American Dissident Voices Broadcast of November 11, 2006
The Failure of Democracy
By Erich Gliebe

Welcome back to this week's edition of American Dissident Voices.
I'm your host, Erich Gliebe.

Well, thank goodness the election is finally over. This is one of
the ugliest times of the year, in sharp contrast to the beauty of
the leaves turning color and the joy of the harvest being brought
in, at least here in the Midwest. Where the changes of the season
remind us of the hope that comes with the new life that will
emerge out of the Earth this coming spring, the November
elections remind us once again of the failures of our political
system to take into account the needs of our people. From the
White racialist perspective, the modern blight on humanity called
mass democracy has failed in every respect.

We've talked about some of the problems with democracy on this
program before. A few weeks ago, I discussed the democracy's
emphasis on convincing masses of people to vote a certain way,
rather than using the authority of government to do the right
thing, which are two very different emphases. A popular bumper
sticker that I've seen says it all in this regard: "What is right
is not always popular; what is popular is not always right."

"Popular" and "right" are two very different things, and our
system of government is based on the former. Just because the
most people agree -- or believe they agree -- with a certain
point of view doesn't have any logical connection to that view
being the best in either the short run or the long run.

In seems like the only major facet of our society that operates
on a "popular equals right" idea is our government. There are
many examples of how our society flatly rejects this notion.

If "popular" equaled "right" in schools, policy would be
determined by popular vote of the students. Years of experience
and training on the part of administrators and teachers wouldn't
hold any water. Whatever the most students wanted, that's what
would go.

If "popular" equaled "right" in the workplace, Bill Gates
wouldn't be making any of the decisions at Microsoft; things
would be decided through a vote of every employee who worked at
the company, with everyone -- from upper managers to custodial
staff -- having an equal say.

Competitive sports teams, which are so popular throughout our
society, are other examples. Aside from youth and adult
recreational leagues, in which all players compete for roughly
equal amounts of time, the decisions in athletic contests are
determined by the coach, or perhaps by a few coaches working
together. If "popular" equaled "right" in athletics, players
would vote about practice times, what should be done in practice,
and about who plays what position during a game and for what
amount of time.

Another example I mentioned a few weeks ago is our armed forces.
If we were consistent with our method of government, we would
allow each member of our armed forces to have an equal vote in
determining what should be done. A recruit fresh from boot camp
would have the same say as a veteran of higher rank who had
served in the military for fifteen years. Years of experience,
knowledge of tactics, and an understanding of the geopolitical
game would mean nothing in terms of the power to decide policy.
If "popular" equaled "right" in the military, everyone's vote
would count the same, and the military would do what most of the
soldiers say they wanted done.

Many Americans who believe today that democracy is the best and
most fair system of government would be appalled if other parts
of society were run in the same fashion. No parent who
understands what a school should be about would want his or her
child sent to a school at which policy was determined by the
student body. No employee who understands what a large
corporation should be about would want to work at a company at
which policy was determined exclusively by the workers.

Similarly, no sports fan -- even the most argumentative armchair
coach out there -- would endorse a policy within sports that the
athletes should run the show. And no informed citizen of any
country would want his armed forces subject to the whim of those
currently serving, although I must admit that it would be
instructive to put the decision about what to do about Iraq to a
vote within our armed forces. For once, perhaps what is popular
among the soldiers would be right, but that exception only
reinforces the rule that -- most of the time -- majorities don't
know what is good for them.

When we see mass democracy in this light, it looks absurd -- and
that's because mass democracy IS absurd. All law-abiding
Americans can vote at the age of 18, and all members of our
society have an equal vote. Years of experience mean nothing.
Level of intelligence means nothing. Productive contributions to
society -- as opposed to having spent one's life on welfare --
mean nothing. Years of having studied the causes and effects of
historical change mean nothing. A sincere concern for the
long-term well being of the nation or race -- as compared to
having a short-term interest in a personal and historically
insignificant issue -- means nothing. It is no wonder that our
government enjoys no respect from thinking Americans today. I
speak for thinking Americans when I say that our governmental
system is a farce and our electoral system is a circus.

