As we all know, it is election time again in the United
States, the great bastion of democracy. And I must admit
that I am pretty cynical when it comes to the democratic
process in this country. In fact, I am pretty cynical
about democracy in general no matter where it exists,
but more on that later.
The United States is in an election year and we are
being bombarded by news from the campaign trail as the
controllers of democracy have pre-selected for us which
candidates to vote for. If it were not so amusing, it
would be truly depressing. In fact, I sometimes think
I have some sort of natural, mental defense mechanism
that allows me to find amusement in the election process.
My god what a crazy spectacle it is.
Not a day goes by where we are not reminded about what
Hillary Clinton said about Barack Obama or what one
of Barack’s advisors said about Hillary. Or what
John McCain did or didn’t do in response. The
he said she said juvenile banter goes on for a very
long time during an election and the controlled media
is happy to facilitate the entire process.
Every day we get video clips and sound bytes from one
candidate or another discussing hypothetical situations
that are apparently designed to clarify one candidate’s
superior position, qualifications, or opinions about
one seemingly important issue or another. It is the
proverbial, time-honored, baby kissing (or, in many
cases, butt-kissing) political process that has always
accompanied the domestic election process. And of course
it all amounts to inconsequential, hollow campaign promises
that are rarely remembered after the election. And to
some extent, the people entitled to vote in this country,
the electorate, understand this. The rest of the electorate
doesn’t care about these campaign promises or
they actually think some of them will be kept.
For us, for White nationalists, part of the real danger
during an election year is that it essentially amounts
to months and months of the dissemination of ideological
muck and inconsequential rhetoric. This effectively
keeps the electorate confused, misdirected, and clueless
about what these politicians will actually do when they
get into office. It is a kind of political smoke and
mirrors, allowing the media-endorsed political candidates
to strut around trying to win votes while deliberately
confusing the voters.
For example, just recently I heard some really amusing
campaign trail rhetoric that made even the controlled
media blush a bit. Hillary Clinton, who is currently
trailing behind her Democratic Party competitor, Barack
Obama, in the coveted media driven popularity polls,
made some pro Second Amendment, pro gun rights comments.
That’s right, you heard me correctly. Madam Hilary,
our flaming liberal, feminist, “child of god”
from the 1960’s, postured herself as a supporter
of gun rights. While in full political prostitute mode,
stirring up the ideological muck and trying to appeal
to the working-class democrats in Pennsylvania, she
actually indicated that she did not oppose guns. She
was warmly reminiscing about some quality time she spent
with her grandfather who taught her how to shoot guns
when she was just a girl. She affectionately stated,
AND I QUOTE "Some people now continue to teach
their children and their grandchildren. It's part of
culture. It's part of a way of life. People enjoy hunting
and shooting because it's an important part of who they
are.” Well for Boobus Americanus getting ready
to vote in the Pennsylvania primary, it would appear
that Mrs. Clinton is just fine and dandy with gun ownership
and protecting gun rights. Right? Wrong!
Nothing could be further from the truth. Hillary Rodham
Clinton is just as rabidly anti Second Amendment as
the rest of the democrats. Of course she is not going
to say that when she is preparing for another election
in a state that has always had a strong stance on protecting
the Second Amendment. No, she is much better off making
some deceptive statements that indicate she supports
the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. And she
is hoping those comments will be sufficient at adequately
confusing the electorate until she can get some of their
votes. Again, it keeps them confused and misdirected
about what Hillary or any of her fellow democrats will
actually do while in office.
For those of us that are actually paying attention
to the facts and have a memory that extends beyond last
week’s sports page, we know exactly what they
will do while in office because they have been doing
it for years. Hillary comes from a political party and
is a Senator in a state that is very hostile to the
Second Amendment. And of course all of these democratically
elected officials use the same deceptive language and
tactics to make rhetorical distinctions between support
for the Second Amendment - and keeping assault weapons
off the streets or closing so-called gun show loop holes.
But the desired result, the political and ideological
objective is always the same: more gun control!
