the rest of the White professional class; the White religious fundamentalists; the White environmentalists; the White working class; and the White liberals, to name a few. The major parties -- and, it goes without saying, the predominantly Jewish media -- know that you have to go after these people in different ways, and they do just that.
But the main thing on the minds of our people's enemies is to keep all of these groups of Whites from ALL uniting under the banner of White racialism. Not that a large mass of White people by itself could do much damage to the entrenched power of the Jews and their politician lackeys, but a large mass of motivated White people under the guidance of a racialist worldview and racialist leadership definitely could. The National Alliance's purpose is to provide such a racialist worldview, to develop the men who will serve as the racialist leadership, and -- not least of these -- to bring into being the formation of a large mass of motivated White people. None of those tasks are easy, but we believe them to be the right and moral tasks for our people, and so we are going about our work in spite of all of the hateful resistance of those who, by their policies and actions, have demonstrated that they have no concern for the long-term well-being of our race.
So, besides the reality of Black and Hispanic bloc-voting, there are a few other things that have become clear as the Presidential primaries have gone on across the country. One is that there won't be a White man leading the Democratic ticket in the 2008 Presidential election. The last White man who had any kind of a chance at all was John Edwards, the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate four years ago under John Kerry. Edwards had to know his chances were nonexistent when he didn't even win his own state's primary. In South Carolina, where nearly 30% of the population is Black, Edwards received only 19% of the Democratic vote, only half Obama's 38% and significantly less than Clinton's 30%. Edwards wisely bowed out before the Super Tuesday voting, although he quit too late to have his name and those of his delegates taken off of the ballots, which resulted in some of the Democratic voters who don't pay very close attention to the news to vote for him anyway, only to find out later that their votes were cast in vain (as I believe all votes are, in this age of media-driven democracy). So if there are any old-school Democrats out there who secretly are more comfortable having a White man as President, they are going to have to cross over in the general election in November.
That leads us directly to the other obvious conclusion related to the primaries: the Democrats will have a Presidential ticket led by -- for the first time in history -- either a woman or a Black man. And, given the economic woes that are besetting the American populace, the high gasoline prices, and the discontent over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, whoever wins the Democratic primary -- even if it IS a woman, even if it IS a Black man -- that person has at least a fighting chance to win the election, despite the historical prejudice among Americans against having either non-Whites or women as their Chief Executive.
In recent decades, there have been a few efforts made by the Democratic Party to bring the ideals of affirmative action onto the center stage of national politics. In the 1980s, Jesse Jackson won a few Democratic Presidential primaries, but he was too controversial a character, and the thinkers behind the scenes of Democratic politics knew that they would never be able to cement behind Jackson the type of following that is needed to get into the White House.
In 2000, quite a bustle was made of Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman, a devout Jew, being the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate under Al Gore. That election in 2000, which Democrats still get ruffled about because of the voting fiasco in Florida, ushered in the era of President George W. Bush, whose two administrations have produced not a single thing of value to the White population of the United States and, in fact, have done quite the opposite. From the expensive wars in the Middle East -- in terms of an even greater tax burden and federal deficit as well as the lives of thousands of American soldiers -- to the USA Patriot Act -- which gives the federal government the legal authority to spy on whomever it wants, whenever it wants, and in whatever way it wants, without a warrant or even the merest shred of evidence of criminal activity on the part of the American citizen -- George W. Bush's eight years in office have been dark times for the United States and for the White American population.
But, then again, what President's administration since Teddy Roosevelt hasn't been a dark time for the White race in America? Obviously, some administrations were worse than others for our people, but I can't think of a single one that yielded a net gain for White people, in terms of security of the race and elevation of our gene pool. Most of our Chief Executives since Teddy Roosevelt have been either crooks or well-meaning but naïve men who ended up getting pushed around by the more purpose-minded and aggressive men around them.
Top-notch among the crooks was Franklin D. Roosevelt. The great psychoanalyst Carl Jung commented publicly that FDR was "…perfectly ruthless, a highly versatile mind which you cannot foresee…a most amazing power complex…the stuff of a dictator absolutely." When Roosevelt's blatant favoritism to Britain during 1940-41 -- in the form of war materials of all kinds for the British war effort against National Socialist Germany -- failed to provoke Hitler, FDR managed the political affairs of the Pacific so as to maneuver the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor. All this in order that Germany be destroyed, as was shrilly demanded by the gaggle of Jews with which FDR surrounded himself.
