|June 8th, 2006||#1|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Harz Mountains
#18 Dictatorship or Democracy?
The Truth is No Defense: 06/07/2006 #18
Direct mp3 download: http://www.buywhite.net/shoutcast/sh...ttind1848k.mp3
"They wanted me to be another Washington," said the defeated and would be emperor Napolean Bonaparte (1769-1821). Napoleon, was once hailed as the General which saved France's republican revolution, yet in end, he wanted to be an emperor, and so he waged a war of expansion across Europe which ultimately led to his defeat.
In contrast George Washington (1732-1799), as I trust all listening tonight know, was the General that led a war for independence - or revolution - on behalf of the thirteen British colonies. Upon victory the General refused to rule as a king or dictator, but instead relinquished power to congress. Later he was elected president, served two terms and then retired to private life.
Washington, any sober evaluation of political science reveals, is the great exception, an ambitious man that refused the scepter of power, yet for every Washington there are a million Napoleons. Power is - whether acknowledged so or not – always concentrated in the hands of a few - or in the process of being consolidated in the hands of a few: this power, in turn, serves the ruling cliques interests. Interests which might be political, religious, financial, or even racial.
It was quite a noble thing of Washington to refuse the sword of power, yet in a way, he did a great disservice to our people. His example perpetuated a myth - a myth that power rests in the hands of the governed.
Despite this error, America, in 1799, the year Washington died, was in a most advantageous position. We had before us a vast continent and a youthful and restless race. What power and authority was exercised in the young republic was local rather than national, though it could be quite authoritarian: for example the local sheriff keeping order with his six shooter or the many federal forts strategically placed on the frontier - all staffed with armed men under the command of a military officer. This authoritarian system worked for the benefit of White Americans, it secured the future of the White race in America.
Washington's example of surrendering power merely distributed it across the unsettled country, rather having it put than exclusively in New York or Boston. But in our time, especially after WWII, power was seized from local authorities and put into the hands of a few. And don't be fooled into thinking that this power rests in the hands congress or even the presidency, those institutions are merely the electoral decoration of a dictatorship: America is no more democratic than Iraq, before or after Saddam Hussein.
Accordingly, now that power is centralized in the hands of a few we hear much today about corrupt local political machines: like boss Tweed's Tammany Hall based in New York City in the 19th century; or the Tom Pendergast machine in Kansas City, in the 1920s and 30s; but most often we hear about the "evil" state governments in the South which erected apartheid laws to keep White society safe from black predation. Regardless, lets be clear, these political machines and Southern states were not democratic, yet, their rule benefited Whites.
My family lived in Kansas City during the Pendergast era, and my mother often told me how the democratic process operated back then: if you wanted coal, to cook your food and heat your home, then vote for the Democratic Party (which actually meant the Tom Pendergast machine) and you'd have plenty of coal. The Democratic Party (again the Pendergast machine) also distributed jobs, and food to the needy – in return for votes of course. Is this democratic? Yet, today, you'd don't even get a bag coal for your vote, this seems to be a backward step.
It might be noted, that in 1934 Tom Pendergast hand picked Harry Truman as the US Senate Candidate from Missouri. Also worth noting, upon the death of Franklin Roosevelt it was Truman that became 34th president of the United States. Now ask yourself what hand chose George W. Bush to be president?
Regardless, race is the crucial difference between the Iraqi dictatorship and the current one in charge of the US. Life in the US has been and still is better than it is in Iraq because it is populated with Whites. Take away the Whites and the US is no different than Iraq. In both states, if you stay out the of the regime's way then you are safe. In Iraq this meant no criticism of Saddam Hussein's interests or that of his family and tribe; and in the US it means submitting to a protean multicultural orthodoxy: which most often means surrendering to the wishes of Jews, Blacks, and Mestizos - no matter how many crimes they commit against the shrinking White majority. In both cases, if you violate the dictatorship's rules then you might be fired, jailed, and perhaps murdered.
