Top: Richmond, Virginia's Harvey family -- brutally murdered on New Year's Day, 2006 -- Ruby, 4, Stella, 9, Kathryn, 39, and Bryan, 49. Bottom: Ray Dandridge and Ricky Gray, arrested for the Harvey murders and a string of other killings

Racial self-determination is the sane way to organize societies; multiracialism is an irrational quasi-religion and is extremely dangerous.

by Kevin Alfred Strom

WHAT IS A MULTIRACIALIST? He’s crazy — I told you that in my last installment. And he’s genocidal. Multiracialists believe that we should incorporate many races into our society, all under one government. Let’s take a brief look at just how crazy that is.

On New Year’s Day, 2006, in broad daylight in an old, established neighborhood in Richmond, Virginia, we found out about that kind of crazy. Dead crazy. Killing crazy. On that day a White family — rock musician Bryan Harvey and his wife, toy store owner Kathryn Harvey, and their two little girls Stella, 9, and Ruby, 4 — were getting ready for an afternoon party. They were last seen alive by a friend at 10 AM. By 1:40 PM they were all dead.

According to police, two Blacks, Ray Dandridge and Ricky Gray, entered the Harvey home, while a third Black, Ashley Baskerville, may have served as a lookout on the street. Dandridge and Gray overpowered the Harveys, bound them, tortured and beat them with blunt objects, then methodically slit all of their throats — and set their house on fire to destroy the evidence of their deeds. The Harveys, including their little girls, were obviously innocent of any offense against their killers — the motive was probably robbery according to reports — but the savage and bestial nature of the criminals led them inexorably to their acts. They are suspected of a string of similar killings. We will never know to what extent, if any, the “hate Whitey” attitude prevailing in the media fueled the rage of the killers, but we do know that Bryan Harvey’s evocation of White racial guilt in one of his songs — “White Folks’ Blood” — didn’t help him or his wife or children when the animals got out their knives.

FBI and local crime statistics show beyond doubt that Blacks are far less disciplined, far more violent, and far more criminal than Whites. No matter how differently the 5 per cent. or so of accomplished, educated Blacks and mixed-race Mulattos may act, the research report The Color of Crime reveals that on average “Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery.” Mestizos commit violent crimes at three times the White rate. “Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving Blacks and Whites, Blacks commit 85 per cent. and Whites commit 15 per cent. …Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a White than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.” The proportion of Blacks and Mestizos in an area is, statistically, the single best indicator of how dangerous it is.

It is the quasi-religious and pathological belief system of multiracialism — the ideology that says that monsters like Dandridge and Gray should have free access to the neighborhoods and schools of Stella and Ruby and Kathryn and Bryan Harvey — that is ultimately responsible for this crime.

What exactly is multiracialism?

So, again I ask: What is a multiracialist? He’s a person who believes that it is wise and good to have multiple races in our society, all living together under the same government. Multiracialists believe in the opposite of the Maxim of Self-determination: “Every people that considers itself to be a people should, to the maximum extent possible, live under its own government.” To rephrase that maxim to fit their beliefs, it would read something like “All peoples, regardless of race or culture, should be able to come and live under our democratic government.”

You’ll notice I didn’t say “should be able to come and live under any democratic government.” I said our government. That’s because multiracialists are inconsistent. That’s to be expected, because multiracialism is not a well-thought-out philosophy. It’s less of a philosophy than it is a kind of crazy religion. And it is less of a religion than it is a pathology, a mental disease.

A multiracialist may claim to believe that all nations should open themselves up to unlimited immigration and racial mixing (which is roughly the same as an individual “opening himself up” by leaning back, making a sizable incision across his chest with a machete, and letting any creatures large or small that happen by have at his blood and internal organs in any way they want, including living inside them and feeding on them).

But the multiracialist really doesn’t think that “all nations” should open themselves up that way. No. He thinks that only White nations should open themselves up like that. You never hear multiracialists demanding that Japan or Korea or China open themselves up to mass immigration of Whites. Japanese racial-nationalism is real — Japan is virtually 100 per cent. Japanese — but you almost never hear this discussed as a “problem” in the controlled media, unlike the “emergency” that White-ruled South Africa constituted. You never hear a demand for Africa to open up its wide fields and magnificent mountains for the settlement of White people. You almost never hear multiracialists calling for Israel to let in more Blacks.

No, the multiracialists demand open borders and “racial diversity” only for White nations. America must become more non-White — Europe and Australia must become more non-White. That is their demand.

