American Dissident Voices Broadcast of September 1, 2007
The Breakup of America
By Erich Gliebe

Hello and welcome back to this edition of American Dissident
Voices, the Internet radio program of the National Alliance. I'm
your host and Chairman of the Alliance, Erich Gliebe.

The war in Iraq has been going on for more than four years now,
so we've had the occasion to talk a lot on this program about
what's been going on over there. 

It goes without saying that most of what we've said has been
negative. First of all, the whole rationale behind the U.S.
invading Iraq and for toppling Saddam Hussein was based on a
bunch of lies that were carefully concocted to bring about a
strong emotional response in the masses of Americans. Such an
emotional response allowed George W. Bush to ride the wave of
public excitement into Iraq, destroying a sovereign nation and a
traditional power in the Middle East. 

But the lies were only a small part of the whole equation. More
important than George W. Bush's lies was the fact that American
involvement in Iraq gave no tangible benefits to the U.S. Despite
what all of the politicians and media stated at the time of the
invasion, Americans neither at home nor abroad were any safer
than they had been before we invaded. All we really did was make
radical Muslims more eager to kill American troops, American
media personnel, and Americans working under contract from the
government. We've put ourselves at odds with basically every
Middle Eastern nation, with the notable exception of the Jewish
state of Israel. 

Meanwhile, here at home, our gasoline prices haven't gone down,
and neither have the number of tax dollars that we've been
pumping into the war effort. More than four thousand American
soldiers have been killed as a direct result of George W. Bush's
wars of aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact, the war has
brought America NO benefits whatsoever, and in fact has brought
every headache imaginable. So the U.S. hasn't reaped any rewards
for its troubles in Iraq. 

On the other hand, Israel reaped an immediate, short-term benefit
from the U.S. invasion. The nation that, at the time, was
Israel's most powerful competitor in the Middle East was
destroyed, and its leader - who at times was one of the most
outspoken critics of Israel and its horrific treatment of the
Palestinians - was captured and eventually executed. 

So the U.S. got into the war in Iraq not for its own good, but
for the good of Israel. The American people were duped into
believing that it was necessary that we go to war, they were
duped into sending their sons off to die, and they were duped
into footing the bill for the whole venture. And all to make the
Middle East a little safer for Israel.

But now, as we showed on this program a few weeks ago, it is
appearing to more and more observers that what started out to be
all good and no bad for Israel might, in the long term, end up
being a bad thing for Israel. With a stable Iraq out of the
picture, an ambitious Iran has stepped up as the leader and
mouthpiece for the Islamic position in the Middle East. Radical
Muslims from every Middle Eastern country are using the chaos
brought about by the U.S. invasion to emerge from their compounds
and hideouts to actively pursue their own goals. As we have seen,
the resulting violence is sometimes directed at American military
personnel, and sometimes it is directed at other Muslims in
sectarian violence. 

So the quasi-stable conditions that existed in the Middle East
when Saddam Hussein was the leader of Iraq have by now been
turned completely upside down. They have been replaced by a
Muslim Middle East that appears to be on the verge of boiling
over, with that energy directed at various sources: itself, the
United States, and possibly Israel.

It is this last that concerns the American media and many of the
behind-the-scenes people in the American government, and that's
because an overwhelming fraction of those people are Jews who are
always willing to put the interests of Israel ahead of those of
America. I've stated on earlier broadcasts that perhaps the main
reason that American troops continue to hang around in Iraq is
that Jewish forces in America are doing all they can to help
their brethren in Israel. If our troops come home, Iraq will
erupt into a religious and ethnic free-for-all, and that eruption
would almost certainly spill over in some way to the Zionist
state. 

The truth that Iraq is a ticking time bomb that is sure to go off
if and when the U.S. withdraws was acknowledged last week by
President Bush himself, in the following words: 

"Whatever your position is on that debate (of U.S. intervention),
one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's
withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose
agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms, such as 'boat
people', 're-education camps' and 'killing fields'."

The foreign minister of Iraq, Hoshyar Zebari, has made similar
statements, reinforcing the feeling that all hell will break
loose in the wake of a U.S. withdrawal. 

