Kevin Alfred Strom

by Kevin Alfred Strom

LIKE THIS SITE? Let me build one that’s just as nice for you or your organization. Since the government made me a fourth class citizen, it has become very difficult for me to support myself and my three children.

I am skilled in writing, editing, graphics, and publishing (both the print and Web varieties), and I have become quite expert at customizing WordPress to create online magazines, newspapers, and organizational Web sites. If you have any kind of paying work in these fields, no matter how small, please let me know. I’m eager to get started. Just click on the ‘contact’ link on this page.

If you don’t have any work for me now, but appreciate my past efforts, please consider making a donation.

A CORRESPONDENT who had read one of my recent essays wrote to me, incredulously asking me if I was actually so wicked as to “condemn democracy.” I asked him to consider the facts and think, instead of just regurgitating the quasi-religious shibboleths that were imparted to him by the public schools:

James Madison certainly condemned democracy. So did Mencken and Saki and many others. And so do I.

If the majority is allowed to seize your property or make its opinions into law whenever it so chooses, how is that different from an autocracy? (With an autocrat, bad as that system is, at least you have a chance that the ruler will be wise or benevolent or both. With democracy, there is no chance whatsoever.)

That is why the founders opposed democracy and gave us a constitution that would protect us from it, just as much or more as it protected us from would-be kings.

They tied down the government with the stringent chains of the Constitution, which, especially the Tenth Amendment, severely restricted the areas in which government could do anything at all.

But politicians, notably Lincoln and the Great War Criminal but also many others including G.W. Bush and Obama, have found that, through bluster, intimidation — and packing the court (and the law schools) with those whose main goal was avoiding the founders’ strictures — they could get away with trashing the Constitution on almost every level.

The result is that we now do indeed have the “democracy” that the founders were trying to avoid; with the thoughtless majority easily manipulated into doing almost anything the ethnically distinct media masters want them to do.

The result is that we openly tolerate the invasion of our southern border while we slaughter innocents by the hundreds of thousands in the Middle East who never constituted even a slight threat to America.

The result is that we have a National Security surveillance state which arrogates to itself the right to “monitor” almost everything we say and do, and spy on our formerly private transactions and interactions.

The result is that we now have almost totally given up the right of freedom of association and must hire and buy and sell and send our children off to school all in accordance with our masters’ latest arcane formulations based on the race and ethnicity of their “subjects.”

The result is indefinite detention without trial.

The result is “extrajudicial rendition.”

The result is Predator drone attacks on apartment buildings containing mothers and children.

The result is the openly admitted ordering of the assassination of an American citizen by one of those Predator drones.

Yes, I condemn “democracy” as it currently exists in the country which is, quite anachronistically, still called by the name “United States of America.”

IRONLIGHT REPRINTS ARTICLES: I’m grateful that the Ironlight Web site has republished two more of my articles, Four Forces Pushing for War With Iran and The OKC Bombers (Yes, Plural). Ironlight, whose mottos are “Illumination in the Dark Age” and “To Dare is to Know,” has an amazing collection of worthwhile articles and videos available.

ROMANIAN AUTHOR REPUBLISHES FREEDMAN PIECE: The Romanian expatriate and author Dan Culcer has just republished Benjamin Freedman’s A Jewish Defector Warns America, along with my introduction. This was an article I was determined to rescue from the memory hole when I published it some 15 years ago, and I am delighted to see it taking on a life of its own in the (for the most part) still-free digital domain.

The Murrah Building after the bombing. Was all this damage done by a homemade truck bomb, parked on the street yards away?

by Kevin Alfred Strom

ON THE one hand, we have the conspiracy theorists who say that Timothy McVeigh was a patsy. On the other hand, we have hours of tapes in which McVeigh admits he committed the act.

But these are not mutually exclusive propositions. One does not preclude the other.

McVeigh may have been followed, encouraged, guided, and then taken advantage of — with extra explosives as “insurance,” as the efficacy of a truck bomb some considerable distance from the building was naturally doubted by the experts involved.

