Plato: not likely to have come from any other race.
Hello, and welcome back to another edition 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.
A few week s ago, a young White journalist from the Eastern Illinois student newspaper conducted an interview with National Alliance member and newly appointed spokesman, Dr. Don G. Smith. At one point the interviewer asked, "Why does it matter if the White race doesn't survive?" The interviewer's question was sincere. He admitted that Whites are becoming a minority around the world and that eventually the race might die off. Unfortunately he didn't care, and he asked Dr. Smith why anybody should care. Dr. Smith replied that Whites pioneered most of the great advances in philosophy, the arts, the sciences, medicine, etc. So why would anyone desire the end of this race? There haven't been any mestizo Beethovens, Zulu Rembrandts, or Jewish Platos.
The interviewer replied that other cultures were not allowed to grow in achievement because they were often oppressed by Whites, by members of Euro-American culture. Dr. Smith then asked why, if what the interviewer said were true, the White race was so technologically advanced as to "oppress" the rest of the world's races in the beginning. Obviously, if all the races had achieved the same advancement, White slave traders would not have been able to buy slaves from Black warlords in the primitive jungles of Africa. Whites invented world travel, and Whites invented almost everything else that advanced human progress in the world. So why would anyone want that race to die out?
The interviewer then said it would not matter if the White race died out because the achievements of great White thinkers, inventors, artists, etc. would still be taught in the schools and transmitted to coming generations. Dr. Smith replied that if non-Whites take over the educational system and the rest of culture, the White heritage that should be passed on would be cast aside. After all, why should ascendant non-White minorities (soon to be the majority) pass on the heritage of those whom they think oppressed their ancestors and themselves?
But Dr. Smith made an even greater point. Even if White culture is transmitted to future non-White populations, the racial stock capable of building on it will no longer exist. White culture will probably not be transmitted, but if it is, such a transmission is casting pearls before swine. Students of the future will rebel at being taught Shakespeare because he represents all that they have been taught to resent. So goodbye Homer and Dante, and hello Eldridge Cleaver and Ralph Ellison. And hello to the mestizo author of the easy-to-read House on Mango Street, an assigned book these days because it gives a multicultural viewpoint accessible to semi-literate college students.
Well, what sort of progress is gained by allowing or promoting the death of the race that has historically contributed the most to the world? What does the world gain by the death of the White race? What the world gains is the ascendancy of the Asian races that built major cultures, but not of the inventive type that Whites created. Cultures and races are unique, but they aren't necessarily equal across the board. In addition, if Whites disappear the world gains the ascendancy of races that will undoubtedly strive to bring down the Asians just as they will have done the Whites. Is this natural selection? Obviously not! What is going on when the least able to survive and adapt kill off the most able to survive and adapt?
At that point, the interviewer might well have asked how Whites, if they are so advanced, will allow themselves to be destroyed by less advanced races. Good question. The answer is that Whites will not be brought down by other races; Whites will bring themselves down by ceasing to care about their heritage and its future. As I said two weeks ago, the main thing Whites have to fear is Whites themselves! Oswald Spengler and others have predicted the end of Western Culture, saying that cultures grow old just as people do. And when they do, they lose the strength and the nerve to resist challenges from less advanced cultures. Is it possible that the White race is quickly reaching that point of cultural surrender? I suppose the student interviewer would welcome whatever kind of culture emerges when Whites have left the scene, no matter how primitive its thinking may be.
Now, what sort of schooling would turn a bright young White into a race traitor like the student interviewer? Obviously it is the environment of the schools, universities, and homes and neighborhoods of America that consider themselves progressive. In fact, the interviewer then said that his anthropology teacher taught him that the only difference among races is skin pigmentation.
Regardless of what anthropologists and sociologists say, skin color is not the only variable separating the races. After the interview, Dr. Smith phoned the EIU anthropology department and challenged two anthropologists, one who had apparently taught the interviewer, to a debate about racial equality based only on differences in skin pigmentation. Both professors declined to debate the issue in a public forum. You have to realize that Dr. Smith's Ph.D. expertise is not even in the areas of anthropology or sociology. Still, members of the department would not stand up in a debate and defend the Politically Correct misinformation they pass on to students in class.
Interested parties have long acknowledged that anthropology and sociology are not exact sciences. In fact, both areas are highly susceptible to ideological pressures to fit in with the pack. And their pack consists mainly of the Politically Correct. Someone should do an anthropological and sociological study of anthropologists and sociologists to expose how much they are creatures of a pack mentality, and why. The results would probably be illuminating!
A quick review of anthropology texts used in today's universities reveals that some anthropologists argue that race does not even exist. Some say it is impossible to tell how many races there are and whether or not physical and intellectual differences are primarily caused by hard genetics or by environment. However, after looking at FBI violent crime statistics and HIV data and seeing how Blacks are disproportionately overrepresented, one can only consider that race is more than skin deep. This certainly isn't hard science.
When anthropology tests turn to racism, they generally dismiss the results of comparative intelligence tests, most if not all of which demonstrate the intellectual superiority of Whites and Asians over Blacks. The texts explain such results away by saying that the researchers were probably biased or that negative environments can explain the test results -- the slavery of Blacks being an example. But if that is the case, as I have already asked, how do we explain how certain races suffered from negative environments in the first place? Why, after centuries, have they not significantly advanced? And why have some races clearly overcome negative environments to do great things? It seems that more than a little wishful thinking goes on in the field of anthropology, and that such wishful thinking is being used to deaden the minds of White students to the possibility of meaningful racial differences.
So should it matter to you if the White race becomes extinct? You bet it should since it will represent a major step backward in human evolution. I suggest that everyone read The Time Machine by H. G. Wells while the book is still allowed to be printed. Think of the Eloi as the White people and think of the Morlocks as those of other racial stock. Yes, Wells was a science fiction writer, but he may also have been a prophet. I can tell you that he makes a lot more sense than today's anthropologists!
Now let's get back to the question given to Dr. Smith that I mentioned at the beginning of this broadcast, "Why does it matter if the White race doesn't survive?" That question reminded me of one that National Alliance founder Dr. William Pierce discusses in his monumental speech, "Our Cause," in which he mentions how he was asked the same question by a student in a class he was lecturing to. Dr. Pierce said that is a question similar to, "Why is good better than evil? To hear Dr. Pierce's answer, and to listen to his speech "Our Cause" in its entirety, I highly recommend that every proud White person listening to this broadcast purchase a copy of this epic speech from National Vanguard Books. You can find it in our online bookstore at www.natvanbooks.com or in our big book catalog listing hundreds of books, magazines, videos, and speeches. You can obtain a copy of this book catalog for only $3.00 postpaid from National Vanguard Books, P.O. Box 330, Hillsboro, WV 24946.
I'm Erich Gliebe, and thanks for being with me again today.
