EVIDENCE THAT COULD HAVE exonerated Ed Steele was withheld from the jury by the judge. In a pre-trial hearing on the admissibility of evidence, two audio experts testified that the FBI recordings contained numerous audio signatures (aberrations) that strongly indicated the recordings might have been tampered with. One expert, Bennett Walsh, a former New York City detective with years of experience with audio recordings, said flatly the recordings were tampered with.

The other expert, George Papcun, PhD (pictured), an internationally known expert with solid scientific credentials, said there was an unusually high number of electronic transients and other discrepancies which could indicate tampering with the recordings. His reputation is bolstered by his knowledge of “voice morphing,” a technology that allows the creation of synthetic speech from digital “voice prints” of the person whose speech they seek to duplicate. It allows the “cloning” of a person’s voice, and the ability to have the subject “say” whatever the counterfeiters wish.

According to Robert McAllister, counsel for the defense, arrangements were made to fly Dr. Papcun by private aircraft from a vacation in the south Pacific to Boise to testify on May 4, the last day of the trial. According to McAllister it was possible for him to arrive at the courthouse by 9:00 AM.

However, McAllister reported that the judge ruled that Dr. Papcun would only be allowed to testify if he was in the court room by 8:30 AM. This information can be verified by McAllister.

Ed Steele was denied his right to call witnesses critical to his defense. Is this a demonstration of a “fair trial,” or is it a lynching? The answer should be obvious to any thinking person.

via National Vanguard

Read the original posting at Free Edgar Steele

AN EMOTIONALLY DEVASTATED Cyndi Steele vowed to fight on with an appeal to a higher court after her husband, free speech attorney Edgar J. Steele, was convicted earlier today of plotting to kill her. Mrs. Steele spoke of her pride in and love for her husband, stating that she and her legal team have absolute proof that the FBI tapes used to convict him are faked, but that her evidence was not allowed in court in what many are viewing as a rigged trial.

Promising to fight and speak out “until my last breath,” Mrs. Steele called for an end to political prosecutions, saying that no one in America is safe now.

IN A TRAGIC MISCARRIAGE of justice, a federal jury — which was denied the right to hear two experts’ testimony that the alleged FBI recordings of Edgar J. Steele were faked, with over 300 suspicious edits inserted — has convicted the courageous free speech attorney and writer on all four counts related to an alleged murder-for-hire of his wife, Cyndi Steele, and mother-in-law.

None of the alleged victims believe the FBI allegations, instead pointing to the admitted Idaho Pipe Bomber, Larry Fairfax — and his government handlers — as the real source of the plot. Fairfax, who allowed a lethal bomb to remain on Cyndi Steele’s car for weeks without telling her, was given a sweetheart deal by prosecutors and no serious charges were brought against him.

It is hoped that the outrageous behavior of the judge in this case — who refused to allow even a few days’ delay to let an expert witness travel from the South Pacific to testify for the defense, and also refused to permit the expert to testify via video conference, even though a prosecution witness was freely allowed to do so — will be the basis of a strong appeal.

The judge in question — Lynn Winmill — exhibited an almost unbelievable coldness toward the lives of the real victims, Edgar Steele and his family, when he stated that even a two-day delay to allow the audio expert to travel to the United States was unacceptable — saying of the brief delay only that “procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.”

Cyndi Steele — who was allowed to hear the doctored recordings early on in the framing of her husband in hopes that she would be deceived by them — has long stated that the audio quality on the recordings changes abruptly and dramatically whenever her husband begins to discuss the alleged plot. When she heard the alleged recordings played back in court, however, she was in for a further shock.

As she puts it: “What is even more outrageous now is that the tapes that they played for the jury in the courtroom this week have been altered, because they are not the same recordings the FBI played for me on June 12, 2010, nor the tapes sent to the attorneys that I again listened to on March 7th. It is as if they used the info from the reports of our experts to make the changes to cover up the falsified tapes our experts analyzed.”

May the powers that created the universe — and our people — quickly bring these perjurers and criminals operating under color of law, who have falsely convicted this noble man, to justice; to true justice. And may it happen in our lifetimes.

In the words of Edgar J. Steele: “New America. An idea whose time has come.”

A SELF-STYLED economist recently opined that “the redistribution of wealth is the primary job of governments.” And, based on what I hear on the streets of my city, a large number of people agree with him. They actually believe that the purpose of government is to “divvy up” the money and goods, using taxes and giveaways of various sorts, and make sure that everybody gets what’s “fair.”

But such a conception of government is totally preposterous. It would have seemed utterly alien to almost any American prior to the last few decades.

For example: A man works his entire life so he can become a producer of, say, superb audio electronics, as a friend of mine did — and he does so, is successful in producing his useful items and earns a few million, risking much and hiring many people in the process, from engineers to designers to floor sweepers.

What appalling and frightening hubris — to declare that some elected criminal or appointed “authority” can take all or much of his life’s work away from him with the stroke of a pen.

It is often the super-rich (in the multibillionaire class) who are behind the kind of false-flag theft schemes that this “economist” advocates. The super-rich don’t want any bright upstart new millionaire-class competitors. Ever. So they love it when the new fellows are taxed or regulated out of existence — taxes and regulations which the super-rich can evade through carefully-crafted loopholes or other tricks; and regulations they can afford, though the new upstarts can’t.

We need bright, creative people to keep as much of the wealth they earn as possible. Because 1) that’s justice, and 2) for our own selfish reasons — because bright, creative people will do bright, creative things with that wealth, and that benefits us all.

Stealing it (the “primary job of government” according to our friend the would-be redistribution commissar) and giving it to deadly dull bureaucrats and the spawn of the least intelligent among us will only end up increasing spinning hubcap sales, and Wal-Mart’s and McDonald’s bottom line. What a waste.