You know, in many ways, the Hussein type of dictatorship is better than the current US style, for the mentality of the Hussein regime is more easily understood. It is more human, more personal, more visceral. It rests, mainly, in the control of one man rather than being masked behind the facade of congress and the presidency. The dictatorship of the US operates “behind the curtain.” The rules in the American dictatorship shift and are never fully defined, yet in Hussein's Iraq, I suspect, it was pretty clear where the lines of authority stood.
So, you still think we live in democracy? You think congress and the presidency reflect the wishes of the populace? What are the wishes of the populace anyway? Is it those desires and opinions the electronic media presents to the public? Is it those opinions and ideas that are shaped day after day by the propaganda state? Even when propaganda fails to convince the public the ruling clique simply do as they please.
I ask you advocates of democracy is there anything democratic about this nation's immigration policy? Is their anything democratic about the agenda of the Jewish Media? Is there anything democratic about the hundreds of executive orders issued by Bush and Clinton? Is their anything democratic about affirmative action laws or housing laws? Is there anything democratic about the operations of the Federal Reserve system? How are such laws and institutions a reflection of popular democratic will?
You know, dictatorships are not necessarily tyrannical and they are not uniformly a dystopia. In fact, they may feature libertarian aspects, of course, as long as you are aware of boundaries - in Hussein's Iraq nightclubs, alcohol, most religious sects, and commercial activity were free to operate. In other cases, a dictatorship might defend the traditional interests of a nation, as was case of Franco's Spain: where birth rates rose to 5% and the church pews were filled with the faithful. Franco's Spain suppressed destructive trends like homosexuality and prostitution. Franco said that his regime was based on "bayonets and blood, not on hypocritical elections." Compared to the mess Spain, and the rest of Europe finds itself today, they would be far better off with Franco the current crop of democrats and parliamentarians.
Folks, we won't get out of this mess by voting, lobbying, or writing congressman. We, it seems, need a ruler capable of managing a state of exception that is managing in a state of emergency; one the will apply extraordinary powers to clean up the mess we are in, yet, importantly, won't patch up a worn-out suit of clothes but instead create a new garment for us to wear.
If you follow these arguments, if you understand the true nature of power in the the US, then you must also realize that democratic reform is impossible; dictators either relinquish power voluntarily or they can be forcibly removed: they are never voted out of power.
One man who had much to say about power was Carl Schmitt (1888 - 1985). This is what he had to say about dictatorship and democratic constitutions:
In our current situation, fooled as many are about the nature of power and rule in America, there is a great temptation to fall in with groups dedicated to the status-quo or restoration, democracy or law as they might say.
Lobbying and activist political organizations, like The Minutemen, are satellites orbiting a large planet: eventually their orbit degrades and they crash into the larger body, becoming part of its greater mass. Many listening tonight know that James Gilchrist the Director of the Minuteman Project, peddled his notoriety into a bid for congress in 2006. We certainly don't need anymore politicians or organizations which sell-out for a morsel of power.
Building a new set of institutions in parallel to the current regime is a necessity for White survival. That is why I contribute my time and energy to create content for VNN, and I'm sure Stan and the other contributers on Goyfire and The Hawthorne Report feel likewise. Creating media is a crucial first step to establishing ourselves as a force separate from the corrupt system killing our race.
Yet, as the greater White Nationalist movement grows, as it surely will do, as violence from Blacks and Mestizo increases lets not repeat the mistakes that allowed Jews and other non-Whites to capture our institutions and land. Democracy is not a system capable of protecting our race.
Thanks for listening.
A White World (Pierce's Vision for our Race):
|June 9th, 2006||#2|
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Rocky Mountains
How is the faithful city become an harlot! It was full of judgment: righteousness lodged in it, but now murderers. Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water. Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards.
"The Jew can only be understood if it is known what he strives for: ... the destruction of the world.... [it is] the tragedy of Lucifer."
Holy-Hoax Exposed, Hollow-Cost Examined, How Low Cost? (toons)