For those of us that really pay attention to what is
happening in this country, we can quickly dismiss Hillary’s
trickery for exactly what it is. The record on this
is abundantly clear. Hillary has always been a very
strong advocate for gun control. She voted for a 10-year
extension to the assault weapons ban that her corrupt
husband, Bill Clinton, endorsed and signed into Federal
law back in 1994. Hillary also voted for the implementation
of more extensive background checks at gun shows and
supports mandatory licensing and registration for all
handguns as well as mandatory trigger locks, among other
things. And make no mistake, there is no effective difference
between her stance on this subject and her democratic
party contender Barack Obama’s stance.
The thinking portion of the American electorate understands
this political trickery. We understand this ideological
smoke and mirrors tactic that allows elected officials
to preach something in front of the cameras or while
on the campaign trail, yet practice something entirely
different once elected into office. But therein lies
one of the problems with the notion of democracy.
On average, the intelligence of the electorate has
declined drastically since our Founding Fathers introduced
democracy in this country. The average voter in this
country is not the type of person whose influence we
want to have on the direction of this country. Yet we
have the illusion of a “will of the people”
democracy in this country that allows this sort of campaign
trail circus to go relatively unchecked. Meanwhile,
the media is happy to report the deliberately deceptive
political rhetoric, day after day.
Anyway, when I get beyond the hypocrisy and amusement
of this circus-like ritual that we are forced to witness
on regular intervals in this country, I become rather
depressed. The implementation and ceremonial adherence
to the notion of democracy in a media-controlled society
is tragically lethal to our people. The election process
in our Judaized media-driven society provides the illusion
of democracy, but the democracy our Founding Fathers
had intended is dramatically different than what we
have today.
The concept of democracy is nothing new to our people
and certainly nothing unique to the United States or
to the men who founded this country. It can be traced
back throughout history and back to ancient Greece which
is typically attributed to be the birthplace of democracy.
The actual word ‘democracy’ is derived from
the ancient Greek word ‘demokratia’ which
literally translates to mean “rule by the people.”
The root of the word ‘demos’ translates
to "the mob, the many" and ‘kratos’
translates to "rule" or "power."
So there you have it, democracy can be literally translated
to “the rule of the mob.”
But I am not attempting to give a lesson in linguistics
here. My point is simply that the concept of democracy
is ancient and it is nothing unique to the United States.
And further to my point, the meaning of democracy, though
romanticized by Hollywood and the news media, is still
adequately defined as ‘the rule of the mob’
or ‘the will of the people.’ But I can assure
you that modern day democracy is a far cry from Athenian
democracy. I believe it is a complete sham in a society
that is guided by a predominantly Jewish-controlled
mass media. This media amounts to an invisible arm,
in essence an invisible government that is comprised
of a very small group of people that belong to a tiny
minority of our population yet control a majority for
the World’s media. This invisible arm has an overwhelming
influence on how and for whom the “majority”
vote for within this democracy. Despite this minority
influence, the “will of the people” continually
embraces democracy as if it were infallible.
Back to my point: in essence, under a democracy, the
members of the government are selected on the basis
of a direct vote by the citizens. The top executives
and law makers or legislators are chosen “of the
people, by the people, for the people” based on
whichever politician seeking office within that democracy
gets the most votes. So nearly every citizen over a
certain age has an equal vote and say in who gets elected
to office. Again, the so-called “will of the people”
or the rule of the mob decides who our government leaders
will be. That is conceptually what people believe when
they embrace democracy. That is the concept of democracy
and just that concept alone should negate a democratic
system as viable in any healthy society. By definition
it is flawed and some of the flaws are obvious if you
just take a moment to think about it.
For a simplistic example, let’s say that a democracy
has three people eligible to vote. Let’s say one
of the three people was an intelligent, competent individual,
perhaps even a genius. Now let’s say the other
two are complete idiots, yet still citizens of voting
age. Under a democracy, the idiots could ban together
and their collective vote would completely negate the
vote of the genius. The genius’s vote would be
completely marginalized in this hypothetical example.
Of course I have completely simplified this example
to point out an inherent flaw in modern day democracy,
especially in America. The “will of the people”
or the rule of the mob is not likely to produce the
best results. As I said earlier, the thinking portion
of the American electorate understands that. We realize
that on average, the intelligence of the voting mob
has declined drastically over the past two centuries.
I think that is obvious to most of us. After all, would
anyone with any intelligence whatsoever have voted for
Bill Clinton for President? Or, for that matter, continue
to vote year after year to keep Ted Kennedy as their
senator? I rest my case!
