The Ideology Of The National Alliance
ADV Broadcast Of May 21, 2011
Hello, and welcome to another broadcast of American Dissident Voices, the Internet radio program of the National Alliance. I’m your host and Chairman of the Alliance, Erich Gliebe.
The National Alliance is not only working to achieve certain goals; it also stands for a comprehensive view of life, or worldview. Its goals have not been chosen arbitrarily in reaction to current social, racial, or economic problems, the way the Democrats and Republicans put together a party platform for election purposes; instead they follow naturally from Alliance ideology.
We see ourselves as integral with a unitary world around us, which evolves according to natural law. In the simplest words: There is only one reality, which we call Nature: not the "my reality" and "your reality" of the subjectivists and not the separate spiritual and physical realms of the supernaturalists. We are a part of Nature and subject to Nature's laws. Within the scope of these laws we are able to determine our own destiny. If we err in our efforts there is no one to protect us from the consequences of our folly or our weakness. In other words, we ourselves are responsible for everything over which we have the power of choice: in particular, for the state of our environment and for the destiny of our race.
This view may be contrasted with the Semitic view, which separates man from the rest of the world and postulates a divine but nevertheless manlike being who rules man and the world by supernatural law. Those who hold this view absolve themselves of responsibility for their fate. When faced with an undesired outcome of events they say, "It is God's will. "They believe that it is not necessary for men to concern themselves with the future, beyond planning for their own needs, because their god has everything under control.
During the time when Europe was most strongly under the influence of Semitic ideology (and also today in some countries under Islamic rule, as well as among some fundamentalist Jewish and Christian sects in America and elsewhere), it was considered impious for a man to infringe upon the deity's prerogatives: specifically, to attempt to understand or influence the phenomena of Nature, or to change venerable social institutions.
Our world is hierarchical. Each of us is a member of the Aryan (or European) race, which, like the other races, developed its special characteristics over many thousands of years during which natural selection not only adapted it to its environment but also advanced it along its evolutionary path. Those races which evolved in the more demanding environment of the North, where surviving a winter required planning and self-discipline, advanced more rapidly in the development of the higher mental faculties -- including the abilities to conceptualize, to solve problems, to plan for the future, and to postpone gratification -- than those which remained in the relatively unvarying climate of the tropics. Consequently, the races vary today in their capabilities to build and to sustain a civilized society and, more generally, in their abilities to lend a conscious hand to Nature in the task of evolution.
Furthermore, just as the races may be ordered according to their levels of development, so may the individuals within a race. Some are better able to understand the world around them than others; some are more creative; some have better self-discipline or a stronger will; some have a more highly developed sense of responsibility. In a well-ordered society these differences will be reflected in varying degrees of influence or control over the course of the society being exercised by the various members of the society according to their varying individual qualities.
In contrast to our view is that of the egalitarians, who believe that the differences in the levels of civilization of the different races and the differences in the social positions of individuals in our society are purely circumstantial and can be changed easily by changing the circumstances: e.g., the level of civilization in Black Africa can be brought up to the European level and kept there by providing economic and technical aid to make up for past "injustices," such as colonialism; and any individual can fill any position in society if he is given certain "advantages," such as good schools and a good home environment. Differences in attainment, standard of living, and degree of social influence, among races and among individuals, are therefore unnatural and unjust and should be done away with, according to the egalitarians.
We believe in an economic policy based on racial principles. There are two fundamental criteria which must be used for judging each and every governmental intervention in economic matters. They are, first, the long-range welfare and progress of the race; and second, human nature. Which is to say that in evaluating any economic policy we must ask ourselves two questions: Will this policy ultimately be beneficial or detrimental to the quality of our race? And is it in accord with human nature?
We look first at the racial effects of a policy and insist that they must be positive -- or at least not negative -- and then we insist that the policy be based on a clear and realistic understanding of human nature, so that it is workable.
