View Single Post
Old January 1st, 2006 #22
Geoff Beck
Hammer
 
Geoff Beck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Harz Mountains
Posts: 1,551
Geoff Beck
Default Broadcast #6 Transcript

The Truth is No Defense: 1/1/2006 #6

Listen Here to The Truth is No Defense:
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/2...NB/gbttind.htm

Listen to The Truth Is No Defense and all Vanguard Radio Media 24/7!
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com:8000/listen.pls

When you hear the word democracy uttered on the radio or TV, you might want to mentally substitute the world plutocracy. Let’s give it a try, shall we? When Bush says the insurgents fear “the rise of a democratic Iraq” or when he says that “America, is working for a democratic Iraq” doesn’t it make more sense if it read “America, is working for a plutocratic Iraq” or the insurgents fear “the rise of a plutocratic Iraq.” Not to pick on Bush alone, if you live overseas try it for Blair in England, Martin in Canada, or Howard in Australia.

Until quite recently most learned men thought democracy was a dangerous form of government, one which inevitably transitioned into plutocracy and tyranny. Over a span of 2500 years, from the 5th century BC Greeks to the German Idealists of the early 20th century, most thought the best form of government was one which an aristocratic elite – a superior element among the people, the clan, or the gens (which is the Latin work for family or nation united by blood. We form the word gentlemen from this word) would rise and govern: most often this meant a Monarch, a priestly order, or a council of warriors.

Dr. Jacob Alexander has surveyed the past 2500 years of western political thought in his book "Nobilitas: A Study of European Aristocratic Philosophy from Ancient Greece to the Early Twentieth Century" and despite the years there is a surprising uniformity among the thinkers surveyed: democracy and its twin egalitarianism are a curse.

This was the opinion of Plato, Aristotle, Bodin, Burke, Fichte, De Maistre, Schopenhauer, Hegel, and Spengler. Democracy, they said, elevates the inferior; destroys the spiritual life; it transfers power to the unfit; and it inevitably degrades into mob rule, plutocracy, and tyranny. The fruit, as Heinrich von Trietschke (1834-96) warned, of democracy would be that of “a disproportionate share of influence given to stupidity, superstition, malice, mendacity… and nebulous waves of sentiment would introduce an unpredictable element into the life of the State.”

Do you may recall the second inaugural address delivered by George Bush? It was widely reported Mr. Bush, the night before his address, was up late reading a book by the Israeli Jew, Natan Sharansky entitled "The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror". Sharansky's book claims democracies are inherently peaceful and the entire world ought to be made ready for world wide democratic revolution. Sharansky describes democracies as guarantors of freedom and liberty, and non-democratic states as "fear societies". Prattle such as this is easily countered, but for the inferior who hold power – if only ceremonially - it generates much excitement, like the anticipated arrival of Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.

Bush, it was reported, was so enamored by Sharanksy's second rate thought he called for all Americans to purchase the book. We can only guess how much this book has influenced foreign policy; it surely influenced the president's inaugural address of January 20th.


[Clip from Inaugeral Address]

Such, rhetoric, aside from being stupid is also dangerous. But Bush is only the worst, in a long string of idiots, knaves, lechers and half-wits voted into office. In so far as any creature of our kind holds power they are an inferior type, like the devious lecher like Bill Clinton or a fool like George Bush. Before the voting rights act of 1964 – which gave non-whites the right to vote – the American public was a bit more selective about those it allowed into office. The degradation of the masses is so complete that even if a President is exposed as a lecher or a liar the public re-elects the scoundrel.

Ask yourself, why are Jews like the right wing Isreali Sharansky so insistent that all governments be democracies? I’ll to you why, because nations that are mass democracies are easily subverted and manipulated, they are like cattle being intentionally stampeded to edge of a cliff: the hands spooking the cattle, that are blowing the horns, banging the pots and pans, and firing into the air are the Jews using their predominance in the media. For the sake of malice alone the Jew cattle drivers have the herd trample our neighborhoods, churches, and just about any other institution that might serve to strengthen our people. Can any democratically elected politician stand up to the Jews, question their motives, or examination the question of Jewish predominance in the media, banking, or law schools? No! In fact to show how cowed our elected leadership is on December 16th of 2005 the House of Representatives voted unanimously 432-0 to make January Jewish history month. The bill had 252 co-sponsors in congress. Folks, voting got us into this mess, voting will not get us out. The Jews have a lock on our electoral system.

Let’s get a perspective on the rise of mass democracy. Before the twentieth century democracy in Europe was mitigated, in some states by royal veto, by custom, and to some extent by religious tradition; in America women and blacks were not allowed voting privileges. Before the 20th century, especially for example, in the 19th century, in both America and Europe, life was characterized by large families, low crime, sound money, personal freedom, and order - but voting privileges were restricted. These restrictions on voting rights tempered the turbulence of the masses; it kept the demagogic element in democratic politics muted. When voting reform bills in the early 20th century in Europe and United States extended voting rights to women, the young, alien races and criminals the brakes on mob rule where removed. And it does not take tyrant long to find a mob, a tyrant to mold to the mob to his purposes: a tyrant to provide welfare benefits, a tyrant to grant special privileges, a tyrant to exploit friction among men and women the old and the young.