And as the understanding spreads that bringing the troops home
will open the gates of pandemonium in the Middle East, we can
predict that the American Jewish media will take the angle that
we can't let the bloodshed grow so much that it swallows up the
rest of the Arab Middle East. We'll hear about all of the
suffering that will be inflicted on millions of Arabic people,
and the media will appeal to both our altruism and to our
unwillingness to inflict unnecessary pain - traits that are
instinctual to our race. 

All of this is ironic because not one of the Jews in the American
media - who will make sure that "Safety for the Arabs!" is the
message we'll hear - give a rat's ass about Arabs. They only care
about Jews, wherever they happen to live. And that means that you
can definitely be sure that the media WILL NOT mention anything
about their beloved State of Israel possibly being engulfed in a
bloodbath that would reshape the entire Middle East. But anyway,
all of these premonitions of Middle Eastern anarchy have really
put the brakes on the "bring the boys home" mantra that the
Democrats used to sweep away the Republicans in the 2006
Congressional election. 

Questions like "Will the troops come home?" and "When?" have been
bouncing around for several years now. It is true that a few
Democrats began asking them shortly after Hussein was captured by
U.S. forces, but the inquiries rose to a fever pitch a year ago,
right before the last election.

Since then, however, the realization that chaos will ensue the
moment the U.S. leaves Iraq has become more widespread. And so
today, nearly all Democrats are talking about withdrawal, but
nothing concrete is being done or - from what I can gather - is
even being planned. On the few occasions when the Congressional
Democrats HAVE made a concerted effort towards a withdrawal plan,
President Bush has put up roadblocks, with the net result being
that nothing has changed. And that's just fine with the Jews who
infest both political parties and try - usually with a high
degree of success - to steer the party into "good for Jews"
channels.

So, despite their apparent sincerity, one wonders sometimes if
the Democratic politicians are REALLY doing all they can to bring
the boys home. One wonders if they are just talking about it
because, after all, it IS the fashionable thing to talk about
these days. For those of us White racialists who have seen a lot
come and go in our years of work with Our Cause, it is very
similar to the behavior of a certain type of individual who joins
a pro-White group and then makes it a point to boast at every
opportunity about all of the things that need to be done, but
then when it comes to actually doing something and getting
involved in the rather unglamorous, steady effort that is
required to push Our Cause forward, he suddenly is too busy.
Within a very short time, no one ever hears from him and pretty
soon he can't be found at all. We call such people "hobbyists" -
armchair warriors who are all bark and no bite. 

I wonder sometimes if our Congressional Democrats are cut from
the same cloth. Maybe they've been told by "upper party
officials" that they need to tone down the calls for withdrawing. 

Well, whatever the ordinary, run-of-the-mill Congressional
Democrats are saying these days, the small number of Democrats
who are in the running for their party's presidential nomination
have gotten the message, and they are being very careful about
giving a definite date for withdrawing the troops, assuming of
course that they get elected. We saw that lack of a firm
commitment in the CNN/YouTube debate this summer, and not much
has changed in the intervening weeks. 

But while the Democrats have been chirping about bringing the
troops home for some time now, it hasn't been until fairly
recently that some Republicans started to talk in a similar vein.
Most recently, U.S. Senator John Warner - a senior Republican
from Virginia and a former Secretary of the Navy - has called for
his party's leader to bring some of the U.S. troops home by
Christmas. Warner's call was not well received by many of the GOP
faithful, particularly those yellow-dog Republicans who blindly
follow the party line because they lack the ability to make up
their own minds about anything. 

So what is to be done about Iraq? I mean, George W. Bush got us
in there in the first place using what some people would call
criminal means, but what do we do to deal with the situation that
now exists? We can't bring Saddam back, and we can't appoint
another dictator to re-establish stability in Iraq. The various
factions in Iraq have been mobilized. To put them back in their
place is too much to ask, even for the well-equipped American
military…as we have seen on news television every day for several
years now. 

Should we withdraw immediately? Well, the Jews don't want us to
do that, for the obvious reason that they don't want Israel to be
consumed in the great Middle Eastern conflagration that might
result. 