I don't mean to suggest that people's viewpoints shouldn't be
heard by those with the decision-making power. I firmly believe
they should be heard and considered. But I am just-as-firmly
convinced that no good can come of numbers being equated to right
or good. They can't; not in most areas of life, and certainly not
in government.

The sad truth is that the majority of people are unable to
distinguish between what is good for them today and what is good
for them down the road. Parents of young people complain about
this all the time. How many parents have said something like:
"Well, Billy is set on becoming a professional baseball player,
and so he doesn't see the need to do much in the classroom."
Billy doesn't understand that what is best for him in the long
run is to do his best both on the baseball field AND in the
classroom, in case the baseball dream falls through. Billy might
be 18 years old and able to vote, but he can't distinguish
between long-term and short-term good in his own life, much less
in the life of his nation or race.

And very often, even when people KNOW the differences between, on
the one hand, a short-term pleasure with a long-term consequence
or, on the other hand, a short-term sacrifice with a long-term
benefit, they choose the short-term pleasure. The teen pregnancy
and sexually-transmitted disease rates in the United States are
examples. All teens know the possible physical consequences of
sex; many of them simply choose to ignore them for a short-term
pleasure.

Drug use is another example. Every drug user knows that drugs are
harmful to his body and mind, but yet he chooses to go down that
path, at least until he becomes an addict, at which point his
body dictates that he is unable to make any other decision.

Consider obesity. America is one of the most obese nations on
Earth. Everyone knows that health is improved by eating right and
by engaging in regular exercise, but millions of Americans choose
sedentary lives and volumes of junk food. So, even when people
KNOW the right thing to do, long-term, they often act in ways
that are directly opposed to those ends.

Those of you who are concerned with environmental issues -- and
that includes all of you leftists out there who are tuning in to
this program on the sly -- know that the plight of the
environment is a direct consequence of a lack of long-term
thinking on the part of just about everybody: government,
industry, and private citizens. You also know the frustration of
dealing with people who COULD contribute to the conservation of
the environment, but don't: people who don't recycle, a
government that refuses to formulate and push any viable
clean-energy plan, and so on.

And if people can't get motivated on their own to contribute to
the long-term well-being of the environment -- after all, if the
Earth goes down, we all go down -- then they certainly can't get
motivated to get involved in running a government, long-term,
either. In spite of all this, the National Alliance is out to
organize a new society in which the long-term health of the
schools, the economy, the environment, and -- most importantly --
the White race, is the short-term, everyday agenda of the
society.

My skepticisms of democracy, of course, are answered by armies of
pro-democracy critics, some of them touting advanced degrees in
political science, and others who are just well-meaning, average
mainstream Americans who believe in the "American way of life,"
whatever that is. The main argument that I've run up against that
ostensibly supports the idea of democracy is that democracy is
the best guard against dictatorship and the totalitarian
mentality. "After all," these critics claim, "totalitarianism
can't occur here because we have the power to vote people into
and out of office."

Now that claim might or might not hold water, depending on how
one defines totalitarianism. If having a single ruler in the
highest governmental position is totalitarianism, then the claim
of my critics is probably valid.

But I define totalitarianism as the control of society by a few
select men who steer it in a direction that works to their
advantage and that runs counter to the needs and dreams of its
citizens. And by my definition, America is a totalitarian
society, and the reason it is is related to an issue that we've
talked about many times before on this program: the Jewish
control of our news and entertainment media.

I won't go into the specifics about the Jewish control of the
media here. If you are interested in checking the facts for
yourself, I suggest you obtain a copy of the National Alliance's
informational pamphlet entitled, "Who Rules America?" This
pamphlet has been periodically updated and revised over the last
two decades or so and, although the media companies change hands
and the names of the owners and executives change, the facts that
don't change are these: Jews control most of the news and
entertainment media in the United States, they have done so now
for quite some time, and they use their power to their advantage
and to our detriment.