We can understand better the significance of these two principles if we consider briefly two quite different economic systems, Marxism and laissez-faire capitalism.
Marxist economics has human happiness rather than racial progress as its ostensible aim, and it is based on assumptions that are at odds with reality and with human nature. It aims at providing material comfort for everyone, more or less equally. It cannot even admit the possibility of racial progress, because that implies that some types of men are inherently superior to others and that some directions of development are more desirable than other directions.
Whether one prefers the Marxist goal of the greatest happiness for the greatest number or the National Alliance goal of stronger, wiser, and more beautiful men and women is a matter of one's values. It was not on its choice of values that Marxism foundered. however, but on its refusal to recognize the fact of human inequality and the nature of human motivation. When people are not permitted to work for their own profit and advancement, they do not work well; and when a society's leaders do not attain their positions through their own merit, that society is likely to be ill led.
In contrast to the Marxist system, we recognize the need to permit people to compete, to reap the fruits of their labor, and to exercise leadership according to their demonstrated ability. They will work harder and more efficiently and will order themselves in a hierarchy of ability. The result will be a stronger, better led, and more prosperous society. There will of course, be those individuals who will not work or whose natural abilities are such that they cannot compete effectively. Rather than following the Marxist path of robbing the successful in order to reward the unsuccessful, we must take measures to ensure that society's lowest elements do not multiply and become more numerous in later generations.
The laissez faire capitalist system provides another illustrative contrast. Under such a system the society as a whole has no goals: there are only the goals of individual men and women. The capitalist system, like ours, provides strong incentives for individuals: the strong, aggressive, and clever rise and prosper, and the weak, indecisive, and stupid remain at the bottom. Leaders tend to be capable -- at least, in the capitalist economic environment, with its special conditions.
Without a unifying principle, however, a capitalist society easily can fall prey to certain inherent weaknesses. One of these weaknesses is the instability which leads the rich to become richer and the poor to become poorer, not solely because of differences in ability but because the possession of capital gives the possessor an enormous advantage in the competition for more capital. When personal gain is the only motivation in a society, those who already are rich can arrange things to favor themselves: they can buy the legislation they want, and they can block threats to their power in ways that may be destructive to the welfare of the society as a whole. They can hold down the price of labor, limit healthy competition within the society, and exploit the environment without regard for the long-range consequences.
The overly rigid social stratification resulting from unrestricted capitalism can lead to endemic class hostility and even to class warfare. It can slow racial progress by making the ability to acquire and hold capital the supreme survival trait.
We need an economic system which, in contrast to Marxism, allows individuals to succeed in proportion to their capability and energy, but which, in contrast to capitalism, does not allow them to engage in socially or racially harmful activity, such as stifling competition or importing non-White labor. We need to structure our economic system so that it cannot fall prey to the instability of capitalism. We need to maintain social flexibility, so that capable and energetic individuals always have the possibility of rising. We need to ensure that capital does not have the possibility of changing society's rules to suit itself. The way to achieve and maintain an economic system which meets these criteria is to design and govern the system subject to the supreme principle: the ultimate aim of all economic policy is racial progress.
White men and women find themselves a dwindling minority in the world; while Black and Brown populations are growing at an increasing rate, White populations nearly everywhere are at best static. Furthermore, there is an increasing immigration of non-Whites into formerly White areas, accompanied by miscegenation on a massive scale.
If we had only this demographic problem to deal with, our task would be easy. White governments have the means necessary for halting non-White immigration and deporting non-White populations. Such measures, together with a withdrawal of economic and technical aid to the undeveloped areas of the non-White world, would permit natural forces to reverse non-White population growth quickly. Non-Whites have no ability to counter such measures, militarily or otherwise.
Even America's most degenerate urban populations, which have become so degraded morally and ideologically -- so acclimated to egalitarianism and "multiculturalism" -- that all we can hope to salvage from even the racially White elements among them is a selected minority, while the majority perishes in the chaos preceding the final cleansing, can offer no effective resistance to determined governmental action.
