Friday, November 26, 2010

Immediacy vs. Vision

Support the pro-White Cause! Purchase your holiday gifts online from National Vanguard Books and Resistance Records at and

ADV for November 27, 2010
Immediacy vs. Vision
by Erich Gliebe

Hello, and welcome back to another broadcast of American Dissident Voices, the Internet radio program of North America’s foremost racialist organization, the National Alliance. I’m your host and the Chairman of the Alliance, Erich Gliebe.

As many of you know, I don’t have much patience for political conservatives, so it shouldn’t surprise you that I don’t pay much attention to what conservative political commentator Bill O’Reilly has to say, at least most of the time. Now, although O’Reilly characterizes himself as a “traditionalist” rather than a “conservative,” from the White Racialist point of view, there isn’t much difference, and so it is easier to just lump O’Reilly in with the other uptight conservative cranks, as long as we acknowledge that he differs from other conservatives on a few more-or-less minor points.

Anyway, O’Reilly’s recent column “How can voters elect two who are so different?” had an interesting title, and I couldn’t help but read it. It was in print in many newspapers around the country, but you can also find it online at:

As the title of the column suggests, O’Reilly wonders at the mentality of the American electorate which, in less than ten years’ time, elected two very different men into the White House. As you will find for yourself if you read his column, O’Reilly characterizes former president (and now author!) George W. Bush as essentially a reactionary president. That is, Bush was one who simply reacted to the situations (or crises, depending on your point of view) that arose. He didn’t have much of a vision for a new America. He wasn’t a rule-changer. He wasn’t a boat-rocker. He was just a guy who dealt with (or tried to deal with) whatever problem came his way during his time in the White House. And now that his administration is over, he feels his obligations to just about everything and everyone are over, as well. As O’Reilly somewhat indelicately put it in his column, George W. Bush “…simply wants to sell some books and go back to the golf course.”

O’Reilly points out that President Obama, on the other hand, is at the other end of the action-reaction spectrum. Where Bush only reacted, Obama acted (or tried to). He wanted this changed. He wanted that changed. America needed (and still needs, in his mind) a major overhaul. The U.S. is still a long way off from being the country President Obama thinks it should be, and there is a lot of work ahead of us.

And while the American electorate was willing to give Obama a chance to implement his lofty ideals when they voted for him two years ago, the results of the most recent election show that lofty idealism can go only so far. Without concrete results to back up high-sounding ideals, people look elsewhere in pretty short order.

Now, that last comment is more of a criticism of the general run of humanity than it is of ideals and idealists. As White racialists guided by a worldview of ideals, we have firsthand experience with being marginalized by the masses as a result of our relative lack of concrete results…as perceived by the masses, anyway.

For example, one White racialist ideal is that we want a country with a homogeneous White population. We say that such a nation will experience less tension of virtually every sort, as compared to the current society today: less social tension, less ideological tension, and less economic tension, to name a few. We claim that there will be a lower crime rate, better schools, and safer streets in a Whites-only nation. If that nation is led by a principled White government, we contend that that nation’s international prestige will be very high, if only because that government would minimize its involvement in matters that don’t concern it, in addition to being honest and forthright in its dealings with all other nations.

The behavior of this hypothetical White government, of course, would stand in stark contrast to that of the current multiracialist government of the United States, which constantly dabbles in matters that it has no business being a part of, in the international arena. Furthermore, its dealings with foreign nations have a scheming and manipulative nature, playing favorites to some and playing antagonist to others, as everyone outside the U.S. and many inside the U.S. have observed.

Anyway, as attractive as this White racialist ideal is to many White people, when it has come to some concrete results, we have come up short, at least in the popular White mind. Since such a society doesn’t yet exist, the best we can do is to draw on situations that we feel approximate an all-White nation.

We can point out the lack of social tension and any measureable crime rate in small, rural, White communities, but that doesn’t carry a lot of weight with White people in the cities, whose faces are rubbed in the disastrous consequences of multiracialism every waking minute of the day.

We can point out the relative lack of non-White drug gangs and their activities in places like Norway and Sweden, but what effect does a few million snowbound Whites who are a stone’s throw away from Santa’s hideaway have on those White mainstreamers in the U.S. who are up to their ears in the chaos of racial diversity?

And we can cite historical examples, like back when Europe and the United States were overwhelmingly White, when schools and communities and businesses and FAMILIES were all-White, and when you didn’t have to monitor every single thing that came out of your mouth for fear of offending someone. But none of that means a hill of beans to your average White man or woman who just wants to see some results right HERE, right NOW.