I was listening to the radio in the minutes and hours immediately after the event, and there were definitely reports of additional bombs inside the building — which stands to reason, considering the massive damage.

It was also extremely suspicious that McVeigh, shortly before the attack, placed a number of apparently pointless telephone calls.

He (if indeed it was he and not a helpful “associate”) did this using a phone card sold by Liberty Lobby, a right-wing populist group. He called a long list of right-wing and pro-White racial organizations a few days before the bombing, typically leaving messages and asking — almost begging — to be contacted. The tally of organizations he tried to contact is very similar to those on the SPLC’s alleged “hate group” list.

It would be as if Lee Harvey Oswald had sat down during the first weeks of November, 1963, and made dozens of telephone calls attempting to set up meetings with every left-wing group on the House Un-American Activities Committee list — and did so from the lobby phone at Americans for Democratic Action.

McVeigh’s association with Nichols was probably not part of his handlers’ plans, since it vitiated their claim that the bombing was the work of “racists.” (Nichols was in an interracial marriage.) So McVeigh clearly had a considerable degree of freedom of action, and was not operating under direct orders.

But a patsy nonetheless? I say that is very likely.

Cui bono? Those who wanted increased government power to monitor, infiltrate, and stifle dissenters. (Legislation that presaged the Patriot Act — itself triggered by a later, possibly false flag, event — was pushed through after OKC.) Those who wanted to demonize anyone who questions the Empire. Those who wanted — and still want — to demonize groups that demand self-determination.

As I wrote shortly after the attack in April 1995, a so-called “anti-terrorism” bill, hundreds of pages in length and giving the police state agencies huge new powers to take away our privacy and liberty, was ready to be passed by Congress within days. I wrote:

‘According to wire service reports, President Clinton has called for: money to hire 1,000 new agents, a wider range of electronic surveillance, stiffer penalties, relaxed standards for allowing infiltration and informers, increased ability to trace phone calls and check credit card and other records and use of the military in domestic cases. Use of the military against American citizens — that has got to be the final straw. In Waco they insisted that U.S. Army insignia be removed from the equipment before it was to be used, but perhaps in future that will no longer be necessary. As in the Soviet Union, the people may become inured to the use of the Army against citizens….’

‘They are pushing for their so-called “Anti-Terrorism Bill.” They want more black-helmeted goons working for nameless agencies most of us haven’t even heard about, armed with automatic weapons which we are not allowed to have, with the legally-sanctioned power to attack and possibly kill Americans… They want the power to unilaterally declare, without trial, that certain groups are “terrorist” and criminalize Americans who donate to them. They want to subject patriotic, loyal Americans to the most advanced spying, wiretapping, and surveillance apparatus that has ever been known. They want carte blanche to infiltrate agents provocateurs into groups they merely suspect of lawbreaking.’

McVeigh’s act caused great harm to the populists and patriots who are critical of the regime in Washington, setting them back decades — and it greatly benefited that same regime, giving it massive new powers. We should all apply the principle of cui bono? when we think about Oklahoma City.

THE DICTATES of the Washington regime have, with the wildly misnamed “Patriot Act,” finally taken away all of our financial privacy, which is a fundamental part of our personal privacy.

Two acquaintances of mine recently purchased automobiles for cash — no credit requested — and the interrogation they were subjected to by the dealers (necessitated by the “Patriot Act”) show how we have been cowed into surrendering the last vestiges of our freedom and privacy. One wrote:

I was with my girlfriend, this weekend, when she bought a car. Simple transaction… pick one out, write a check. Drive it home.

I was amazed to hear the business office tell her that she was required to fill out a credit application for the transaction. Name, address, all credit card and all bank account numbers were required. Rent payments, utility payments, any other oblications. Employment history for the last 10 years, with names and phone numbers. Residential history for the last 10 years with names and phone numbers of landlords, mortgage companies.

And all sources of supplementary income.