Unfortunately, since the end of the Second World War no White government has been under the control of White men with our values and our ideology. White governments everywhere are terminally corrupt, led by collaborators with the Jews. No solution to our demographic problem can be implemented -- and, therefore, no future for our race can be secured -- until we regain control of our governments. Our program, therefore, must have as one of its goals the attainment of governmental power. Nothing short of this can be meaningful in the long run.
By governmental power we mean, of course, the power to make and execute all government policy. This implies a massive replacement of the existing power structures: legislatures, courts, military and police command cadres, and the mass media.
No mere election of a head of state can give us this power; no president or prime minister, even if he is installed by a military coup and has the backing of the top military leaders, can stand alone against the other elements of the power structure in a modern, White state -- especially not against the power of the mass media. In order for any power we acquire to be meaningful it must be total: that is, it must include all the major elements of the power structure.
No non-violent uprising by a militant White element of the population can succeed by itself, nor can a violent uprising, in which marches and demonstrations are accompanied by terrorism and street fighting, achieve success -- so long as the major elements of the power structure remain in the hands of our enemies. No modern, White state can be overthrown by a mob howling outside the citadel; the revolutionaries must already have established a sufficiently strong position inside the citadel before their cohorts outside begin howling. One may think of the so-called "civil rights" revolution in the United States in the decades after the Second World War, in which Blacks burned cities and marched in huge, often violent demonstrations and eventually got their way. The burning and the marching would have availed them nothing, however, had their sympathizers not already been solidly entrenched in the mass media, the Christian churches, the governmental bureaucracy, and the legislatures and courts of the land. In our case the situation is reversed, with those bastions of the power structure in the hands of those who hate us most intensely.
The power we seek cannot be attained by any trickery or subterfuge, by any scheme of gradual infiltration and subversion, by any sudden coup, or by any other superficial or insubstantial means. It can only be attained by first building a solid revolutionary infrastructure capable of sustaining revolutionary action on many fronts over a period of years and then erecting on that infrastructure a power structure of our own, in which each essential element of the power structure opposed to us has its analogue.
Our power structure does not seek to imitate the one we want to replace, or even to compete with it in the normal sense. For example, it would be foolish to imagine that we could build a revolutionary police or military structure which could compete effectively with that of the government. But we can build structures with certain military and police functions which have as their immediate task the coordination of recruiting inside the government's military and police agencies. Their later tasks can be to serve as fully ramified cadres for incorporating and organizing the best human material from the disintegrating governmental military and police structures.
Even our mass media do not attempt to compete with those of the enemy by winning larger audiences. Ours merely aim at reaching the entire White population with our message and making it continually accessible to those who are responsive. We understand that by far the larger part of the White population is and will continue to be more interested in spectator sports or Star Wars than in our message, and we will not try to wean them away from their amusements. Only in the very last stages of revolutionary development will we be competing with the Jews for the attention of this mass element, but by then the competition will be on our terms. Our mass media, however, eventually will provide the indispensable tool for communicating with all the elements of the White population during a critical transitional period between the collapse of one way of life and the establishment of another. A successful attainment of governmental power will not be possible without this tool.
The skeptic, or the person who cannot imagine a state of affairs very different from the one he is accustomed to, will look at the enormous disparity in every element of the power structure between us and our enemies, and he will think that our goal of gaining governmental power is not attainable -- and that if it were possible, it would be only through building a power structure larger and stronger than that of our enemies: building a revolutionary army with more soldiers than the U. S. Army; building television networks with more viewers than ABC, CBS, and NBC; building political organizations able to get more voters to the polls than the Democrats or the Republicans. But this is not necessary, and in our next broadcast I’ll explain why.
In the meantime, I hope that all of you will consider our message and join with us.
I’m Erich Gliebe, and thanks for being with me again today.