Only in traditionally White nations is it an “evil” bordering on an emergency when the native-born population wants to maintain its integrity. Australians wanting White cities and White beaches: total evil. Japanese wanting a Japanese nation: just fine. Germans wanting to stay German: a racist abomination. Israel wanting to remain a Jewish state: A-OK. White Americans wanting to preserve their heritage and culture, and organizing to do so: racism and hate. Africans wanting to preserve their heritage and culture, and organizing to do so: laudable and wonderful.

Solution to the Race Problem?

As columnist and wit Bob Whitaker says, the multiracialists may claim that racial mixing is the “solution to the race problem,” but that’s not what they really mean at all. What they really want, and what they’re really working for, is a “solution to the White problem.” Because, truth be told, everything they do is designed to exterminate us. The true-believing multiracialists, those who have accepted multiracialism as a kind of religion, have been in essence driven insane to the point where they are working to kill their own people. But those who crafted this anti-survival belief system, in my opinion, knew exactly what they were doing.

Multiracialists claim that culture — which is learned, they say — means everything and genes — which are inherited — mean nothing. But they are wrong — genes determine all human potential, including cultural potential..

Genes determine the structure of our brains, and our brains determine our behavior (including that of the culture-bearing stratum, if any, in a given race), and there are racial differences in all these things.

The culture of the West could not have arisen without the European race, any more than wasp’s nests can arise spontaneously without wasps.

(The environment is secondary, not primary, as a factor in culture and behavior. If you alter the alluvial deposits near a colony of mud-dauber wasps, it may be that the mud-daubers’ nests will then be of inferior or at least a different quality. However, if you eliminate the mud-daubers themselves and replace them with a different sort of wasp, there will definitely be no mud-daubers’ nests. )

If one hypothetically eliminated all non-White contributions to our civilization, it would still exist and still be recognizable. But if one eliminated all the contributions of Whites to Western civilization, one would for all practical purposes eliminate the whole of it, and certainly all of its distinctive characteristics.

What if our positions were reversed?

If Europeans were placed in Africa to fend for themselves, wouldn’t that be a demonstration of the relative effects of genetic structure on culture, versus the effects of environment? And such a test has in fact been done. In South Africa and Rhodesia and elsewhere we have examples of European man, sometimes largely the cast-offs and most poorly educated part of their societies, building magnificent nations hardly distinguishable from their European homes in just a few generations.

Give the Liberians New York City entirely for themselves and I suspect that trees would be growing up through the pavement of Wall Street in less than a century; give Liberia to European man and in the same amount of time great universities and spaceports would rise in the plains and valleys of Nimba and Lofa.

Would the Europeans in Africa produce exactly the same things they would have produced if they had stayed in Stockholm or Rome or Moscow? No. But they would express their characteristic mentalities and personalities in such ways as the new environment demanded or permitted, becoming a new and distinct nation — but still part of the European cultural and racial family, which is recognized as a unity by everyone except desiccated Western “intellectuals” and their puppet-masters.

If Africans were in every way the equivalent of Whites, would we not find the great writers and artists of Africa — or the African diaspora — standing shoulder to shoulder with the great Europeans? Surely, with multiracialists eager to promote “equality” at all costs, the names of this unmined vein of new Poes and Vergils and Homers from Uganda — or “the hood” — would be shouted from the housetops and on every TV channel 24 hours per day.

In these politically correct times, anyone finding them would get a PBS spot with Bill Moyers and an Inaugural reading. But alas, the best they can give us is Langston Hughes and Maya Angelou and other fourth-raters.

But cultures do change!

Multiracialists might object to what I have said, and point out that cultures do change, even while the gene pool remains substantially the same. So how can genes determine culture?

A stone-building culture will change, of course, if the people run out of stones. A whale-oil-burning culture will change if all the whales are killed. An asteroid collision with the Earth would certainly change our culture. That’s elementary.

Equally elementary is the fact that a race, placed by Nature on a rich and gigantic continent, which in the course of its entire existence and in all of its innumerable tribes and peoples and nations, never independently created a written language is significantly different genetically from the race which — in the same amount of time — produced Dante and the Parthenon and the Saturn V rocket. The gene pools of some races produce brighter and more creative people, on average, than others. More discoveries are made in the cultures of such creative peoples. When the whale oil runs out, or the ice sheet expands, they can adapt more readily than others, too.

“Culture” is merely a name we give to the things that some groups of human beings do. Human beings behave as they do because of the structure of their brains. Unless there has been a serious injury or illness, that brain structure is determined by genetic inheritance.

What will racial mixture bring?