When I asked why the hell such detailed invasion of personal information was necessary to write a check — why not just call the bank to verify the check and the amount, or hold it until it can be verified? — I was told all this was required in order to be in compliance with the Patriot Act.

If people are up in arms about being “asked for their papers” on the streets of Arizona, why aren’t they at least as upset about the endless demands (ultimately enforced by policemen with guns and the threat of prison) to show their personal and financial “papers” to Big Brother in every car dealership (and tax office) in the country?

We have now reached the end of the slippery slope which was begun when the Income Tax amendment was fraudulently imposed on the American people. (Fraudulently? Yes. It was sold to the people under the pretense that the proposed tax would never be imposed on wages, and would never need to exceed three per cent. even on the incomes of millionaires. We were told that wages, being an equal exchange of time and labor for an equivalent amount of money, did not result in profit and therefore were not income and would therefore never be taxed. All these assurances were lies.)

That was the beginning of the pernicious concepts 1) that the criminals in Washington had the right to know what your “income” was, and 2) that the criminals in Washington had the right to take whatever percentage of that “income” they so chose. Both concepts are utterly alien to any reasonable conception of freedom and to the ideals of the founders.

I’VE BEEN hearing a lot in the news these days about “income redistribution.” About how “income inequality” is a problem that needs to be fixed by (forcibly) taking wealth from some and “giving” it to others. Now I’m all for ending the ability of the bankers and Wall Street to create money out of thin air (as they do every day with fractional reserve banking). And I am all for ending the ability of multinational corporations to steal from us using their usual techniques of fraud, manipulation, and so-called “free trade.” But taking from my neighbors to “equalize” incomes? No.

To all the would-be “income redistributors” I say this: No one is stopping you from giving 90 per cent. (or 100 per cent.) of your money away. You can give it to me if you like; I’ve got a Paypal link on my site.

But it is amazing to me that you can arrogate to yourself and your coadjutors the “right” to take from others for the openly admitted purpose of “redistribution.”

That’s not charity. That’s not giving. That’s just plunder.

And it’s pointless too. If you took all of the money in the United States and redistributed it equally among all adults (that’s about as radical a redistribution as you can get), within one month you would have billionaires and poor people again. Some people are stupid. Some people are extremely clever. And some people have a real flair, that amounts to genius, for separating the former from their cash.

Maybe the unattainability of their aims is the really brilliant aspect of Marx’s and other redistributive schemes, and the key to their recruiting success:

Since their “dream” of equality can never be achieved in this universe, they are able to recruit a new army of foolish dreamers with each passing generation.

No one ever “goes home after a job well done,” because the job simply can’t be done, any more than King Canute could command the sea to depart the shores of England. But in the meantime, a lot of power and money passes into the hands of the well-heeled schemers who design such plans (Wall Street’s Kuhn, Loeb and Co. — the Goldman Sachs of their day — funded Lenin, for example).

Now don’t for a minute think I am a neocon or a shill for the multinational corporations. I don’t even think that multinational corporations should exist. And I think that the elite’s empire and its wars should be terminated immediately.

But remember this: The billionaire elite who misrule us hate the idea of someone coming up from below them  to challenge their power. They hate it when a genuine American or European not vetted by them graduates from the class of successful, intelligent people (who might have a few million) into the multi-billionaire class. And “progressive” taxation and other “redistribution” schemes make it very difficult for us peons to do that.

IT’S BEING acknowledged everywhere — now by Wired magazine and the SEO Theory newsletter. Google Groups is totally broken.

It began well. Google acquired the Deja News archive of Usenet postings from 1995 forward, and then added 1981-1994 material from Marc Spencer’s archive. If somebody said it in a newsgroup, you could find it by searching Google Groups. You could search by author, by keywords, by newsgroup, by date range, or by exact phrase. It was as it should be.

But then Google decided to kluge its own “discussion groups” onto Usenet, and began emphasizing “new communities” or some such cliché at the expense of Usenet archiving, which has been all but abandoned. Some entire newsgroups have been ditched without explanation. And searching by author or exact phrase? Forget it. If you get any results at all, they’ll be woefully incomplete.

