American Dissident Voices for September 20, 2008
Hope and Change
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.

In this presidential campaign, two old and familiar words
dominate the discourse: "hope" and "change." The American people
apparently want hope and change. They hope that a better future
awaits them, and they believe that a better future cannot become
a reality without change. It is time, however, to remember eight
other old and familiar words, namely --"There is nothing really
new under the sun." Hope and change have been prominent in all
the campaigns in recent memory, but nothing much has really
changed. Let us briefly review what part hope and change has
played in previous elections and how well the promise was
delivered.

Let's begin with the campaign of 1960: Senator John F. Kennedy
(Democrat) against Vice President Richard Nixon (Republican).
Kennedy was the youngest man ever elected to the presidency. He
was also one of the most inexperienced, having served only one
term as U.S. representative and one term as U.S. Senator. Given
the drawback of inexperience, he ran on the idea that America
could do better; that America needed fresh thinking; that America
needed young ideas in order to successfully navigate the New
Frontier of the 1960s. He relied on his legitimate war hero
status to assure Americans that he would stand up to foreign
threats, much as John McCain does today, and he used his
inexperience as a plus, claiming that his youth would be the
source of new ideas and a change of direction, much as Obama does
today.

But what became of this promise of hope and change? Today most
historians agree that, outside of dedication to the space
program, Kennedy's domestic policy was dismal. In his first two
years in office, most of the bills he favored died in Congress.
By 1962, things began to improve, but he still had significant
failures. For example, his Medicare bill failed, his bill to
increase spending on higher education failed, and his attempt to
create a Department of Urban Studies headed by a Black person
failed. In addition, the country struggled economically, which is
usually fatal to presidents who run for re-election.

If Kennedy's domestic policy was dismal, his foreign policy was
disastrous. His greatest failure was his "chickening out" during
the Cuban Bay of Pigs invasion and allowing Castro to capture and
put on display a force of expatriate Cubans that we had trained
to invade Cuba. Kennedy, in a display of inexperience, pulled air
support at the last minute and left the invaders to their fate.
This emboldened the Soviet Union to place missiles in Cuba, only
90 miles from America. Another Kennedy error was putting U.S.
troops and advisors into Vietnam, a country with no strategic or
economic value to the United States. This error would lead to a
full-blown Vietnam War, which the majority of Americans would
eventually come to hate. Kennedy did recover a degree of
respectability when he faced down the Soviets in the Cuban
Missile Crisis, his reaction to the Soviets' missile build-up in
Cuba. Kennedy had a sharp learning curve, but many would agree
that he was not up to being president.

In fact, when Kennedy was assassinated in Texas in 1963, he was
campaigning to keep Texas in the Democrat column in the upcoming
election. Americans were souring to President Kennedy so much
that the party was not even sure of carrying Texas, the home of
Vice President Lyndon Johnson.

Today, largely because of his assassination, Kennedy is loved in
American folklore. The situation at the time was not so bright.
However, one last word must be said about President Kennedy. His
appeal to new ideas and youth activated American young people as
no presidential candidate had done before. But his appeal to
youth would fizzle and lead to the counterculture rebellion of
the late Sixties.

Immediately after Kennedy's assassination, Vice President Lyndon
Johnson assumed the office of America's president. Running for
president in 1964, Johnson understood that America at large was
in a state of shock and did not want additional change.
Therefore, he campaigned primarily on hope, promising The Great
Society. He lied in promising to reduce the number of troops in
Vietnam, and he promised non-Whites equal rights, equal
education, and an equitable redistribution of income. In doing
so, he won the Black vote, something the Democrats have continued
to do by large margins up to the present day. Johnson beat
Republican candidate Barry Goldwater, now a conservative icon, by
portraying the Arizona senator as a radical who would possibly
destroy the world with nuclear weapons.

Once in office, however, Johnson increased the number of troops
in Vietnam and expanded the war. He kept his word, however, in
signing the Civil Rights legislation of 1964 and 1965.
Unfortunately, many White Americans thought that Johnson's
legislation was bringing change too quickly while many Black
Americans thought that the legislation was too little, too late.
As a result, racial tensions increased in the United States and
race riots ensued. These tensions still exist, unabated, today.

Needless to say, Johnson did not usher in any Great Society. In
fact, he was so unpopular before the 1968 election that he
refused to run again for president. Hope for America in general
had again been betrayed, and the changes giving greater
opportunities to non-Whites had been in many circles
unappreciated. For most, Johnson's change was summed up by his
unpopular expansion of the Vietnam War.

Today, Obama runs a risk similar to that of Johnson. Black
America, illegal immigrants and their supporters, and White
liberals expect great things from him while many White Americans
fear that he will move too fast, even to the extent of further
reducing the rights of White Americans in the economic and
cultural spheres. McCain promises change in the running of
Washington. Obama's promise of change seems to take on a more
cosmic complexion, which is probably why some have labeled him
"The Messiah."

After Johnson's withdrawal from the presidential race, Eugene
McCarthy and Robert Kennedy (the deceased President's brother)
challenged each other to be the party's standard-bearer in the
1968 election. Both promised change in the form of pulling troops
out of Vietnam. To the despair of the counterculture, Johnson's
vice president, Hubert Humphrey, won the Democratic nomination
for president as demonstrators battled police in the streets of
the Chicago convention site.

So what did Americans want now? Well, they still wanted out of
Vietnam, but they also wanted law and order in the streets of
America. The televised riots during the Democratic convention
were the negative event many pointed to, but many also wanted a
stop to Black criminals, who on a percentage basis greatly
outnumbered White criminals. In the election, former Republican
Vice President Richard Nixon beat Humphrey in a very close race.
Nixon promised hope and change, too. He promised to honorably end
the Vietnam War and sweep crime off the streets of America. He
appealed to a "silent majority" of Americans who wanted crime
stopped, who wanted the war honorably ended, but who didn't
forcefully do anything for the television cameras to report.
Apparently many of those silent Americans came out to vote for
Richard Nixon. Today, silence is not productive.