Mixing will not mean one homogeneous mixed race — far more likely is an India-like scenario, with a multiplicity of new types and subtypes, with all the associated hostilities and conflicts of a bi-racial society multiplied by ten. That’s not a future I’d wish upon my posterity.

Furthermore, even wholesale mixing will not end the processes of racial divergence and speciation. It may set them back 100,000 years (and, in the process, extinguish forever the hope that Life will transcend the bonds of Earth), but they cannot be stopped.

Like storm-clouds building into thunderheads, race-formation is always on the horizon, always happening.

So the enforced multiracialism that now prevails in the former West is not only cruel, genocidal, and destructive — but since it must fail in its goals, it is also pointless.

It’s magic

Multiracialists don’t think much of borders, but in their insanity they do give borders some magical qualities. They believe that merely arriving on our side of the U.S. border makes one an American, for example. I am sorry to interrupt their dream, but “arriving” anywhere does not make one a member of the people currently residing there — who, by sharing a language, history, sense of community, and blood relationship constitute a nation.

Nations are biological entities; they are groups of living people. They are also movable and not necessarily fixed in one location or territory, though they obviously need territory to survive.

Legal formalities and hand-waving: a recent American naturalization ceremony

It would make about as much sense to claim that a Volkswagen becomes a Fiat when it crosses the Alps, or that a Jackson Pollock painting becomes art when it is placed in a gallery, or that an intruder becomes a member of the family he is robbing and raping and killing because he’s in their house.

The achievement of American greatness occurred when America was about 90 per cent. White; when Whites controlled virtually every level of government, virtually all media of entertainment, education, and culture, and virtually all businesses. Imposing American culture on Blacks and other non-Whites — with very limited success, I might add — did not result in equivalent greatness among those races.

France is indubitably a great nation. But the imposition of French culture on North Africans did not result in a new or greater France. The imposition of French culture on Indochina did not result in a new France, or anything even remotely similar. It might be interesting to compare the achievements of French Polynesia with those of France. Culture is secondary. Race is paramount.

The European race has proven again and again and again that it has the requisite mental equipment to found, maintain, and advance a high civilization. Brand X cannot make this claim, even when advanced civilization is handed to them on a platter.

Multiracialism cannot succeed in its goal of eradicating racial divisions and the racial divergence that is an inherent part of evolution. Multiracialism cannot bring about a race-blind society. Multiracialism cannot create human “equality,” which is an utter delusion which will never exist.

But multiracialism can destroy our culture. It can prevent us from advancing and ever reaching the stars. It can exterminate our race. It can kill little children like Ruby and Stella Harvey. National Vanguard is dedicated to the purpose of educating our people to prevent such tragedies. Please help us today.

*   *   *

Based on the American Dissident Voices broadcast for January 15, 2006

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who supported eugenics

by Kevin Alfred Strom (American Dissident Voices program of August 7, 1993)

THERE ARE DEEP-ROOTED REASONS for the decline of our nation and civilization, reasons which would be operative even if we had not been subverted from within — and these biological reasons have caused the decline and eventual death of many civilizations before ours. But we now have the power to reverse this decline, a power that previous civilizations did not possess.

Let me read to you from an ancient Egyptian document. Perhaps the observations of Ipuwer, a government official during the decline of Egypt’s Old Kingdom, will prove instructive to us late 20th-Century Americans:

“Forsooth, the land is full of foes. A man goeth to plow carrying his shield. [Perhaps this will remind you of our burglar alarms, mace, multiple locks, and flight from the cities that characterize our age.]

“Forsooth, plunderers are everywhere…. The women are barren and there is no conception…. Plague stalketh through the land and blood is everywhere. [Think about childlessness among our most intelligent women, abortion on demand, and the rise of homosexuality and AIDS.]

“Forsooth, squalor is throughout the land. There is none whose clothes are white in these times. [Think of the burgeoning homeless and their shantytowns in our cities, and the poverty and devastation following in the wake of the purposeful deindustrialization of America.]

“Forsooth, men are few. He that layeth his brother in the ground is everywhere….

“Forsooth, great and small say: ‘I wish I were dead.’ Little children say: ‘He ought never to have caused me to live.’ [Think about the high rates of suicide among our TV-hypnotized and purposeless teenagers.]

“Forsooth, men sit in the bushes until the benighted cometh, in order to take from him his load. What is upon him is stolen. He getteth blows of the stick … and is slain wrongfully. [Bring to your mind the drive-by shootings, muggings, and carjackings of our age.]