It is worth noting too the rise of a full blown mass democracy - just like full blown AIDS – has been accompanied by many horrors like WWI and II. But isn't that what inferior people do when they rule, destroy and not create? Just as AIDS weakens and kills those it infects, democracy weakens and kills the political and spiritual life of the nation.

Many, in a quite facile way, hail Athens as a beacon of early democracy; though citizenship and voting rights in Athens were restricted to a precious few. I would certainly favor that system over the madness of one-body-one-vote system we have today. But even such restrictions did not, in the long run, prevent Athens from losing the war and degrading into an authoritarian state. Those that have read Thucydides’ “The Peloponnesian War” know that democratic Athens, essentially, voted its own destruction through an imperial war against its neighbors. Readers also know that Democratic Athens was defeated largely because she suffered from irrational and intemperate rule. If you’ve read Thucydides’ history you might remember the debate about the fate of the Mytilenians? So enraged were the Athenians over the Mytilenian revolt that the Athenian Assembly voted to put to death all Mytilenian prisoners and to exterminate the entire male population of Mytilene. To accomplish the genocide a fleet was dispatched. Soon afterwards a second debate commenced, the mood of the democratic mob changed, and after a close vote the assembly voted to reverse the genocide verdict and dispatch another ship to catch the fleet sent earlier to slaughter the Mytilenians. Remember too that the Mytilenians were Hellenes just like the Athenians, fellow Greeks, brothers, and not the hated and alien Persians which repeatedly had tried to enslave the Greeks and deprive them of their ancient liberties.

I think it important to clarify something, a point those in an earlier time might not have needed clarified. When speaking of rule by superior I mean not rule the by the snobbish, lazy, or spoiled. I mean not rule by plutocrats, technocrats, or the businessmen. I mean rule by those whose lineages over the decades and centuries have proved worthy of power. I mean rule by those who have demonstrated loyalty over generations. I mean rule by those that have led men into battle and withstood the fire. What I certainly don't mean is a type of man like the system politician, which lies and prevaricates which appeases and placates, which massages the masses for votes while enriching themselves and their friends - or those taking directives from foreign powers, powers like Mr. Sharansky and his fellow Jews. Also, I am not suggesting the weak or dull of our race are ever to be relegated to the political status of blacks, Mexicans or Jews.

In the past, rule by the superior meant the group of distinguished families called the nobility. Many nobles took pride in knowing their families had ruled for generations, tracing their roots to 8th century and perhaps even to the days of the Roman senate. Today, some noble families have retained there ancient titles but wield no power, and others are now wedded to inferior bloodlines. Some noble houses were slaughtered wholesale by the communists, like the Romanov dynasty at the hands of Jewish terrorists.

Now, lest again, I am misunderstood, I am not in favor or restoring the noble houses of Europe, though there may indeed be a few worthy families still in existence – most are thoroughly corrupt, and have been so for decades. No, what I favor is the formation of new elite, the formation of new noble lineages. This is not something that can’t be done by snapping one's fingers, establishing a commission, or by the vote. Only the merciless scythe known as time can separate the mediocre from the exceptional, this process is one of struggle, it is one of natural selection

When I speak of rule by the superior I know some won't like that. Yes, you may understand the inferiority of blacks and Mestizos, but acknowledging differences among our own kind is too painful or you may think it disruptive or divisive. Recall though, when whites had large families, of say 6 or 7 kids, perhaps only one child would rise above the rest to find success in business or academia. We must find those exceptions, those noble few in our race, or family if you will and nurture them. It absolutely necessary we promulgate and identify the superior of our race, or family.

For this mechanism to work we must come together, build communities, villages, cities, and neighborhoods. It took centuries for Europe to incubate their nobility, so this task is a delicate one. But only by careful selection in a healthy habitat can we identify the superior. In our own space we can educate, fund and encourage the propagation of new nobility, for this we need our own living space.

Today, we live in a system with promulgates the degenerate and inferior, especially in politics and the arts. A system which favors the hypnotic beat of the jungle over polyphony, a system which exalts the Negro beast before the gentleman. A system with exalts money and the "here and now", before discipline, duty, and sacrifice. In such a system we cannot survive, we will simply be out competed, genetically eliminated. For in the race to the bottom the degenerate and inferior win.

The Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset wrote a provocative book discussing the rise of mass societies in Europe and America entitled “Revolt of the Masses.” (1932). If you are interested in this topic of mass man, mass democracy and nobility I recommend the book. In Revolt of the Masses the philosopher used a quote from the Roman poet Horace to describe the loss of vitality, the decline in standards and morals in the twentieth century, a decline which seemed to manifest itself in the very breeding of the race. Horace, though, was writing in the 1st century, during the rise of the Caesars and the decline of the Roman Republic, he wrote:

"Our fathers, viler than our grandfathers, begot us who are more degenerate still, and we shall bear a progeny more degenerate."

Consider that when you see a little black baby call out “mamma” to a white woman.