Beyond the thinking portion of the White population,
within any spectrum of academic study of human populations,
intelligent research gives no credence to some sort
of inherent superiority to the “will of the people.”
No credible or competent sociologist believes that the
collective voice of the people offers any extraordinarily
wise, moral, or righteous qualities. And no honest sociologist
or individual would claim that the average intelligence
of the American electorate has increased in recent decades,
further diminishing any presumption about how the “will
of the people” impacts the collective group.
Now ask yourself whether or not you think the average
citizens of this country deserve to have an equal say
in which politicians get elected to office. Of course
I completely discount the difference between a democracy
and a republic and the United States is a republic.
I also do not account for the electoral college or the
other provisions in the constitution that help to minimize
the inherent flaws of a democracy that the “will
of the people” can produce. But my point is to
encourage you to think about the entire concept of a
democracy at a very fundamental level. And the average
intelligence of the electorate is really not even the
biggest potential problem with modern day democracy.
I just wanted to illustrate how flawed it could be.
Now extend my simple example to any society with a
sizable population and assume that the brighter segment
of that society is still in the minority. Assume that
the majority of this society is on average just a little
less sophisticated or intelligent. At least assume that
this majority does not encompass any superior wisdom
worthy and capable of directing the society as a whole.
And further assume that within this society that there
is an apparatus of mass propaganda, a controlled mass
media of news and entertainment that is nearly completely
manipulated by an alien minority, a very small segment
of that population that has an entirely different culture,
background, and religion, that is from an entirely different
race and ethnicity than that of the actual majority
of the society. Now does that sound like a viable system
for a healthy society? What I just described to you
is our modern day American democracy. This is a democracy
under the influence of a very small group of people
that have near monopolistic control over the mass media
and come from a minority segment of the population,
a people comprising around 2.5% of the entire population.
This minority is the Jews.
Much more important to illustrate is that the lethal
nature of democracy for our people rests in the control
of the mass media and this has an overwhelming, nearly
complete and unwavering influence on our democracy.
If the so-called “will of the people” is
representative of a democracy, it is the mechanism of
influence on the “will of the people” that
truly shapes a democratic society. If you have ever
done any research or serious thinking on the power of
propaganda you can easily conclude how effortless it
is for a democracy is to control and manipulate. It
is this thorough understanding of how public opinion
can be manipulated that really sheds light on the biggest
flaw in a democracy, or at least the biggest flaw of
any democracy that has news and entertainment controlled
by a very small segment of that population. It is this
influence on group mentality that welds the power within
a democracy. The Jews understand this and have saturated
themselves within this invisible power structure of
control.
By now, most everyone listening to or reading this
broadcast understands the critical importance of how
the Jewish-controlled media has a profound impact on
the health of our society and our people. For years
we have talked about the Jewish influence on society
through the control of mass media of news and entertainment.
Many years ago Dr. Pierce launched an educational effort
that concisely documented the overwhelming and undeniable
ownership of our mass media by Jews. He clearly outlined
how this controlled media had a profound influence on
society and how it was used to manipulate the “will
of the people.” Later this year, the Nationalist
Coalition is going to launch a new video series, Who
Rules America, which will be dedicated to the legacy
of Dr. Pierce that will continue this incredibly important
research and educational effort.
For years Dr. Pierce repeatedly explained and warned
us about the critical understanding of Jewish media
control on all of our current problems as a society
and a race. He clearly and repeatedly pointed out that
the democratic process was an illusion, a fantasy in
the age of television and Hollywood entertainment. He
explained how the media forms and manipulates the attitudes
and opinions of the majority of the electorate.
Today we have an excellent example of his point. Right
now we have the legitimate candidacies of a Black man
and a flaming liberal woman for the highest office in
this country, arguably the world, the Presidency of
the United States. What would have seemed impossible,
what seemed unrealistic in the past is actually happening.
And it is no coincidence that this scenario, the reality
of a Black man or liberal woman holding the office of
the Presidency of the United States, has been played
out in the fantasy world that Hollywood has inundated
our people with for years. Hollywood has been showing
this unrealistic possibility as virtually commonplace
in the fantasy world they portray on television and
the movies. They have been posturing the “will
of the people” for this reality for years. Now
that fantasy world has become a reality and this is
deliberate, it is not a coincidence. And the conversion
from the fantasy world of Hollywood to the reality of
US politics is now being implemented via the mechanism
of democracy.