Furthermore, income “redistribution,” though it devastates the lives of so many families and impoverishes our civilization, gives no lasting benefit to the people it’s supposed to help.

If this Halloween you took all the wealth of the nation and divided it precisely equally among all the featherless bipeds in America, by New Year’s eve there would be millionaires and poor people by the multiple millions. So the whole exercise is pointless even if you accept its tyrannical and unconstitutional central premise.

Of course, there are fraudsters who steal other people’s wealth (besides bureaucrats and congressmen, I mean). The most egregious among them are the bankers, and I don’t mean just the Fed. I mean the entire commercial banking system, which makes “loans” on demand deposits — which is essentially creating money out of thin air, on which “created” money they have a license to collect interest. That is theft, and shouldn’t be allowed.

Hal Turner, Federal employee.

by Kevin Alfred Strom

MUCH HAS BEEN written about the effects of the Hal Turner conviction on what is left of free speech in America. I agree that it will have what lawyers and the cliché-ridden call a “chilling effect.” But so much of what has been written misses the most important fact in the case.

Hal Turner was a fake. A phony.

He was not really a critic of the regime in Washington.

He worked for that regime, and his job was 1) to make critics of that regime’s racial and foreign policies look like dangerous, violent lunatics by promoting stupidity and violence; and 2) to put the regime’s critics under close surveillance and, if possible, in jail. (I realized early on that he was a liar, that the articles he wrote were exaggerated or created out of whole cloth, and that his moronic “kill ’em” rhetoric was designed to defame and denigrate racially conscious Americans by association. He was enraged by my refusal to give him publicity.)

Despite the fact that he was fairly effective at his dishonorable profession, his employers were even more dishonorable.

A few months after a hacker publicly disclosed that Turner was working for the FBI’s “Joint Terrorism Task Force” (the same outlaw outfit that falsely charged and imprisoned me and was complicit in the theft of all of my property), his handlers decided he was more of a liability than an asset. So they arranged to have him prosecuted and imprisoned for doing the very things that they had hired and paid him to do.

There is a lesson here:

The regime in Washington and the ethnically distinct oligarchs that control it has no friends, and no honor. Cooperate with or work for it at your extreme peril.

This lesson will sooner or later be learned by the native inhabitants who have collaborated with the invaders in Afghanistan and Iraq. The regime in Washington will betray them when it is expedient to do so. And the Earth will be soaked red with their blood.

*   *   *

What will Hal Turner’s life be like in Federal prison?

His life may be in danger. Violence doesn’t happen every day, but it does happen. The billionaires’ media are allowed into the prisons, and the vilification of some prisoners as “haters” in the money-men’s press and TV does agitate the mostly-Black inmates, sometimes to fury.

There are some very nasty people in there, who — unlike me and the other 50 per cent. or so of innocent folks in prison — are really guilty of unimaginable crimes: people who enjoy hurting other people for the smallest reasons, or for the sheer fun of it. Or for racially- or politically-motivated “revenge.”

It’s doubtful that such persons would be able to comprehend the subtleties of Turner’s case, or care if they did.

There is little oversight of what prisoners do to one another in their huge filthy, open, stinking pens — sometimes none for hours at a time.

Turner will also will be provided with “medical care” that is essentially nonexistent, from alleged doctors who can’t make it in the real world (who might deign to see you if you’re in really severe pain… in a few days or weeks) and most of whom, like almost all the guards and administrators, don’t give a solitary damn and are there in Hell with you strictly for the Federal paycheck and retirement.

In addition to the violent criminals, there are some people in there — and some of these were falsely convicted, or convicted of “crimes” which shouldn’t be crimes — who are extremely bitter and are looking for any way out. Some of these will willingly lie and perjure themselves to help corrupt U.S. Attorneys advance their careers  — and get more convictions against hapless people in prison who have little or no means to defend themselves.

The system itself is a crime, and it is irremediably corrupt.

To put someone in that Hell who is guilty of nothing more than possessing a recreational drug — or not possessing the right paperwork for his firearm — or who is guilty of no crime whatsoever, as I was — is absolutely unconscionable.

I’m very leery of wishing that anyone — even the most thuggish Black drug dealer imaginable — be put into such a Hell. Like the system that created it, it is too cruel.

Of course, Hal Turner supported that system with all the vigor and dishonesty and cleverness he could muster. And he accepted the system’s filthy dollars. He helped put others — innocent others — into that Hell. So perhaps he is a special case.

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.”

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.

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.

The Learned portrait of Virginia Poe, left; on the right the Traylor Miniature, showing a very young Edgar Poe.

by Kevin Alfred Strom

THIS YEAR marks the 200th birthday of the great poet and thinker Edgar Allan Poe. Today, October 7th, is the day of his mysterious death 160 years ago in Baltimore. And last month marked the 174th anniversary of his marriage to his beloved Virginia.

Not too long after Poe’s birthday in January of this year, someone very dear to me gave me a surprise present: two gift boxes from the Poe Museum in Richmond, one decorated with a reproduction of the famous Learned portrait of Virginia Poe (pictured, left) and the other (on the right) having on its lid an image of a very young-looking and clean-shaven Edgar Allan Poe — an image I had never seen before. The portrait is oval and in a thin oval gilt frame. Inside the lid of the second box is written “Edgar Allan Poe – Robert Lee Traylor.”

I have been a reader and student of Poe since the age of 11, but this portrait was one I had never seen. The only references I could find to “Robert Lee Traylor” and a Poe portrait were as the owner of a very different Poe picture, a daguerreotype.

And exhaustive searches of the ‘Net, comprising thousands of articles and representations of Poe, didn’t come up with this portrait or any reference to it. It seemed quite a mystery to me.

