Hello, and welcome back to this week’s 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.
Everyone has known that the U.S. Southwest is ground zero for the non-White immigration crisis that has been plaguing the United States for better than 30 years now. Mestizos from Mexico and other Central and South American countries have been streaming across the leaky border almost at will since the enactment of the infamous Immigration Act of 1965, which destroyed the advantages that Europeans and other Whites formerly enjoyed – in preference to non-Whites – in becoming American citizens. Although the White percentage of the population in America was already on the decline before 1965, the Immigration Act of that year gave us Whites another big shove closer to the edge of the abyss. Or to put it more accurately: That legislation has given us Whites a continuous – and ever-continuing – SERIES of shoves closer to the edge of the abyss. There isn’t too much ground left to cover before we fall into that void, after which the whole path of our people throughout history will have been rendered – pardon the pun – null and void.
Anyway – related to the Immigration Act of 1965 – one of the main arguments that the media Jews, non-Whites, and White liberals used dealt with fairness. “Is it fair that Whites should Whites have an advantage in getting into the country and becoming American citizens? If we, as Americans, believe in a fair opportunity for all, then giving one group of people preference into the country is contrary to our American ideals. The Immigration Act of 1965 puts everyone on a fair and equal footing.”
Millions of American Whites who are passively opposed to the browning-down of the United States don’t know how to respond to such a clever line of questioning. Their whole lives, they have been taught that to be biased towards one group of people over another is wrong; that to do so is in fact the principle evil of the last three hundred years; and that – most importantly – it is we Whites who are most guilty of this allegedly darkest of sins. In other words, it is alleged that we Whites have trouble being “fair” to other races, and supposedly most of the legislation related to race that has been enacted in the last century is meant to make things more “fair.”
In large measure, the history of the White race is the story of a people who have been unsuccessful in maintaining a separation between themselves and the non-White races. Usually, it wasn’t for a lack of trying. For the most part, our ancestors tried to structure their societies and formulate their laws to maintain a separation between our race and others. They didn’t have a coherent ideology based on fundamental principles like the National Alliance and a few other racialist organizations have today, but their instincts dictated that they put barriers between the White race and the darker races. Perhaps it was partly due to their lack of an internally-consistent racialist ideology that so many of our ancestors’ societies eventually succumbed to racial intermixture but, in any case, most White societies of the past tried to keep the White and the non-White elements separate and distinct. In doing so, they were very definitely “unfair” to non-Whites. Furthermore, it is due to our current false notion that we ARE ABLE to make things “fair” that the White race has gone precipitously downhill in the last century.
Because the simple truth of the matter is that – in the real, non-ideal world – there is absolutely no such thing as “fair.” That is, there is no such thing as an unbiased condition, particularly with regard to legislation. Because of this fact, we have NO alternative but to choose between two (or several) what I might call “unfairnesses” that present themselves. Let me give you a few examples, starting with the Immigration Act of 1965.
Before the Immigration Act of 1965, the laws mandated that the disproportionate fraction of immigrants allowed into America be Whites. After the Act, the balance tipped steeply toward non-Whites. One condition favors Whites; the other favors non-Whites. That is, neither condition is unbiased.
Gun control legislation is another example. Legislation enacted by the U.S. Congress to restrict the acquisition, distribution, and use of firearms favors those groups who want guns taken completely away from private citizens and limited to law enforcement and military personnel. Fewer or no gun control laws favors those who wish to enjoy their Second Amendment rights without government interference. One condition favors advocates of gun control; the other favors opponents of gun control. Neither condition is unbiased.
What about straightforward, “common sense” laws like the laws against murder, rape, and theft? Can’t these laws be said to be unbiased? Aren’t these laws fair?
Not at all. Such laws are biased in favor of those individuals who value the smooth functioning of a society, of those who can control their emotions, and of those who can resolve differences in non-violent ways. The same laws are biased AGAINST individuals with emotional disorders, with anger issues, and with hormonal compositions that differ from the norm, just to name a few. That is, those laws are unfair to social deviants. On the other hand, to NOT have such laws would be unfair to the rest of us, since without them it would be open season on the majority, the well-meaning people who want to “live and let live.”
My point here isn’t that we don’t need laws. All civilized societies do. My point is that laws are inherently biased in favor of some people and are inherently biased AGAINST others; that is, laws are considered “fair” by some and “unfair” by others. A corollary point here is that the ABSENCE of a law inherently favors some people and hampers others. In other words, as I said earlier, there is no such thing as an unbiased condition. Whether we have legislation or don’t have it, someone is going to benefit and someone is going to be hampered; someone is going to consider it “fair” and someone else will say that it is “unfair.”
There is no getting around this conundrum, and for that reason, the notion that the media Jews constantly dole out to the effect that this or that piece of legislation will remove the bias or unfairness in this or that situation is complete hogwash. Similarly, the notion of legislation that puts everyone on an equal footing is likewise false.
There is no set of circumstances that is “fair” for everyone; for any given set of circumstances, some groups will say that the situation is “fair” and others will cry “foul.” Granted, at times, the group that yells “Foul!” is small (as hopefully is the case with legislation involving murder, rape, and child prostitution), but that doesn’t discredit the general thesis.
The problem is that most people think of fairness as a universal concept: a concept that applies equally to everyone. During the early part of the 20th Century, women put up a fight for “universal suffrage”: voting rights for all adults. That’s what we mean by the term “universal.”