As far as the well-meaning naïve Presidents, Harry S. Truman must claim a prominent seat. Truman was an honest man, and he had some notable successes, for example authorizing the Marshall Plan to rebuild the economies of Western Europe with the purpose of thwarting the Marxist threat there. Of course, those economies wouldn't have had to be rebuilt in the first place if all of Europe and what was then a Whiter America had rallied behind the pan-Aryan cause of National Socialism against Communism. But the evil Roosevelt and his sly Jews, coupled with the collective and short-sighted egos of the British and the French, proved to be more than enough to push our race into the greatest war of fratricide we've ever waged.
After the war, Truman met Stalin at Potsdam, in Germany, and was a total failure in securing the freedom of any of the Eastern European nations that had been overrun and occupied by the Soviets. Truman's entrenched belief that most men could be made to agree on the right course of action if all of the facts were known proved to be his weakness at Potsdam; Stalin was immune to such seemingly common-sense notions. So Truman left the conference having given over to the Communist beast the lives of millions of our racial kinsmen. Truman also sent Americans to fight and die for the little yellow people of South Korea who, I would guess, are fine enough people as far as human beings go, but who must be responsible for their own fate without relying on men of a different race from halfway around the world to save them. As yet another example, at a time in American history when segregation was still an accepted practice, Truman integrated the American armed forces and the civil service by executive order. Again, he meant well, but his views -- like those of many other well-meaning Presidents -- were short-sighted and based on immediate political conditions, without consideration for long-term implications.
Woodrow Wilson was another well-meaning but naïve Chief Executive. His rhetoric before America got into the Great War was strictly isolationist. In January of 1917, before America entered the war, he was so bold as to propose a "peace without victory," in which the European combatants would simply stop fighting such a pointless war and go home. But of course, this was just the time when the Jews had a Zionist homeland in the Middle East in their sights, and so there was no way those master manipulators were going to just let all those expendable White men from every nation of Europe go home to their wives and families. Only after years of manipulation by insider Jews like "Colonel" House (who wasn't a colonel at all) and a highly suspect Zimmerman Telegram did Wilson finally wimp out and ask Congress for a declaration of war, although American aid to the British was -- from the start of the war -- out in the open for all to see, as it would prove to be again 25 years later.
Later, Wilson recovered some of his punch and still clung stubbornly to his ideals when the gunfire had ceased. His strong belief in the self-determination of peoples ruffled quite a few feathers among the victorious European powers during the negotiations that led to the infamous Treaty of Versailles. The British and French delegates considered Wilson's position as being far too soft on the nasty Germans who -- if you asked any of the victors -- were solely responsible for the war. But, just as he had before America entered the war, Wilson seemed to get tired and weak and -- obviously -- his high ideals were totally without impact when it came to the final treaty which, as everyone knows, was one of the catalysts for the Second World War.
As far as our current President, it must be admitted that, from a White racialist viewpoint, George W. Bush falls more on the "crook" side of the coin than he does on the "well-meaning but naïve idealist" side. He knowingly lied -- over and over -- about Saddam Hussein after 9/11 and he used those lies as excuses to destroy Iraq. That was a crime in itself, but the reason for which he invaded that sovereign nation -- that is, to give Israel a little more breathing room in the Middle East -- is another strike against him. His collaborating with the Jewish establishment in pushing the cause for the legalization of all Mexican illegals is also unforgiveable. At any rate, January 20, 2009 will be "The End of an Error," as some popular anti-Bush t-shirts and bumper stickers happily display.
As far as what's in store for the next few months, it's hard to say. I'm just looking forward to some kind of shakeup throughout society, whatever it takes to make the rest of our people realize that this society, this government, and this way of life all mean certain death for our people. The White race needs a new land of its own and new leaders, and I encourage you to join me in the pursuit of that noble vision.
I'm Erich Gliebe, and thanks for being with me again today.