Google Groups is in violation of its own terms of service, which state in part “The Service contains the entire archive of Usenet discussion groups dating back to 1981.” To Google: Fix, please. Or remain evil.

Here’s a copy of the letter I sent last September to groups-support@google.com — to which they still haven’t bothered to respond:

Dear Google:

I notice that some political discussion groups, including alt.politics.nationalism.white, on Usenet are no longer accessible via Google Groups. The message one gets when trying to access these newsgroups is that they were “removed” because they violated Google’s terms of service.

How can an unmoderated Usenet group violate anyone’s terms of service? It’s a Usenet newsgroup, for goodness sake. It can’t do anything of its own accord, much less “violate” anything. It’s just a feed of opinion and news messages, which in my view Google promised to carry and archive when you bought DejaNews.

I need access to the archived messages in these groups, going back many years, for my research. (Example: I need to see all messages posted by a particular person in order to find a particular post of historical or political importance. How can I do this if the Usenet archive has been suddenly rendered incomplete by your unilateral and inexplicable “removal” of an entire newsgroup and all its archives going back decades? This is grossly irresponsible. In addition, your Usenet archive search function is no longer working properly, when it works at all.)

While I see nothing in your terms of service that an entire newsgroup could possibly violate, I do note that you are in violation of the very first item in the Google Groups Terms of Service:

“The Service contains the entire archive of Usenet discussion groups dating back to 1981.”

Were these Usenet groups removed in error? Can the error be corrected and the archive restored? If not an error, please explain your reasoning and provide me with the names of the specific individuals behind this removal, along with these individuals’ contact information.

With good wishes,

Kevin Strom.

THANKS TO EU TIMES: My thanks go out to the European Union Times, which — alone among important media outlets — spoke out for justice throughout my travails, telling both sides of the story in their news reporting and calling for my release in editorials. They stated “Kevin Alfred Strom is innocent,” saying of me that “he dedicated his life to fighting against pornography, child pornography, rape, murder… How could they even accuse him of such nonsense?” In another editorial they wrote: “Kevin Alfred Strom has a family and he has children… He dedicated his life to fighting against globalization, child porn, sex slavery, drugs…” and that the accusations against me were “inventions of severely damaged and evil brains.”

YEARS AGO I joked that the next niche radio format to be attempted would be continuous bird calls. I never imagined that it could actually happen, but it has, and the results are quite pleasant.

Apparently one of the Digital Audio Broadcast channels in Great Britain (yes, they have real over-the-air digital radio in the UK, not the dysfunctional “HD Radio” that the media moguls forced on this country) started broadcasting ambient bird calls and other natural forest sounds about a year ago, and it developed quite a following. (I have no idea if the station’s creator, Quentin Howard, ever heard of my decades-old suggestion or not.)

But the station has been axed by channel owner DigitalOne (a British quasi-governmental digital radio monopoly) and replaced by something described as “Amazing Radio, playing rock, indie, urban and jazz tunes,” according to the UK’s Independent newspaper. Ho hum.

Birdsong Radio began by broadcasting a 20-minute loop of chirps and tweets originally recorded for a stage play sound effect in 1991 at Howard’s home garden in West Lavington, Wiltshire. You can still hear that original loop at http://radiobirdsong.com where station supporters have built a home on the Web. Another group of birdsong lovers has built an even more elaborate online station, http://www.birdsongradio.com/ with superb fidelity and a larger variety of recordings.

Howard says of the over-the-air station’s cancellation “I think it’s a bit of a stunt to get attention for the new radio station because there’s enough empty slots on digital radio for both. There’s a lot of very cross people out there.”

I find Birdsong Radio a delightful change from conventional radio, and its outdoors ambience will be augmenting the aural atmosphere of my office often in the future.