But fairness is not a universal concept, or at least it doesn’t affect everyone in the same way. When one group benefits from something, they call that thing fair; another group will undoubtedly suffer from that same something, and they will call it unfair.
The old adage says, “Life isn’t fair,” and no statement is more true and more misunderstood. Everyone has heard the saying and most people believe it to a limited degree, but almost no one accepts the truth that the saying is profound to the nth degree. NOTHING is fair, and the minute you try to make it fair, it becomes unfair to someone else. Maybe we should simply throw the whole concept of “fair” out the window. Perhaps it is one of those terms that has lost all of its usefulness. Our race’s belief in the false notion of “fair” has certainly done more harm than good over the last century.
Now, I don’t have a plan for expunging a concept from the entire fund of human knowledge and experience. Instead of getting rid of “fair” altogether, maybe we should rather try to bring about a new understanding of the term. This new understanding should be that there is no universal “fair;” nothing we can do will structure society in a way that is fair to all groups involved. We must simply come to grips with the hard, cold reality that – no matter what we do – some groups are going to benefit and some groups are going to suffer. There is no getting around this truth about fairness on the large-scale, “society” level, although I admit that the currently accepted and idealized concept of universal fairness might be approximated on the small scale, “family” level.
But in these American Dissident Voices programs, we aren’t usually concerned about the internal workings of individual families. We are concerned about the survival of the White race, and that means that we are going to focus on concepts and issues that are society-wide: concepts and issues that affect groups and that govern the interactions between groups. And on this level, universal fairness goes out the window. Despite many people over the centuries having believed in it and having tried to implement it with honest effort, we have finally learned that universal fairness is a myth. It is simply an impossibility.
Instead of the term “fair” referring to universal fairness – which is how most people think of it – I suggest we learn to associate the term “fair” with what I might call “local fairness”: fairness to a certain group at a certain time.
For example, is it universally fair that the United States government is allowing millions of illegal immigrants into our country from Central and South America? No. It can’t be universally fair, because that would mean that all groups are benefiting from the circumstance. But it is locally fair, or beneficial to some. In this case, the federal government’s actions are beneficial to the non-White, Spanish-speaking immigrants who profit from employment opportunities and access to American education and healthcare for their families. By the same token, it is locally unfair or detrimental to the existing workers in the country, to American law enforcement agencies, and to the taxpaying public.
Is it universally fair that the United States gives billions of dollars of military and economic aid to Israel? Of course, it isn’t universally fair, because – as should be clear now – nothing ever is. But it is definitely locally fair: just ask the Israelis who benefit from that aid or any Jew around the world who sympathizes with the Israelis. And U.S. aid to Israel, besides being locally fair, is also locally unfair: just ask any of the other Middle Eastern countries that have been forced to put up with Israel over the last 60-plus years, or ask the U.S. taxpayers who watch their tax dollars sail across the sea to the land of ingrate Jews.
Is it universally fair that there are no longer any laws against interracial marriage? After all, many White nations throughout history had such laws at one time or other. Many American states – particularly in the South – once had them, but not any more. Well, as always, fairness is not a universal state, but rather a local one. With that in mind, the lack of legislation against interracial marriage is locally fair, in the sense that people can choose freely whom they wish to marry. But it is locally unfair in the sense that it necessarily weakens the racial unity and esprit de corps of, in our specific case, the White race.
In a nutshell: The once-treasured notion of universal fairness has been shown to be completely false. Fairness is local; it is relative. That is, it very much depends on one’s point of view.
As a result, there is no longer any reason to attempt to implement in the real world anything resembling universal fairness. If we value the survival and progress of the White race, then this means that we must make choices that – FOR US – are “fair.” Such choices cannot and will not be “fair” for all other groups; they can’t be, because fairness is a local or relative concept and not a universal one.
This destruction of the notion of universal fairness and its replacement by an understanding of local fairness is going to be a hard pill for many Whites to swallow. They have lived in a society dominated by the Jewish media, which has brainwashed us into believing that universal fairness REALLY exists when, in truth, only local fairness exists. But once we are aware of that fact, then we won’t have as much trouble making decisions that will help our race survive… even though those decisions don’t always benefit every other race every time.
Now, with all of that said, this doesn’t imply that I think we Whites should do whatever the hell we want and damn the rest of the planet altogether. Of course not. That attitude doesn’t suit White men, although it fits the Jews like a glove, as the entire history of the Jewish people attests. On the contrary, we Whites are glad to work in concert with other races toward common ends, but one thing that we can’t accept is the destruction of our people. And that is what modern society is in the process of doing, and it is our job to make choices to remedy that condition.
The element of choice is key. First, we must become aware that, because fairness is relative, we Whites must make choices that are fair to US, that will benefit US. ANY OTHER CHOICE will be detrimental to us; it’s as simple as that.
Secondly, it is not an option to NOT choose. NOT choosing simply means letting other people decide what is fair and, without question, they will make choices that are fair FOR THEM and that are unfair from a White perspective. Included in the lyrics to the song “Freewill” by the popular rock band Rush is the line: “If you choose NOT to decide, you still have made a choice” (emphasis mine). We are responsible for our lives, whether we make an active choice to assert our will or whether we make a passive choice by letting others assert their will. And understanding that universal fairness is a myth will help us in making active choices that are fair for our people and their future.
I’m Erich Gliebe, and thanks for being with me again today.