“Behold, he that had no yoke of oxen, now possesseth droves. He that could not procure himself oxen for ploughing now possesseth herds. Behold, they that possessed beds now lie upon the ground. Behold, they that possessed clothes are now in rags. He that wove nothing for himself now possesseth fine linen.” [This passage reminds me of the billions in unearned wealth looted from American workers and old-line American firms by alien manipulators like Michael Milken and Ivan Boesky and their less-famous kin; who get (I can't say earn) more money in five seconds than the honest working man earns in decades.]

What happened to Egypt’s Old Kingdom is now happening here. And it has happened again and again throughout history. A strong and creative people come into the land, build a magnificent civilization, which blooms brilliantly for a time, like the flowers of May, but then, inevitably, comes October, and the winter, dissolution, and death of that civilization.

Scores of books have been written in an attempt to understand this cycle of birth, growth, decline, and death, which all civilizations seem heir to.

The Police State Solution

One of the least tolerable by-products of our decline is the great increase in crime. Police departments that once had six squad cars now have sixty, yet crime is literally out of control and the decent citizen is not safe on the streets. Probably six hundred squad cars in such communities might suffice to return crime levels to their 1960 levels, but who would want to live in an armed camp with policemen literally on every corner?

Our law enforcement spending is at an all-time high, and the building of prisons is virtually the only growth industry in our depressed economy, yet crime is worse than ever, a thousand times worse than it was even in the memory of your still-under-40 correspondent. We imprison more criminals as a percentage of the population than even the old Soviet Union or South Africa, yet are we now safe on our streets?

And we’ve created a monster with government law enforcers sometimes out of control, as when the BATF and the FBI killed over a hundred innocent people at Mount Carmel in Waco, Texas and on a smaller scale during the siege of Randy Weaver’s home. Do we really want to continue in this direction? Do we really want to live in a country with the citizens disarmed, secret police everywhere, total government surveillance of our lives, and liberty a thing of the past? Where is this path taking us, anyway?

The Eugenic Solution

Other nations have followed that path, the path of increasing force and multiplying laws and public expenditures, and it has never stopped the decline and fall of any nation.

But the civilizations of the past did not have the scientific knowledge of the biological nature of human life which we now possess. Darwin and Mendel and Crick and Watson showed us the processes by which we, along with all other life forms on this planet, have evolved our special characteristics and how we pass them on to our descendants. In those discoveries we now have a key which can break the cycle of decline and death.

This key is called eugenics. Put in its very simplest form, the concept is this: Civilizations decline and fall largely because civilization itself, through its shielding of the less fit, puts an end to the natural selection which caused us to evolve in the first place. The less intelligent and the less fit half of any population almost always have more offspring than the other half. Shielded from the harsh forces of Nature by civilization, these offspring nearly all survive. This process continues for generations, and with each generation the less intelligent, less creative, and less capable become a larger percentage of the population. After a time, the quality of the people themselves declines to the point where they can no longer maintain the civilization their ancestors founded. Then comes the end, either through invasion and conquest by a healthier race, or through the inability of the dumbed-down descendants to plan for the future or deal with a crisis.

In every once-great nation that is now dust and bones, this process took place. It is obviously happening to us right now.

Eugenics, or racial hygiene, says that we can so arrange our society so as to reverse this degenerative process, so that the best elements of our population will have the most children; and so that each succeeding generation will be stronger, healthier, more intelligent, more creative, and better able to solve problems than the one before. A great man once said that there is no substitute for honorable men. Another way of saying that is that there is no substitute for good qualities in our people. If our people lack the necessary qualities, we will not survive, and by the just laws of Nature we should not survive. Eugenics allows us to choose what qualities and characteristics should be passed on to future generations, and which should not be passed on.

We desperately need to find solutions to our social ills. More laws and more prisons aren’t going to solve them. And “restoring the Constitution,” as desirable as that is, isn’t going to solve them either. Only better people can. Only through eugenics can we solve these seemingly intractable problems. Only through eugenics can we achieve the world of beauty, order, knowledge and freedom that we long for. Eugenics is, quite literally, the only answer.

But the existing power structure will do everything possible to hide this truth, because it would mean the end of the Lie of Equality on which that power structure is based.

Evolution Made Man Great

Nature herself practices eugenics. Everyone who is listening to this program, and indeed every living being upon the Earth, is the descendant of a long line of successes. All of your ancestors, even going back to the most dim recesses of time, managed to survive and engender offspring and care for them. But those that didn’t have what it takes to survive and raise up the next generation left no descendants. Their genes did not contribute to your — or anyone else’s — ancestry.