Gandhi by Harold Arthur McNeill; click for the full-size version.

by Kevin Alfred Strom

MY RECENT ARTICLE on Mahatma Gandhi has created some interest, and has been reprinted not only by the Historical Review Press in Britain, but also by John de Nugent and by Ironlight, a site whose motto is ‘illumination in the dark age.’ Ironlight also apparently commissioned an illustration especially for the article by the talented artist (and writer) Harold Arthur McNeill, which you can see here.

I also received a few letters disagreeing with my proposition that Gandhi was consistent in his belief in self-determination, and that therefore “equality” under multiracialism could not have been his ideal. One of the more intelligently-written dissenting letters was from a Mr. Allen, who wrote:

‘Gandhi’s remarks have less to do with asserting the need for racial purity than they do assuaging a British (and World) public that a) Indians share the values of the West, and b) Indians do not seek to “contaminate” white genes.’

‘Leaders often have to form arguments that identify common ground with their oppressors.  In terms of argument, Gandhi was trying to show that the Brits could follow their own logic (anti-miscegenation) to justify their leaving India.  Elsewhere in Gandhi’s writings, you do not see this emphasis on racial purity.  It is an opportunistic argument used to persuade an opponent, and also to argue an equality between whites and Indians, that the genetics of both are worth preserving.’

If what Allen says is true, then Gandhi was yet another opportunistic politician, saying one thing one day and another contradictory thing the next, depending on his audience, in a cynical attempt to get what he wants at the moment. Even if that is true, which I doubt, Gandhi still spoke the truth when he told the world in his newspaper articles that (in Mr. Allen’s words) the genetics of both Indians and Europeans are worth preserving. (Mr. Allen is also incorrect in stating that Gandhi was expressing the anti-miscegenation ideas I quoted in order to persuade Britain to leave India. At the time, Gandhi was in South Africa and primarily concerned with the position of Indians there.)

If Mohandas Gandhi deëmphasized race in his later works, after his return to his homeland, that’s understandable considering the vastly different racial, religious, political, and cultural landscapes of South Africa and India. If he disavowed his statements on race or self-determination, that would be a different story — but I have seen no evidence of that.

It is true that Gandhi at times seemed to view the world through rose-colored glasses — as in his strong desire to believe that all the natives of Imperial British India were one people, or that Jews were just a variety of European (as when he called them “the untouchables of Christianity”), or, for that matter, that all policemen in an ideal future India would be “believers in nonviolence.” But when he expressed himself on the Zionist efforts to take Palestine, he not only came down on the side of the native Arabs, but his words resonate with those of Jean-Marie Le Pen and Nick Griffin in calling for France for the French and England for the English. Gandhi wrote these words in 1938 — almost four decades after the statements on race I quoted earlier:

‘Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct.’

It’s important that we help spread the truth about Gandhi, because once good-hearted and well-meaning people understand 1) that this man wanted freedom and independence for his people, not “equality” under centralized rule like his polar opposite “Martin Luther King,” and 2) that the version of history they are given in the schools and the mass media has been distorted for crass political purposes, some of them will begin to think for themselves.

Gandhi's remarks have less to do with asserting the need for racial purity than they do assuaging a British (and World) public that a) Indians share the values of the West, and b) Indians do not seek to "contaminate" white genes. 

Leaders often have to form arguments that identify common ground with their oppressors.  In terms of argument, Gandhi was trying to show that the Brits could follow their own logic (anti-miscegenation) to justify their leaving India.  Elsewhere in Gandhi's writings, you do not see this emphasis on racial purity.  It is an opportunistic argument used to persuade an opponent, and also to argue an equality between whites and Indians, that the genetics of both are worth preserving.

A Simple Quiz

by Mark Graffis

EDITOR’S NOTE: Being able to score an “A” on this simple quiz should be a requirement before one is permitted to vote in any national election. — Kevin Alfred Strom.