But a helpful scholar at the Poe Museum provided the answer:

“I know the portrait of which you speak. It is called the Traylor Miniature, after the Poe collector Robert Lee Traylor, who once owned it. (This is not to be confused with the Traylor Daguerreotype, which was one of the two original daguerreotypes taken at a sitting in Richmond in September 1849. Of these two daguerreotypes, the Thompson is the better known and more widely reproduced, while the Traylor was badly damaged in a cleaning attempt around 1900.)

Edgar Allan Poe: the Sartain engraving

“The Traylor miniature is an oval watercolor on ivory measuring 2.5 x 2 inches. It is not a life portrait but an idealized image probably derived from the 1885 Sartain engraving of the Osgood oil painting of Poe. The sideburns have been removed to give Poe a more youthful appearance, but the shadow under the nose and hairline are among the points of strong similarity between this painting and the Sartain image.

“The picture’s known history only goes back to 1905, when the Bendann Brothers art dealers in Baltimore consigned the piece to the Bell Book and Stationary Company in Richmond. Traylor purchased it shortly afterwards. The piece is said to have come to Bendann’s from an owner in Annapolis. Although his statement is unverified, Traylor claimed that the miniature had been acquired from a lady in Baltimore who had been a friend of the Poe family. Traylor also claimed the piece had once been owned by Poe himself, though this seems very unlikely.

“James A. Harrison considered the piece an authentic life portrait done when Poe was nineteen, but, in 1926, James Southall Wilson dismissed it as a synthetic likeness.

The Deas portrait

“The Poe Museum owns the miniature, which was last displayed in our recent exhibit Poe Face to Face: Portraits and Daguerreotypes of Edgar Allan Poe. If you would like to learn more about the portraits of Poe, you might be interested in finding a copy of The Portraits and Daguerreotypes of Edgar Allan Poe by Michael Deas.” (Deas is also the highly talented artist who created the painting used in the recent Edgar Allan Poe U.S. postage stamp. — K.A.S.)

Another mystery surrounding portraits of the Poes was the question of why there was only only one known image of Virginia Poe. It was a miniature painted by an unknown artist, supposedly immediately after Virginia’s death. The famous Learned portrait is simply a more painterly and artistic rendering of that image, executed many years later. There have been illustrations and engravings made of this image, but all are essentially copies of the one original.

Virginia Poe by Sully

But Poe researcher and author Cynthia Cirile has stated that more — perhaps many more — portraits of Virginia were painted and engraved during her lifetime, two by the renowned painter Thomas Sully. According to Cirile, Virginia modeled for, among other assignments, fashion spreads in Graham’s Magazine as a young woman and was even somewhat famous for her work. But irrational religio-social conventions, which saw modeling as a “scandalous” vocation, caused her family to “hush up” the facts of her work after her death. Cirile, who says that a daguerreotype of Virginia has also been found and will be included in her upcoming book, writes:

“[T]he absurdity of imagining that Poe waited till his wife was dead to have her image taken is simply absurd. The truth was that many paintings and engravings of Virginia were extent, though they were not publicized at the time. Virginia did sit for daguerreotypes, though so far, I have only discovered one of them, which dates to c. 1845.

The Rundell Virginia Poe, by Sully

“The reason for all this lying was to keep Virginia’s ‘image’ as pure and virginal as her name itself. The Poe family did not want it known that Virginia had modelled, because at that time, modelling for painters/artists was thought a sluttish thing for women to do. Of course, now, we see how inane this idea is-but, 150 years ago, that was indeed the common feeling about such things.

“But, there’s no hiding Virginia’s face, or uniquely serene attitude. She’s very easy to identify. Here, I give an instance of a painting of Virginia by the painter who was like an uncle to Virginia, Thomas Sully, taken when she was perhaps 13 years old. From this painting, we get some idea of what Virginia really looked like.

“In 1875, the same year Edgar was reburied, the cemetery in which she lay was destroyed and her remains were almost forgotten. An early Poe biographer, William Gill, gathered her bones and stored them in a box he hid under his bed. Gill’s story was reported in the Boston Herald twenty-seven years after the event. Gill says that he had visited the Fordham cemetery in 1883 at exactly the moment that the sexton Dennis Valentine held Virginia’s bones in his shovel, ready to throw them away as unclaimed. Gill took the remains and corresponded with Neilson Poe and John Prentiss Poe in Baltimore, and arranged to bring the box down to be laid on Edgar’s left side in a small bronze casket. Virginia’s remains were finally buried with her husband’s in 1885 on January 19 — the seventy-sixth anniversary of her husband’s birth and nearly ten years after his current monument was erected. The same man who served as sexton during Edgar’s original burial and his exhumations and reburials was also present at the rites which brought his body to rest with Virginia and Virginia’s mother Maria Clemm.

“It is important to remember that this Leonine Virginia made her mark on the world, quite separate and apart from her famous husband. Her look, as I said, became ‘The Look’ for women of the mid 19th century, and many emulated and admired it.

“It’s also important to remember that while Virginia was a victim of tuberculosis, she was an active participant in life, and shared a very ‘open’ and controversial lifestyle with her husband. Their lifestyle would be as controversial now as it was then.

“Virginia Clemm Poe was beautiful; she was adored; she was exalted. Long Live Virginia Poe…”

Let us today pay homage to Deist, cosmotheist, and racial-aristocratic thinker Edgar Allan Poe, and to Virginia Clemm Poe who inspired and sustained him and his art. Let us rededicate ourselves to raising up new generations which will be capable — biologically and culturally capable — of understanding him, and of creating new worlds of imagination and reality that Poe could only dream of.