No one is faulting the Jews for using their media power to their
advantage. The whole point of having power is to do something
with it. Unfortunately, what is advantageous for the Jews is
downright deadly to our people, and we in the National Alliance
intend to free our race from the Jews' clutches. This is why we
are so hard on democracy: it rides in the slipstream of media
power. Wherever the media leads, a democratic society follows.
And where the media Jews are leading us, we in the National
Alliance don't want to go. And neither do you.

No pro-democracy advocate believes that a nation should be led by
people who seized their power through wealth, cunning, and the
"buddy system." Every decent White man or woman wants his
government to be run by men of principle, men who lead because
they believe in the values of the people of the society. But the
power that wags the tail of American government -- in fact, any
democratic government -- that power was, in fact, acquired by the
tactics I mentioned above: wealth, cunning, and the "buddy
system." In those ways -- all perfectly legal in a democracy, I
might add, and yet another failure of democracy -- the Jews have
taken a political system that started out with the best of
intentions, have hijacked it, and have made it into a system for
our destruction.

But even if the Jews were not in charge of our media, democracy
is still a poor choice for the governmental system that will lead
our people to a better future. Yet another point that most
pro-democracy advocates fail to understand clearly is that most
people, even many highly intelligent ones, don't CARE to try to
make the decisions of government. They are more concerned about
their own lives, about their success at their jobs, and about
fostering a healthy family environment for their children. They
know that they are ill-equipped to make decisions about
government, and they don't mind having other people who are more
knowledgeable make those decisions.

This lack of concern is very evident in the number of people who
turn out to vote on any given election day. Every time there is
an election, the talking heads on television bemoan the fact that
so few Americans made the effort to go out and vote. It is quite
clear that most people simply don't care; either that, or they
don't believe that their voice matters.

As I said before, running a government and guiding a nation or
race is not an easy business. Unlike learning how to manage a
checkbook, it's not something that just anyone can do. (Although
the sad truth is that there are probably millions of Americans
who make decisions about the managing of our country who are
UNABLE to manage even a checkbook.) That's why we need dedicated
people who have experience and expertise in the ways of
government and policy.

But more than that, we need people who value the long-term over
the short, who value what's right over what's convenient or easy,
and who value real change and progress over smoke and mirrors. In
short, we need people who value blood over money and who have the
will and the toughness to do what needs to be done so that our
people may have a future.

Those are the people that we in the National Alliance are
targeting. But we're not looking for politicians, for men who
play the political arena like a game, using its weaknesses for
their own advantage and currying the favor of the Jewish
power-brokers in the media. We are looking for LEADERS, men who
will be able and willing to shape our new society into an
instrument of progress for the White race.

And we are looking for many, many others: men and women who have
no political aspirations, but who simply want a society with a
PURPOSE, a society that values itself, a society that offers some
hope of a future for their children. Our present society has none
of this, and our mass democracy that is controlled by those who
control the media is largely responsible.

We need a new way; join the National Alliance, and let's find it
together.

I'm Erich Gliebe, and thanks for being with me again today.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The text above is based on a broadcast of the American Dissident
Voices radio program sponsored by National Vanguard Books.
It is distributed by e-mail each Saturday to subscribers of
ADV-list.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

==> To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to this mailing list go here:
http://www.natvan.com/mailing-list/

==> The National Alliance has a strict anti-spamming policy. 
This 
information is intended for interested parties only and is not to
be 
indiscriminately distributed via mass e-mailing or newsgroup
posting.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

SUBSCRIBE to NATIONAL VANGUARD, our unique, thought-provoking 
magazine -- $22 US, $30 Canada, and $40 Foreign.
This is for six high-quality, glossy color issues:

SEND $3 for our 88-page CATALOG of books and other items:

     National Vanguard Books
     P.O. Box 330
     Hillsboro, WV  24946

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Donations are needed to keep this program on the air. Give $20
today!
http://www.natvanbooks.com/cgi-bin/webc.cgi/st_prod.html?p_prodid=599

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

To report typos and technical errors in ADV-list or our web site,
please write to:
 webmaster@natvan.com   (Subject: TYPO)

The National Alliance: www.natvan.com & www.natall.com
National Vanguard Books: www.natvanbooks.com

(c) 2006 National Vanguard Books