Forum

Geoff Beck · 2006-06-08T08:06:16Z

The Truth is No Defense: 06/07/2006 #18 Direct mp3 download: http://www.buywhite.net/shoutcast/shoutcast-1-9-5-linux-glibc6/content/gbttind1848k.mp3 Archives: http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/2005/VNNB/gbttind.htm Podcast: http://feeds.feedburner.com/thetruthisnodefense "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 the...