But we racialists don't base our decisions on pleasing the Jews,
but neither do we always make decisions based on what will tick
them off. We base our decisions on what is best for the long-term
good of the White race and those decisions, I must admit, usually
DO tick them off. But then again, most of the decisions they make
tick US off, and that's simply because we have very different
race-souls and very different worldviews. Unfortunately for our
people, the Jewish worldview of materialism is dominating our
worldview of racial self-determination at the moment. And that is
what we in the National Alliance are out to fix.

Anyway, back to Iraq. Regardless of what the Jews would like,
there may well be some very good humanitarian and economic
reasons for avoiding an immediate pullout…humanitarian and
economic reasons that we consider valid because they might be in
the long-term best interests of the White race. But besides a
sudden pullout and a "to hell with it" response - which we
haven't ruled out, of course - what other choices do we have? 

A couple of weeks ago, a nonpartisan think tank based out of
Washington, D.C. called Fund for Peace offered up an idea in a
report entitled "A Way Out: The Union of Iraqi States." The
report, which is available free in either complete or abridged
form online, concludes that Iraq should be broken into three
separate states: a Kurdish state, a Sunni state, and a Shiite
state. The three proposed nations would send representatives to
the United Nations and would elect their own governments, but
would work together on economic affairs. Obviously, for example,
the economics of oil and the equitable sharing of oil revenues
would be key points of interest to the three states. 

"A Way Out: The Union of Iraqi States" is the seventh report in a
larger series dealing with observations about Iraq and the
conclusions that Fund for Peace has made about the situation
there. The most recent report shares the evidence that suggests
that a three-state Iraqi union would definitely be more agreeable
than the present situation. From reducing the internal conflict
that is tearing Iraq apart today, to creating states that have
little sympathy for Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, to
creating a more stable and peaceful Middle East, and all the way
to - not least - bringing U.S. troops home and giving Iraq back
to the Iraqis… the report makes a strong case for the
partitioning of Iraq according to its three main ethnic-religious
groups.

Probably the main reason that the news item about the latest Fund
for Peace report caught my eye is because we White racialists
have been promoting a similar idea for many years now, except
with regard to the various races of the Earth. Now, I'm sure that
I could find some points in Fund for Peace's report that I take
issue with, but I don't have the time to quibble over details.
The point is that all White racialists agree in principle with
the approach and basic rationale behind the report's conclusions.
All of that can be summed up as follows: 
"It is counterproductive to try to force dissimilar groups to
coexist. It is far better to separate them into self-chosen
clusters, in which they can interact with people who are similar
to themselves."

The "thinkers" in the think tank Fund for Peace - a nonpartisan,
nonracialist organization - would probably gasp in horror that
the Chairman of the National Alliance supports the basic
conclusions of this report. 

Well, let them gasp. Whether it is with regard to Iraq or to the
future breakup of America on the basis of race…the idea of
separation is correct. For the thinkers at Fund for Peace,
separation is for the good of the various groups in Iraq. For the
men and women of the National Alliance, separation is for the
good of the White race. For people everywhere who care about
peace and stability in a world teetering on the verge of
biological and ecological disaster, separation is for the good of
everyone. 

In fact, separation is the obvious path to a viable future, and
it is those who criticize and condemn separation who are to be
regarded with suspicion and distrust. Another way of saying the
same thing is that those who are pushing for more "diversity" and
more mixing of the races are the ones to be called to account.
They are the ones who should be made to explain themselves to the
rest of us. 

I know who those people are, and I think you do, too. They are
the power-hungry men in our media, government, and business
empires who will stop at nothing to accumulate power and wealth
for themselves, while the rest of the world be damned.

And since the entire White race has been damned by these
arch-criminals, it is our duty in the National Alliance to stop
them. And if you care about the future of your grandchildren and
the future of the planet, you need to stand up and help us.

The National Alliance states that America needs to be broken up,
just like Fund for Peace says Iraq needs to be broken up. 

Separation: rational minds everywhere are starting to understand
that it is the final solution.

I'm Erich Gliebe, and thanks for being with me 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) 2007 National Vanguard Books