And, at some level, who can blame these folks? All of us White racialists want an all-White society – led by an all-White government, and with an all-White media – right HERE, right NOW. But such a drastic change takes time, particularly when the men who are in control of the existing System have worked long and hard in an effort to make the existing System immune to changing it in the way we White racialists want. It’s a tall order, and change isn’t forthcoming in a hurry.

And so the White American voter dismisses White racialist ideals as lost causes and turns to the next newest thing that is allowed to take the stage by the Jews who control the American media. If, instead, more White Americans stuck with us and our ideals for a while, things might move in the direction we all would like. And the more things move in our direction, the more they will keep moving in our direction, and the faster they will do so. Because there is no doubt in my mind, despite whatever rejection and setbacks Our Cause has experienced up to the present time, that virtually all White people would say their lives had improved if suddenly our vision of an all-White nation was realized.

Now, no matter what White racialists think about Bill O’Reilly’s views on various other issues, we have to admit that he is on target with the assertions he makes about Bush and Obama in his recent column. And that’s because O’Reilly has hit on a fundamental truth about the average human being at this stage in the evolution of the species, a truth I’ve hinted at already, and that is:

Most people think and live in the short term. If something is presented to them that it is going to make their lives better in the very near future, they will support it. But they will only support it for a short time. If the results aren’t obvious almost immediately, they’ll turn away and look for something else. And that is why those who preach the necessity of planning and hard work over an extended period of time – years or decades, perhaps – have a hard time gaining a massive public following. The White Racialist Cause is a case in point. No results, no following.

So, as racialists, what are we to do?

Well, we might want to take an approach that is somewhere between what Bill O’Reilly said George W. Bush took and what President Barack Obama is taking. Bush was reactive, responding to the situation at hand but offering no vision to Americans about a better life. Obama, on the other hand, has been extremely pro-active, preaching immediate change and a better society just around the bend, if only we do this, and this, and this.

Neither of those approaches, by itself, sits well with the majority of people, educated or not, intelligent or not, wealthy or not. To offer no vision of a better life is, in essence, to admit that you have no goals and no real idea of where you’re going. That sounds a lot like the kind of man George W. Bush seems to be.

And when you promise big-time change in the time frame of a few months or a few years, you are either telling the whole world that you really have no clue about how things are done in the real world, or you are knowingly lying to them. With President Obama’s relative lack of political experience prior to entering the White House, it is quite possible that, sure enough, he really had no clue about how things are done in the real world of international and domestic politics.

So the approach we need to take in Our Cause needs to ride the line between both of these extremes. We need to deal with the situations that arise from day to day and week to week. We need to keep up with current events and inform our kinsmen of the relevance of those events to the racial situation of the White race worldwide. We need to be active every day, setting little goals and accomplishing them, dealing with every obstacle in its appropriate time: either right now or sometime later, depending on the circumstances. We need to have our fingers on the pulse of the System and, simultaneously, on the pulse of the race so that we will be ready to act however we need to at the most opportune time to tilt the scales in favor of our people.

But at the same time, we also need to hold before our people the vision of what is to come if they keep the faith, without deluding them that a White man’s paradise is nearly upon us, because it isn’t, and to say so is a lie. But all great religious and political movements throughout history have held up for all to see a vision that embodies the ideals of the movement. The vision – even without being completely realized at the moment – and the ideals inspire the faithful with hope to continue the struggle, and they speak to the fence-sitters as to what the movement is all about and where it intends to go. Furthermore, the vision and ideals are open-ended enough that the fence-sitters and the newcomers can imagine – and then fill – their own personal place in the movement.

To be honest, the majority of people today are more moved by the former of these two approaches than the latter. That is, more people are interested and inspired by immediate action than by long-term visions and lofty ideals. Immediate action is more real, more concrete. People feel like they are doing something, contributing, and they look forward to seeing the results of their labors. And as long as the results they are expecting arrive in a relatively short amount of time, they will keep working. Enthusiasm will build, and more people will jump on the bandwagon, eager to be a part of a successful enterprise.

But when the results aren’t immediate, or if they are miniscule in scale compared to the results that were expected, the opposite effect occurs. Enthusiasm wanes, and most people (not all people) lose heart and quit after all-too-short a time.

So we need to work in the moment, but still hold onto the vision of a safe and progressive future for our people. Small numbers of the masses will come to us, lose heart, and go again. In the meantime, we will strengthen our community of the minority of our people who don’t need immediate results to keep them going. And if we keep working in line with our ideals, in time, we will reach our goals.

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

No comments:

Post a Comment