Mahadev Desai (left) and Gandhi meet with other Indian nationalists in 1939

by Kevin Alfred Strom

THIS WEEK Google replaced their normal search page graphic with one depicting Mohandas K. Gandhi, also known as Mahatma (Sanskrit for “Great Soul”) Gandhi, in recognition of his birthday, which is now celebrated as the International Day of Non-Violence. Gandhi’s movement of civil disobedience was a significant factor in India’s successful quest for self-determination and the ultimate withdrawal of Britain from the Indian subcontinent.

Barack Obama praised Gandhi on Friday, saying “Gandhi’s teachings and ideals, shared with Martin Luther King Jr. on his 1959 pilgrimage to India, transformed American society through our civil rights movement. The America of today has its roots in the India of Mahatma Gandhi and the nonviolent social action movement for Indian independence which he led. We must renew our commitment to live his ideals and to celebrate the dignity of all human beings.”

Many people, Obama included if he’s sincere, see Gandhi and his movement in very simplistic and essentially mythological terms: Gandhi’s movement, they believe, was a “struggle for equality” within a multiracial paradigm. Actually it was the opposite of that.

Mohandas Gandhi wanted his people, the native people of the Indian subcontinent, to be free of the British Empire. He wanted his people to have their own country. He wanted them to have their own government, answerable to no other people. He wanted self-determination for his folk: their own territory, their own leaders. And he looked at this situation in explicitly racial terms.

Though there was much greatness in it to be sure, the British Empire outside the Anglo-Saxon dominions like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, was a multiracialist empire which forced differing peoples together against their will, crushing their self-determination and freedom largely for crass economic reasons. Sound familiar?

What Gandhi was most emphatically not doing was seeking “equality” under the Empire. He was not saying “We are all the same. Therefore give us equal incomes, equal schooling, equal housing and we will all live in harmony and brotherhood as one people.” That is what representatives of the new world empire, like Obama, his handlers, and the billionaire moguls who long preceded them, wish he had said.

What Gandhi was saying was that his people were unique and worthy of survival — and in order to secure their survival they must rule themselves and possess their own territory. Hence his two-word slogan for his movement — his command to the British Empire — “Quit India.” His was no M.L. King-like quest for a chimerical “fairness” enforced by central authority in an equally chimerical race-blind society. Quite the opposite! He said in essence that this land belongs to me and my people — and you, your race, your bureaucracy, and your Empire should just get out.  Ultimately, they did exactly that.

Gandhi’s parallels in the Black community are Robert Brock and Marcus Garvey and Sharity Ross-Petit — not King.

Gandhi expressly stated his belief in maintaining the purity of not only his race, but all races, when he gently chided White nationalists who only cared about their own racial integrity and who crudely lumped all non-Whites together. He wrote in 1903:

“We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they do, only we believe that they would best serve these interests, which are as dear to us as to them, by advocating the purity of all races, and not one alone.”

Gandhi also stated in his Indian Opinion newspaper, referring to a then-current issue in multiracial South Africa :

“The petition dwells upon ‘the co-mingling of the colored and white races.’ May we inform the members of the Conference that so far as British Indians are concerned, such a thing is particularly unknown. If there is one thing which the Indian cherishes more than any other, it is the purity of type.”

Greater India, even after the British left, was an artificial construct encompassing several peoples, and it’s not clear to me to what extent Gandhi recognized that further partitions would be necessary. But that’s a subject for another day.

Empires — from the ancient Assyrians in Palestine, to Tito’s Yugoslavia, to the Communist Chinese in Tibet — invariably say that they force differing peoples under one rule — their rule — “for their own good”… to “bring peace”… to make everyone “equal.”

And they invariably condemn any person who wants his people to be free of the empire’s rule — whether Gandhi or Jefferson or the Dalai Lama — as a “troublemaker,” a “hater,” a “terrorist,” or the like:

How dare Gandhi advocate breaking the King’s laws! We’re all subjects of the Crown, Indian and Briton, and Gandhi is a hooligan and criminal!

How dare the Dalai Lama insist that Tibetans should have their own territory and their own government, answerable only to Tibetans! How dare he call for an end to the mass importation of Chinese into Tibet! That’s anti-Chinese — that’s racist! (Of course, once you understand the Maxim of Self-Determination, you can easily see it’s nothing of the kind. The Maxim reads “Every people which considers itself to be a people should, to the maximum extent possible, live under its own government.”)

There is much to be learned from Gandhi and his efforts to gain self-determination for his folk. But we must see that struggle for what it was — a distinct people’s fight for a separate, distinct nation — before we can even begin to learn.

As analogue TV is phased out, the media moguls have pinned their hopes on over-the-air digital video. But, in time, Internet video will eclipse the moguls and their networks.

by Kevin Alfred Strom

THE LOGO IMAGE I’m using this month on kevinalfredstrom.com is my little tribute to the end of analogue TV broadcasting. Though most of my work has been in the radio and print media, I have produced or appeared in videos, including Richmond, Virginia’s Race and Reason program, the Revilo P. Oliver memorial film, and others.

As we mark the end of analogue television broadcasting in the United States, it’s good to remember its beginning — and its inventor Philo Farnsworth. When his wife Elma Farnsworth, who worked closely with her husband, died in 2006, I published this piece on NationalVanguard.org:

Television Pioneer Elma Farnsworth Dies at 98
2006-05-02 21:05:15

Widow and assistant of Philo Farnsworth, inventor of television, has died today.

by Melanie M. Carroll

Philo and Elma Farnsworth working with an early television camera.

ELMA “Pem” Farnsworth (pictured) — who helped her husband, Philo T. Farnsworth, invent the system for encoding pictures and sound together on radio waves which we know today as television — died in Salt Lake City today at age 98. Mrs. Farnsworth was one of the first people whose images were transmitted via television in 1927, when she was 19.