Dr. Pierce even noted how religiously and unquestionably
our people embrace this fantasy, this illusion of the
“will of the people”, this concept of democracy
as a legitimate form of government. We should reflect
upon those lessons and make an effort to remind our
people about them. Right now is a convenient time to
help illustrate the flaws of democracy because the democratic
circus will be in full swing until the presidential
elections are over.
We should take time to explain this to the thinking
portion of the White population. First we should remind
them who owns and controls the mass media. Then we should
explain how the Jewish ownership and control of the
mass media is used to manipulate public opinion about
political candidates. This in turn has a profound impact
on the types of public policy these candidates will
put in place while in office. These policies can and
often do contradict the so-called “will of the
people” that these candidates were supposedly
put in office to protect and promote. As a result, the
“will of the people” must adhere to the
laws of political correctness and I don’t have
to remind you about who writes these laws and advertises
them through the invisible hand of the mass media.
Do you think the “will of the people” wants
open borders and uncontrolled, illegal immigration into
this country from the Third World? The fact is that
most Americans, regardless of their level of intelligence,
are opposed to the flood of illegal immigrants into
this country. Several states have even voted in favor
of more stringent laws on illegal immigration. There
have been overwhelming results from democracy in action
where the “will of the people” effectively
said ‘no more illegal immigration.’ In 1994
the voters in California democratically passed a proposition
they called the Save Our State initiative that was intended
to stop the illegal immigration flood, primarily a non-White
flood, into their state. Well a Federal court threw
it out! It turns out that the “will of the people”
in California in 1994 contradicted the will of the Jews
and a Federal court made sure whose will was enforced.
Ain't democracy grand!
Based on the rules of a democracy, that is the “rule
by the people,” affirmative action should have
been officially abandoned many years ago. To the great
dismay of the oligarchs that control our mass media,
the majority of the people in our population are White
– though, thanks to the strong efforts of the
Zionist controlled puppets, our percentage is dwindling
in this country. And the majority of these Whites are
against affirmative action. In fact, many non-Whites
in this country are also against it because they feel
like it discounts their potential and allows other groups,
mainly White people, to look down on them for getting
preferential treatment. But once again, the majority
“will of the people” has been declared politically
incorrect and the Federal courts are used to contradict
what the voters overwhelmingly demand.
I could go on and on citing examples about how the
concept of democracy is routinely abandoned if the results
from the democratic process contradict the media-enforced
laws of political correctness. We could spend a great
deal of time discussing the relatively recent devastating
effect that democracy has had on countries like Russia
and South Africa. Such results are inevitable.
I could cite statistics about how many millions of
White people have been slaughtered in order to make
the world "safe for democracy." We have lost
more of our people towards the end of protecting the
concept of democracy than we have lost for the sake
of any religion. And if you think about it, that is
a very profound statement. Literally millions of our
people have died for the concept of democracy and a
devotion to protecting it. Right now we have some of
our people fighting in Iraq and the justification for
that war is at least partly explained away by our politicians
for the same reason of making the world "safe for
democracy."
Now ask yourself, why is that? If you agree with any
of the things I have said today regarding the inherent
flaws of democracy, why is it so religiously endorsed
and protected? Why are our people willing to die to
help make the world "safe for democracy"?
Why do our people feel so strongly that a democracy
is the only legitimate form of government?
Now ask yourself, why do the Jews find it so appealing?
Why does the Jewish-controlled media attempt to make
sure that democracies flourish across the world? Well
if you are aware of the disproportional Jewish ownership
and control of the mass media, you should be able to
rationally think through to conclusion that a democracy
is by far the easiest form of government for them to
control. Think about how easy it is for this controlled
media to have a decisive influence on the democratic
process; a decisive influence on who gets elected and
what policies will be endorsed by those chosen for elected
office, especially those hopping to get reelected.
Discuss all of this with fellow White people. Talk
through the concept of democracy. Discuss the election
process. Discuss the overwhelming influence the media
has on our society and discuss who has a near monopoly
over this media. Help us educate our people.
Thanks for joining the Nationalist Coalition again
today.