1. In which of these countries are Christians permitted to pray or wear religious symbols in the schools?

A. France

B. United States

C. China

D. Iran

2. In which of these countries do Christians enjoy the most religious freedom?

A. China

B. France

C. United States

D. Iran

3. During the past 20 years, which of these countries’ governments have killed the most civilians of other countries?

A. Syria

B. Iraq

C. Iran

D. United States

4. In which of these countries have the most people died for their religious faith?

A. Syria

B. United States

C. Iran

D. China

5. Which of these countries possesses the least number of weapons mass destruction?

A. United States

B. Britain

C. China

D. Iran

6. Which of these countries possesses the most weapons of mass destruction?

A. Iran

B. China

C. Britain

D. United States

7. Which of these countries does not possess the atomic bomb?

A. United States

B. Britain

C. Israel

D. Iran

8. Which of these countries’ governments is not conducting a campaign of ethnic cleansing?

A. China

B. Sudan

C. Israel

D. Iran

9. Which of these countries’ armed forces have not attacked another country for the past 29 years?

A. United States

B. Israel

C. Britain

D. Iran

10. Which of these countries’ armed forces have not attacked another country during the past year?

A. United States

B. Israel

C. Britain

D. Iran

11.  In the past 30 years, which of these countries has killed the most Americans?

A. Syria

B. Pakistan

C. Iran

D. Israel

(The answer to each question is D.)

POLITICAL PROSECUTION: At the urging of the Joint Terrorism Task Force, European-American activist and writer Kevin Alfred Strom is (wrongfully) convicted of possessing eight images of child pornography, based on the testimony of a perjurer who was having a relationship with the JTTF “investigating officer.” Kevin Strom is sentenced to 23 months in prison, most of that in brutal solitary confinement. He is placed under supervision for 15 years. Contrast that with the case of Korean-American “youth leader” Timothy Han of Miracleland Korean Baptist Church, who was convicted of actually having sex with a child. Han was sentenced to 45 days in jail and 45 days in a work-release program.

MY WORK CITED: I’m pleased to note that my essay on the arrest and prosecution of “Russian” oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, “The Khodorkovsky Affair,” has been cited in The Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law.

GANDHI ARTICLE REPRINTED: My essay on the racial-nationalist views of Mahatma Gandhi has just been republished by Britain’s Historical Review Press. It’s quite an honor to be published alongside such luminaries as H.L. Mencken and Thomas Jefferson.

Here we see HD Radio sidebands on either side of an analogue FM broadcast signal, as shown on a spectrum analyzer.

by Kevin Alfred Strom

WITH 2010 APPROACHING, CNET just released its “The Decade’s 30 Biggest Tech Flops” anti-awards, and “HD Radio” was among the “winners.”

HD Radio was not only doomed from the start, it was such a serious blunder that it may well lead to the death of thousands of radio stations and the permanent stunting of the industry itself.

There is nothing wrong with the concept of digital radio.

Using modern firmware-upgradeable codecs, orthogonal FDM transmission, and a network of community transmitters in a dedicated digital band, great things could have been done:

1. In every community, all signals would have been full-quieting with no noise or multipath distortion. There would have been no more disparity in signal or noise levels between 50-kW powerhouses and 250-Watt locals or 10-Watt student stations — all would have had perfect, full-quieting signals within the community’s coverage area.

2. There would have been no more need for any licensees to sign off or go to absurdly low power at night as obtains presently among AM stations. And former AM stations would no longer suffer from crippling skywave interference at night.

3. Depending on how much spectrum was allocated and the ratio of talk to music programming (with their different bit rates), at least four to eight times as many stations could have been allocated to each community as now exist, leaving open the possibility of free and independent public access and non-profit “free radio” style programming, greatly expanding listening choices (and points of view in news programming) for everyone.

4. As stations migrated to the new band, even more channels would become open on the existing AM and FM bands, making them more listenable and viable again and allowing even more space for non-profits and those who want to broadcast for the love of it instead of just for monetary gain.

Digital community-transmitter-based radio in a dedicated digital band thus could have been a tremendous success and a revolutionary improvement.

But we didn’t get real digital radio.

Instead we got IBOC (In-Band On-Channel, now deceptively labeled “HD Radio”), a technical turkey which delivers almost none of the benefits above and increases interference to boot.