Mrs. Farnsworth, who married the inventor in 1926, worked by her husband’s side in his laboratories and fought for decades to assure his place in history after his 1971 death. The first-ever TV transmission took place on September 7, 1927, in Farnsworth’s San Francisco lab, when the 21-year-old inventor sent an image to a receiver in the next room.

The White inventor said the inspiration for his invention had come seven years earlier, while he was plowing a field on his family’s Idaho farm. He visualized an image being scanned onto a cathode ray tube — then used only for oscilloscopes — the same way that his field was plowed: row by row.

Mrs. Farnsworth recalled that morning in the lab “like it was yesterday,” she said in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle in 2002. “It was a very small screen, about the size of a postage stamp, an inch and a half square. At first, we were stunned. It was too good to be true. Then Phil said, ‘There you have it — electric television.”‘

According to the book Philo T. Farnsworth: The Father of Television by Donald G. Godfrey, “the first human images transmitted by Farnsworth were of his wife and her brother, Cliff Gardner. A 3 1/2-inch-square image of his wife with her eyes closed was transmitted on October 19, 1929, Gardner wrote. The book lists her as ‘first woman on TV.’”

Sadly, credit for his pioneering work was almost taken from Farnsworth when Jewish-controlled conglomerate RCA under David Sarnoff, with a potential profit in the hundreds of millions if they prevailed, claimed the innovation was the work of one of its house engineers. But in 1935, the courts ruled that Farnsworth was the real inventor.

Nevertheless Farnsworth received little recognition or monetary compensation in later years, because of what some say was purposeful revenge by the Jewish establishment for his defeat of Sarnoff. Many scholars also blame Sarnoff for setting back the development of FM radio for decades — because it threatened the AM networks and AM receiver technology in which RCA was heavily invested — and for thereby causing the suicide of the White inventor Edwin Armstrong, who created FM radio in 1933.

According to Godfrey, Philo Farnsworth gave his wife credit as co-inventor, saying, “my wife and I started this TV.”

Mrs. Farnsworth’s 1990 autobiography, Distant Vision, tells the story of the battle between Sarnoff and the creative man whose work, we now must admit, has been appropriated and grossly misused by his enemies.

Interestingly, Farnsworth, who also invented a nuclear fusion device later in his career, predicted HDTV and solid-state flat-screen technology in a 1957 interview: “[W]e think we can eventually get in excess of 2000 lines instead of 525 … and do it on an even narrower channel … which will make for a much sharper picture. We believe in the picture-frame type of a picture, where the visual display will be just a screen. And we hope for a memory, so that the picture will be just as though it’s pasted on there.”

Even though amplitude-modulated vestigial sideband television transmission is now gone from the U.S. commercial airwaves, television itself is being revolutionized by the Internet, which — if the would-be censors continue to be stymied — bids fair to free us from the “gatekeepers” of New York and Hollywood that have controlled and limited our choices for so long.

Television Pioneer Elma Farnsworth Dies at 98
News/Comment; Posted on: 2006-05-02 21:05:15

Widow and assistant of Philo Farnsworth, inventor of television, has died today.

by Melanie M. Carroll
and V-News correspondents

Elma “Pem” Farnsworth (pictured) — who helped her husband, Philo T. Farnsworth, invent the system for encoding pictures and sound together on radio waves which we know today as television — died in Salt Lake City today at age 98. Mrs. Farnsworth was one of the first people whose images were transmitted via television in 1927, when she was 19.

Mrs. Farnsworth, who married the inventor in 1926, worked by her husband’s side in his laboratories and fought for decades to assure his place in history after his 1971 death. The first-ever TV transmission took place on September 7, 1927, in Farnsworth’s San Francisco lab, when the 21-year-old inventor sent an image to a receiver in the next room.

The White inventor said the inspiration for his invention had come seven years earlier, while he was plowing a field on his family’s Idaho farm. He visualized an image being scanned onto a cathode ray tube — then used only for oscilloscopes — the same way that his field was plowed: row by row.

Mrs. Farnsworth recalled that morning in the lab “like it was yesterday,” she said in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle in 2002. “It was a very small screen, about the size of a postage stamp, an inch and a half square. At first, we were stunned. It was too good to be true. Then Phil said, ‘There you have it — electric television.”‘ (ILLUSTRATION: Mr. and Mrs. Farnsworth working with an early television camera.)

According to the book Philo T. Farnsworth: The Father of Television by Donald G. Godfrey, “the first human images transmitted by Farnsworth were of his wife and her brother, Cliff Gardner. A 3 1/2-inch-square image of his wife with her eyes closed was transmitted on October 19, 1929, Gardner wrote. The book lists her as ‘first woman on TV.’”

Sadly, credit for his pioneering work was almost taken from Farnsworth when Jewish-controlled conglomerate RCA under David Sarnoff, with a potential profit in the hundreds of millions if they prevailed, claimed the innovation was the work of one of its house engineers. But in 1935, the courts ruled that Farnsworth was the real inventor.

Nevertheless Farnsworth received little recognition or monetary compensation in later years, because of what some say was purposeful revenge by the Jewish establishment for his defeat of Sarnoff. Many scholars also blame Sarnoff for setting back the development of FM radio for decades — because it threatened the AM networks and AM receiver technology in which RCA was heavily invested — and for thereby causing the suicide of the White inventor Edwin Armstrong, who created FM radio in 1933.

According to Godfrey, Philo Farnsworth gave his wife credit as co-inventor, saying, “my wife and I started this TV.”

Mrs. Farnsworth’s 1990 autobiography, Distant Vision, tells the story of the battle between Sarnoff and the creative man whose work, we now must admit, has been appropriated and grossly misused by his enemies.

Patrick J. Buchanan

by Kevin Alfred Strom

PATRICK BUCHANAN utters truths that no one else in the  mediasphere dares utter. For that I admire and like him.