Conditions for our human ancestors before the dawn of civilization were very harsh. We of European descent are literally the children of the ice. It is virtually certain that a great many prehistoric men and women were unable to survive the endless winters of Ice Age Europe. The slothful and the lazy could not survive. The stupid and the thoughtless could not survive. Those unable to master such cerebral functions as planning for the coming winter could not survive. The seriously deformed and the insane surely could not survive. A great winnowing took place. Only those with the right set of characteristics for survival in such harsh conditions were able to pass on their genes.

Now it is a truism that individuals are unequal. In any population, there will be a certain range of abilities and intelligence. Nature adds to this inequality in genetic endowment by occasional mutations, or random changes in the genetic patterns of some individuals. It is also a fact, observable in every human society past and present, that the least able and intelligent half of the population have more children than the more intelligent half. This is true for a number of reasons, among them the fact that the more intelligent a person is, the more likely he is to have many interests and occupations for his time, which take away from his ability and desire to raise a large family. A person of higher intelligence is also less likely to be ruled by his passions, and is more apt to consider carefully the consequences of his sexual impulses. The intelligent are more sensitive to quality of life, and hence are often loathe to bring more children into the world thoughtlessly. Having very high standards for choosing sexual partners can lead to having fewer of them. And knowledge of — and willingness to use — contraceptive measures is notably lacking in the less intelligent today; and I think we can assume that similar factors have operated for many millennia. The less intelligent simply have more babies.

Now, before the advent of civilization, this did not cause a problem, since the less fit were killed off by the ravages of Nature at a greater rate than the more fit. So, slowly, the quality of the population increased — since a greater number of those who survived and successfully reproduced came from the “top half” of the population.

One characteristic that was necessary for the survival of our prehistoric ancestors was altruism, or the willingness to sacrifice our individual desires for the good of the group. Without such social cooperation, our ancestors would have easily succumbed to competing tribes, predators, and severe weather conditions. Our ancestors were selectively bred for many generations for this quality of altruism, which manifests itself in our love for our family, our tribe, our nation, and in our desire to protect these, our loved ones, from all harm.

Eventually, human beings of a higher type emerged, and they began to develop civilizations.

Civilization Plus Altruism Brings Devolution

As the increasing scale and organization of human activity, along with the division of labor, made human action more efficient and effective, man was able to protect himself to a much greater extent from starvation, severe weather, marauding tribes, etc. His inbred spirit of altruism, often elaborated into a religious and moral system, made him extend this protection to nearly all members of society.

But, just as before, and just as now, the less intelligent and the less fit half of the population continued to have more than half of the babies. But, unlike before, under civilized conditions nearly all the babies survived to adulthood, protected by society’s loving and compassionate arms. The stupidest and least responsible elements of the population, those least able to pull their own weight and least able to bring effective solutions to problems, began to contribute a growing percentage to the gene pool of that civilization. The process of devolution, the dumbing-down of the population, had begun.

This process can proceed quite far before it is generally noticed, if it ever is. For even as the general intelligence begins to decline, there are still enough superior people to keep society productive and even creative for a time, and the accumulation of knowledge continues long after the intelligence curve has fallen, and this adds to society’s ability to carry the unproductive along for the ride. By the time the society has obviously begun to decline, the stage at which we find ourselves, the dumbing-down process is far advanced.

In our case, we have exacerbated the problem; by positively rewarding the reproduction of the unfit, through our social welfare system; by penalizing (through taxes and other means) the productive and intelligent for their success, and by devoting a greater and greater percentage of our precious labor and resources to a futile attempt to make the inferior “equal.” We are accelerating the process of genetic decline also by the importation and acceptance of inferior stocks into our gene pool. Many of these things are done in the name of “justice” and “compassion.” But those who promote the pernicious doctrine of “equality” are doing incalculable harm to future generations as they attempt to alleviate the temporary pains of the present.

The Cycle Can Be Broken

How can this cycle be broken? It can only be broken so by so arranging our society so that the normal, and the best and the brightest, among us have the most children, and those unfortunates who cannot or will not pull their own weight, the habitual criminals and the mentally defective, have the least. This would be the essence of true compassion for future generations of our people. This would be the opening of a doorway down an entirely new pathway of progress, beauty, scientific discovery, technological achievement, prosperity, and peace such as has never been seen before on this planet. This would be the greatest gift that we could ever give our children and grandchildren. The gift of a better world. That’s not an empty phrase to us — we really can achieve that. A world of excellence, a world made better by the better men and women who will inhabit it. Because we now have the knowledge to create that world, it is our responsibility to bring it into being.