Why did this happen?

Another radio station off the air, bankrupted by increasing monopolies in the industry and failure to meet the challenges of digital audio. "HD Radio" isn't helping -- in fact, it was designed to further marginalize small local stations like this one, stifling independent voices.

Because the money-men didn’t want the benefits of item (1) above. They already owned the 50-kW powerhouses. They didn’t want the 10-Watt student station to suddenly have an equal signal to theirs. They didn’t want the mono AM daytimer to suddenly have 20-kHz digital stereo with no audible noise and be on 24 hours a day as in item (2).

And the money-men didn’t want dozens of new independent channels to be available to listeners as in item (3) above.

So they chose IBOC, where the digital signal piggybacks on top of the existing analogue signal, right on the same frequency. IBOC gives distinctly inferior results. IBOC causes significant interference. IBOC on AM is unlistenable and very nearly useless.

But IBOC gave the money-men the one thing they wanted most of all: It preserves the inferiority of the smaller broadcasters. In fact, amid a sea of IBOC hash from the big boys, it accentuates their inferiority.

The end result of this shortsightedness will be bankruptcy for many stations, fewer and poorer choices for the listeners as conglomerates gobble up the remains, and a huge migration away from AM and FM broadcasts and to audio delivery via satellite and the Internet.

MY ART SITE RECOGNIZED: My online art gallery — to which I’ve added quite a bit of content over the last month — has been recognized as being in “impeccable taste” by Leslie H. Higgins, the paleoconservative operator of The Young and Once Good Pundit. Mr. Higgins nevertheless characterizes me as “problematic” and as a “right-winger,” the latter being certainly untrue no matter what you think on the former count. But I don’t mind. Taste, Art, and Beauty matter and will last as long as the race. The political labels of the moment, decade, or century do not and will not.

BENJAMIN FREEDMAN SPEECH REPUBLISHED: The Madrid-based Spanish-language site Qbitacora has an English-language annex which has just republished Benjamin H. Freedman’s revelatory speech on Zionism, A Jewish Defector Warns America. Thanks to the folks at Qbit for spreading the word about Freedman’s important work!

PERJURER EXPOSED AGAIN: Evidence is mounting that Elisha Strom, the woman whose perjured testimony and work with the so-called Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) caused false federal charges to be filed against me, had several inappropriate relationships with the local and “terrorism task force” officers she was at first working with — and then turned against, causing her to be arrested for stalking them, harassing them, and interfering with them. Both she and the JTTF avoided a trial full of revelations of their respective characters when a plea agreement was struck in which she plead guilty to two counts of obstruction of justice.

AUTHOR’S NOTE:

THIS POEM is really two poems by two authors.

The first part was sent to me by an aspiring new poet named Däanlea, whose work really deserves to be published in print one day.

The second part is my response.

This piece begins in a personal vein, and ends with an extension of the personal into the infinite.

We conscious and unconscious beings are all on a journey together. I hope this poem helps the reader capture some sense of that.

THE PINE

I

Cold winds howl down the steep slopes
Where a solitary pine stands tall
The clouds usher in the snowflakes to provide
a protecting layer against the dark, long nights.
Are you the pine or the snow?
When the sun emerges from behind the mountain
will the down covering melt?
The sun provides its warmth and allows
the tree to grow stronger and taller
with each passing day.
Shall we hike today to the hillside
of this tree and make our acquaintance?

II

I am the pine
I am the dissolved and renewed essence of the pines that were
I am the millionfold seeds of the pines to come
And what pines will become

Like you, I am awakened earth
Like you, I am cooled and crystallized starstreams
Unlike you, I think not in moments but in millennia

Whether you know it or not
You are related to me
Together we will act to birth new ages, new universes
Together we acted to birth this age
We were together at the beginning which was more than a beginning
We will be together at the end which is not an end

This earth with its snows and rivers and oceans
Is our gift to each other.
Come beneath me
And be healed.