But Buchanan has one foot inside establishment “conservatism,” and, whether due to a desire to placate that segment of his following or because of the wishful and anachronistic thinking that old men are sometimes prey to, he will at times speak as though America was still the old American Republic — as though “conservatives” like Dick Cheney were still “holding the line” against subversion and alien influence — as though America had not long since been converted into the multiracial, multicultural empire that he fears will “arise” — and as though Dick Cheney were any less a faithful servant of the empire than Obama.

A good example of this is his recent column “The Get-Cheney Squad,” in which he justifies U.S. torture of Islamist prisoners-of-the-empire and threats to kill their children because these “rough methods” “saved American lives.” He bemoans “the clamor of a left that will not be satiated until Cheney and Bush are indicted as Class A war criminals.” Wake-up call, Pat: Huge numbers of people who would rather be found dead in a ditch than be called a leftist have come to believe 1) that our wars in the Middle East are illegitimate, and 2) that our ongoing mass slaughter of innocents and anti-Zionists there is unnecessarily creating millions of enemies of America and the West, and 3) that the architects of this madness are indeed war criminals.

The phrase “national security” should today make decent men’s hearts tremble with visions of SWAT-suited JTTF thugs hauling patriots off to federal prison on false charges (as happened to me and many others) and CIA drone missiles roasting every resident of entire apartment blocks (as happened a few weeks ago to little notice in the press except for cheers that “we” “got” a suspected Taliban official along with the unmentioned dead families). Instead Buchanan gets warm flag-waving fuzzies when he hears the phrase.

It seems that, aware as he is of the neocon/liberal-minority/Jewish power nexus, in part of his consciousness he is still a 1960s Cold Warrior with Communists replaced by “terrorists.” In part of his mind America is still America.

Jean-Baptiste Say, economist and exponent of the attainment of truth through logic and observation

by Kevin Alfred Strom

THE FACT THAT the fetid “economic stimulus” nonsense that continuously emanates from the professional plunderers in Washington is accepted by intelligent people is disturbing to me.

The idea that politicians can actually give us “free” anything — especially “free money” — is a perennial fallacy that would be laughed out of elementary school if real economics were taught to our children, as it should be. The acceptance of that fallacy by the manipulated and ignorant mob will surely deprive us of our freedom — and our children of their rightful inheritance.

The antidote to ignorance is education. For any intelligent child who is approaching the age of reason and who has somehow learned to read well despite the best efforts of the modern “educators,” the great work of the French economist Jean-Baptiste Say, A Treatise on Political Economy, will provide the grounding in economics that he or she needs.

Thomas Jefferson admired Say greatly, writing in 1817: “In France, John Baptiste Say had the merit of producing a very superior work on the subject of Political Economy. His arrangement is luminous, ideas clear, style perspicuous, and the whole subject brought within half the volume of [Adam] Smith’s work. Add to this considerable advances in correctness and extension of principles.”

According to the Locke Institute, “Jefferson advised using Say’s Treatise on Political Economy at the University of Virginia. It was the seminal economics text in almost all the large number of new private universities in America. Say was dominant after the ‘late unfortunate unpleasantness between the States.’ Therefore American leaders were saved from Ricardianism, and were educated in market economics before Carl Menger and the Austrian Revolution.”

Reading Jean-Baptiste Say, as a friend of mine says, also trains the mind in logic — something all too rare these days, especially for young people whose feelings are manipulated daily by skillful media propagandists — and who are then are encouraged to make political decisions based on those feelings. A generation that had read and understood the works of Say would have been mentally inoculated against the economic and other blandishments of a Barack Hussein Fetchit.

Frédéric Bastiat, whose book, The Law, can teach us to resist demagogues who would steal our freedom

Another Frenchman whose economic writings deserve a wider audience is Frédéric Bastiat, whose The Law is a classic of the philosophy of human liberty and economic good sense.

Some will object to these Frenchmen’s support for free trade. One might argue “Didn’t the tariff (which provided almost all the funds needed to run the federal government back when America was still America) protect our workers from slave labor competition and obviate any need for income taxes?” True. I think that Say and Bastiat are right about free trade within the commonwealth of Euro-folk, which is largely what they were talking about anyway. But I believe it is wrong to extend their ideas to allow “free trade” with the near-slave laborers of the Third World.

Economics, when properly understood, is not a dry subject at all. It is the story and science of human action and human freedom. Understanding it will greatly help you understand that most mysterious of Earth’s social species — the human being.

Television, the book section of the daily press, the major publishers, and libraries are all places where information must pass the scrutiny of a “gatekeeper” before you are allowed to see it. They are places where Jean-Baptiste Say and Frédéric Bastiat and Jefferson and Mencken and Oliver are crowded out by the likes of Philip Roth and Charles Krauthammer and George Soros.

But, so far, the Internet has no significant gatekeepers. The information revolution has made the works of the best minds of the West available again. Take advantage of the situation, for yourself and your children.

A Treatise on Political Economy

The Law

The Jewish Strategy by Revilo Oliver, Professor of the Classics at the University of Illinois

by Kevin Alfred Strom

QUITE A FEW READERS have written to ask about the availability of Revilo P. Oliver’s posthumous book, The Jewish Strategy, which I published in 2002. Almost all print copies of this book were stolen from me — and quite possibly destroyed — by the same individual who worked with the government to falsely accuse me of heinous crimes.

Though my reduced economic circumstances don’t allow me to bring out a new print edition at this time, I have recovered the PDF file from the printer (almost all of my computer files were stolen, too, including the original Framemaker files for this book and an unpublished book by Dr. Oliver on the John Birch Society) and I am happy to offer it as a free download. If you have learned or otherwise benefited from my efforts, please consider making a donation using the link in the upper right-hand column of my site.