Nixon knew he was in trouble during his second term. The Vietnam
War was still raging and crime was still a major issue. Perhaps
Nixon would have faced an uphill re-election challenge if it
hadn't been for the fact that the Democrats nominated far-leftist
Senator George McGovern to run against him. Unfortunately for
McGovern, Americans wanted out of Vietnam, but they didn't want
to pull out in defeat as McGovern advocated. In addition,
Americans did not agree with giving $1000 of the taxpayers'
dollars to every American. That was too socialist. Those stands,
and several other major errors on McGovern's part, helped usher
Nixon into office for a second term. Today, Obama ran on pulling
the troops out of Iraq in defeat until it became apparent that
McCain's call for victory via a surge was working.

Well, Nixon did finally end the Vietnam War, but not honorably.
Americans ran, and the North Vietnamese unified the country under
communist rule. At that part, few cared. Nixon's original vice
president, Spiro Agnew, had disgraced himself by resigning and
pleading no contest to tax evasion. Nixon had appointed Senator
Gerald Ford as vice president. Unfortunately for the Republicans,
Nixon soon became embroiled in the Watergate affair and was
forced to resign from office. So much for America's promised hope
for law and order.

Ford mucked through the remainder of Nixon's term but committed a
deadly political error in pardoning Nixon. America never really
liked Nixon, and she wanted him to pay. Regardless of whether
Ford was right or wrong in pardoning Nixon, the Democrats beat
Ford in the 1976 campaign with a Southern senator named Jimmy
Carter, who presented himself as just a common man capable of
restoring honor and honesty to the White House. Again American's
had hope, and they hoped that Carter intended real change.

Well, Carter may have been honest as far as politicians go, but
he also proved himself incompetent. In fact, most historians rank
Carter's presidency as one of the most ineffectual of all. He
failed to rescue American hostages in Iran, which probably played
a major role in his loss to Ronald Reagan in the next election.

Reagan beat Carter in a landslide in the 1980 election, and the
American hostages in Iran were immediately freed, and he beat
Walter Mondale in a landslide in the 1984 election. In beating
Carter, Reagan said that his candidacy represented "morning in
America." For many it did.

Today, if he wins, McCain will be the oldest man to serve as an
American president. He frequently refers to the generally
successful Reagan presidency as the kind of presidency that he
will repeat.

After Reagan, America experienced the administration of George
Bush, Sr., Reagan's vice president. He promised to continue the
Reagan legacy but did not do so.

Now let me run quickly through relatively contemporary times
which most of you have lived through. Governor Bill Clinton beat
Bush when Bush ran for a second term. The people voted for
Clinton because they believed that Bush had mismanaged the
economy and that Clinton felt their pain. Clinton survived eight
years in office, in the process weathering his impeachment by the
House of Representatives. America then elected George W. Bush,
the son of George, Sr. Presently, he stands with Abraham Lincoln
as one of the most unpopular sitting presidents of all time.

So what do we learn from this brief excursion into American
presidential campaign history. I think we learn the following:
1) Presidential candidates of both parties have often promised
hope in the form of change.2) Voters have often chosen one
candidate or the other based on promised hope in the form of
change.3) Americans have much more often than not been
disappointed by the lack of real change they thought they were
voting for. 4) In cases where real change was forthcoming (as in
Johnson's groundbreaking civil rights legislation), the majority
of Americans went on to experience very undesirable
repercussions.

So what does that tell us about today's presidential election? I
think it tells us that no presidential candidate has ever been a
messiah. I think it tells us that lack of experience is not a
reliable predictor of good judgment. I think it tells us that a
good war record is no guarantee of a good foreign policy. I think
it tells that the American people are fickle and unreliable and
that they expect the moon when they vote for presidential
candidates.

Primarily, I think it tells us that the problems we face
domestically are deeply rooted in the separate ideologies held by
Americans. Neither McCain nor Obama can bring us together. The
divides are too deep. They are even deeper now than they were in
the 1980s and 1990s. These divides have no democratic solution.
They are racial divides, and the only logical solution is the
geographical separation of the races.

I think it tells us that since the 1960s, White Americans have
gotten the raw end of the deal and that only a small percentage
of them are willing to stand up and become a potent political
force. That is why the National Alliance is working hard to
educate our fellow kinsmen. Non-Whites have many organizations
badgering and threatening Congress on their behalf. White
Americans must rise up as all the other races have. White
Americans and Western Culture are now the victims, and too many
Whites accept it. The National Alliance is the cure for that
attitude of victim hood. So stand up, White America, and fight!
As in all wars there will be winners and losers. So enter the
struggle for this victory. Nothing is more important. Join the
National Alliance and fight for Our Cause.

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

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
SUBSCRIBE to NATIONAL VANGUARD, our unique, thought-provoking 
magazine -- $22 US, $30 Canada, and $40 Foreign.
This is for six high-quality, glossy color issues:

SEND $3 for our 88-page CATALOG of books and other items:

     National Vanguard Books
     P.O. Box 330
     Hillsboro, WV  24946
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Donations are needed to keep this program on the air. Give $20
today!
http://www.natvanbooks.com/cgi-bin/webc.cgi/st_prod.html?p_prodid
=599
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
==> The National Alliance has a strict anti-spamming policy. 
This 
information is intended for interested parties only and is not to
be 
indiscriminately distributed via mass e-mailing or newsgroup
posting.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The National Alliance: www.natvan.com & www.natall.com
National Vanguard Books: www.natvanbooks.com

(c) 2008 National Vanguard Books