The Jewish Strategy is a concise 101-page book on the Jewish people and their strategies, conscious and unconscious, to assure their biological survival, written from an uncommonly rational point of view by University of Illinois Classics professor and writer, the late Revilo P. Oliver.

The Jewish Strategy is not an ordinary book. Dr. Oliver, who was one of the founders of both National Review and the John Birch Society in the days when those entities still stood for the survival of Western culture and Western Man, gives us insight into the genesis, ancient and modern history, and probable future of the Jewish nation-state-people. Dr. Oliver states:

“The international race… by arduous, intelligent, and indefatigable work for more than twenty-five centuries, has, through its own efforts, made itself the major world power today.

“History provides no parallel for that stupendous accomplishment. It must be regarded with respect, even awe.”

Historian Mark Weber states that this book is “a very good one-volume, not-too-lengthy look at the Jewish strategy through the ages — from the perspective of a man who’s just about uniquely qualified to write on the subject.”

Weber continues: “The recent discussion about Mel Gibson’s film The Passion of the Christ has brought up the hostility that’s existed over time — on occasion, anyway — between Christian and Jewish interests in history. One of the values of this book by Revilo Oliver is to show that this same tension — this same strife — has existed in non-Christian societies as well. It’s not unique to Christian societies.

“Very often in the context of The Passion Jewish commentators have said in essence, ‘Well, you see, the problem of anti-Semitism is really rooted in Christianity and that’s why the Gibson film is really dangerous.’ Well, that’s really inaccurate. That’s just wrong, because the same tension and the same problems — the same difficulties that we’ve seen in Christian history, in Christian Europe, and the United States to some degree — have also been present wherever Jews have existed in large numbers in non-Christian societies. Right now, of course, this obviously exists in the Arab Muslim world, but as Oliver points out, it also existed in the Roman and Hellenic world before Christianity was really a factor.”

Read The Jewish Strategy and decide for yourself. And, if you enjoy wit and irony, Oliver’s Uber-Menckenesque style will not disappoint.

download the book

more from Revilo P. Oliver

One of the anthrax letters. Were the anthrax attacks the result of a disgruntled scientist or a murderous intelligence agency?

by Kevin Alfred Strom

THE GROUND-BREAKING investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks by researcher Robert Pate, The Anthrax Mystery: Solved, is now back on line at anthraxattacks.net — its original venue on the Web.

While I was forcibly detained by the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) under false charges, hackers took advantage of the situation to deface the site and delete all its content. When I regained my freedom, I restored the site from backups, whereupon the hackers struck again — this time attempting to destroy not only Mr. Pate’s work but mine as well. Now every single word and note of the original article has been restored.

In addition, Robert Pate’s hard-to-find essay on the hidden truth about the 9/11 attacks — The Missiles at Ground Zero — has also been added to the site.

Mr. Pate’s investigative work is especially important today, since the dramatic failure of the FBI’s case against their first “person of interest,” Steven Hatfill, and the equally dramatic suicide of Bruce Ivins and the FBI’s unilateral declaration without trial or hearings of any kind that Ivins was the perpetrator and that the anthrax investigation is now officially closed.

It’s both interesting and gratifying to me — as one who has been on the receiving end of horrible, life-wrecking lies from the U.S. Justice Department — to see how many people are skeptical of the Justice Department’s glib allegations of guilt directed at the conveniently dead Dr. Ivins. As Robert Pate points out, only Israel’s intelligence and assasination agency, the Mossad, had the motive, means, and opportunity to carry out these murders and attempted murders. And Mr. Pate shows conclusively that Steven Hatfiill was meticulously set up as a “fall guy” several years prior to the actual attacks, in a continent-spanning effort — hardly the act of a “lone wolf” disgruntled or profit-seeking scientist employed full-time and under constant security screening.

Almost as soon as the first anthrax letters reached their destinations, that same Justice Department was ready with an explanation: evil White “racists” dun it. On October 28, 2001, Britain’s Guardian newspaper reported that:

“Neo-Nazi extremists within the US are behind the deadly wave of anthrax attacks against America, according to latest briefings from the security services and Justice Department. …’There are a number of strong leads, and some people we know well that we are looking at,’ the Justice Department said. ‘These are groups organised into militia and “survivalist” movements – which pull out of society and take to the hills to make war on the government, and who will support anyone else making war on the government.’”

The article goes on from absurdity to absurdity, with the usual chiming in from the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s paid “experts” and others, and even makes the oft-repeated but preposterous claim that Timothy McVeigh, whose co-conspirator Nichols had a non-White spouse, was a “White racist.” The Guardian article, viewed with the benefit of eight years’ hindsight, shows us just how seriously we should take the government’s pronouncements on the subject.

Robert Pate’s work will not only make you a well-informed citizen on the subject of the deadly anthrax letters — but you’ll learn much about the 9/11 attacks, Israel’s foreknowledge of Atta and company, Michael Chertoff, and the largest spy ring ever captured on American soil.

In these days of rampant government disinformation, we must educate ourselves about the history of our own times, or we will become the pawns of those who would use us as cannon fodder in their dishonorable wars.

The bodies are counted just after Valentine's Day, 1945, in the aftermath of the Dresden Holocaust. American author Kurt Vonnegut was there. Emerging from a shelter into the smoldering ashes of the firebombed city of civilians and refugees, he told a fellow survivor "I'll never trust my government again."

by Kevin Alfred Strom

RABBI DAVID Kaufman quoted my essay and radio broadcast on the Dresden Holocaust in his column recently. His bias stands out like Bertie Wooster’s white suit. Kaufman is an unabashed Zionist, and told the Des Moines Register last month that his concern over events in Iran is motivated by “Iran’s threat to Israel.” That’s ethnocentric and probably wildly overblown, but at least it’s honest. (Many of Rabbi Kaufman’s fellow Zionists would prefer to conceal the truth about their motivations, instead telling us that their real concern is with “democracy in Iran,” a chimera if there ever was one.)

Considering his origins and his Zionism, one would expect Kaufman to write as he did: To him, my essay telling the world about this horrific war crime — where more innocents were killed in one day than were killed in all of England during the whole of World War 2 — wasn’t about remembering that needless sacrifice of life at all. No, says Rabbi Kaufman, it was really about me harming Jews and Jewish interests — even though I never once mentioned Jews in my article.

He concentrates mainly on one isolated paragraph in my piece: “Despite the fact that they could clearly see that the marked target area contained hospitals and sports stadia and residential areas of center city Dresden, the bombers nevertheless obeyed orders and rained down a fiery death upon the unlucky inhabitants of that city on a scale which had never before been seen on planet Earth. Hundreds of thousands of innocents were literally consumed by fire, an actual holocaust by the true definition of the word: complete consumption by fire.”

Rabbi Kaufman responds, somewhat hysterically: “Look at that last sentence! ‘Hundreds of thousands of innocents,’ ‘an ACTUAL holocaust by the TRUE DEFINITION of the word.’ The reason that Dresden is a haven for Neo-Nazi groups is that it has been created as the anti-Jewish holocaust, a demonstration that, in essence, the Germans got it worse that the Jews ever did. The repeated use of the term ‘holocaust’ by Strom in his article is precisely to argue that this, DRESDEN, was a holocaust and NOT what the Jews PRETEND to have been one.”

Never mind the fact that the real definition of the word “holocaust” is exactly as I stated it. Never mind the fact that innocents died in this totally unnecessary firebomb attack by the multiple thousands — even if you accept the Rabbi’s own Dresden death toll, at least an order of magnitude more that died in the 9/11 attacks, and far more than died that day in all the concentration camps run by all the belligerent powers on both sides combined, even if you accept the highest figures out there.

Demonization

I don’t think it helps the human condition for either Europeans or Jews to play the “my people have been persecuted more than your people” game, Talmudically quibbling about numbers. I don’t think it helps the human condition to demonize other peoples, such as by calling Zionist Jews “the Synagogue of Satan” or “Zionazis” or the like, or by calling racially conscious Europeans “neo-Nazis” or “haters.” (I don’t think that attending the now-traditional candlelight vigil to commemorate the victims of the Dresden Holocaust — and many of the attendees lost wives, husbands, parents, grandparents, or children there — makes you a “hater” of any kind. Except maybe a hater of war. Just look into what Kurt Vonnegut said about Dresden. Read or watch his Slaughterhouse 5. He was there.)

I think two of the most important aspects of the human condition these days are 1)  the question of whether or not distinct peoples are going to continue to exist in a world increasingly dominated by tyrannical “multicultural” empires and faceless globalist corporations; and 2) the related question of whether human evolution itself can continue under those conditions.

Self-determination for all, or “just us”?

I don’t criticize Rabbi Kaufman for his ethnocentrism or his desire for self-determination for Jews. Every race, every ethny, needs a healthy dose of concern for its own survival: Any people that does not make its own survival one of its highest values will simply cease to exist. But the Jewish power structure has a history of denying self-determination to other peoples, and denigrating their ethnic solidarity, calling it racial “hate” even when it clearly is no such thing. The power structure that puts out shrill propaganda claiming that “there’s no such thing as the Palestinian people” also promotes the idea that “there’s no such thing as the White race” and sometimes even insists on putting the word race itself within quotation marks.

That power structure wants to ensure that non-Jewish societies around the globe are multiracial and legally “race-blind” — policies which facilitate the maintenance of that same power structure’s colonies in those societies, and its ownership of media and financial structures there as well.

Meanwhile, the Zionist state is an openly racial state, with its main justification being the supposed uniqueness of the persecution Jews experienced during World War 2. It is to defend the public perception of Jewish wartime suffering as somehow unique that impels Rabbi Kaufman to wax angry over my article.

A Better Way

What would help the human condition would be for all of us, Rabbi Kaufman and friends included, to recognize that we are subject to the natural law of life expressed by biologist Raymond Hall: “Two subspecies of the same species do not occur in the same geographic area.” Professor Hall did not exclude humans from that law, saying “To imagine one subspecies of man living together on equal terms for long with another subspecies is but wishful thinking and leads only to disaster and oblivion for one or the other.”

I would say one or the other or both.

With our technological power  and scientific knowledge we have the ability to force the peoples of the world to live in multiracial, money-and-power based empires that are “democratic” only in the farcical sense of the word, obliterating all genetic and cultural uniqueness as we do so — with disastrous results for human biodiversity,  evolution, and progress. That’s what we’re doing now.

But we also have the power to forge a new world based on the Maxim of Self-Determination: “Every people which considers itself to be a people should, to the maximum extent possible, live under its own government.” Such a paradigm is not a threat to anyone except the power elite and its illegitimate rule.

Right now the leadership of the world’s wealthiest ethnic group, Rabbi Kaufman’s ethnic group, is on the side of that power elite, and in fact is the leading element within it. They believe — falsely — that they can only survive in a world where all nationalism is suppressed, except their own Zionist nationalism. They’re leading the West to a demographic disaster that will ultimately consume them as well.

I’m not sure if the Rabbi Kaufmans of this world understand that. It’s about time they did. Those of good will among them might change sides. To do so, they’ll have to give up the myth of the uniqueness of their suffering and embrace a more realistic and humane view: All peoples have endured untold death and suffering at the hands of those who would rule them. It’s time to grant self-government and independence to all who want it.

Unconditional empathy with the victims of the Dresden Holocaust would be a baby step in that direction.