Sir Charles Galton Darwin (grandson of Charles Darwin), who helped direct the Manhattan Project, saw eugenics as a logical outgrowth of evolutionary science and as the only way to better the human condition.

by Kevin Alfred Strom

I WAS INTRIGUED and then pleased and then astounded as I listened to National Public Radio yesterday morning. As soon as I switched on my Boston Acoustics radio, I heard the resonant, engaging, elegant, and intelligent words of Charles Galton Darwin — Charles Darwin’s grandson and Francis Galton’s godson and a distinguished scientist in his own right — reading a radio essay that he had recorded in 1953. Amazingly, though he openly stated that improvements in the lot of mankind could only be achieved through a eugenic application of the principle of heredity, there was no negative commentary from the “NPR Weekend Edition Sunday” program host, Liane Hansen. The Opponent will at least be writing angry letters over this; so we ought to tell NPR how appreciative we are to hear an alternative point of view amidst the sea of modern equalitarianism.

Charles Galton Darwin had a long scientific career, including being Managing Director of Britain’s National Physical Laboratory before and during World War II, President of the Physical Society from 1941 to 1944, President of the Eugenics Society from 1953 to 1959, and, near the end of his life in the early 1960s, Advisory Editor of the still-published Mankind Quarterly. He was also a major figure in the Manhattan Project. Here’s what he had to say:

‘I RECOGNIZE FULLY that the appeal of things in life will be different for different people, and I can only say what I have found the most important things in life for myself. I count as one of the most important things in the world the understanding of the world.

‘I have spent most of my time working at the physical sciences, and I count myself fortunate in having lived through the heroic age of physics when, what with relativity and the quantum theory, our understanding of the nature of inanimate matter has been as much revolutionized as it was 300 years ago in the days of Newton.

‘This has been the science I have mostly studied, but I have always had a lively interest in biological subjects too, and these have much affected what I believe. Among such subjects one is the question of human nature, and this has colored my view of what will happen to mankind in the future. I believe that a great deal of what is now being attempted for our betterment is doomed to fail, and so I don’t share the particular enthusiasms of many of the would-be benefactors of humanity.

‘It is true that there have been immense improvements in material conditions during the past century, but they are quite external and they leave man’s fundamental nature no better than it was before. So too the intellectual triumphs of recent years don’t signify that man has become any more intelligent than he was in the preceding dark ages. I see no safeguard for us against a relapse into conditions like those exemplified in the sad records of past history.

‘The main hope of bringing about any real betterment in mankind depends on a different thing; it must be based on applying the idea of heredity, a science that is already understood in its principles, though hardly yet in many of its applications. Holding this, I believe intensely in the importance of the family as the continuing unit of human life. When the science of eugenics has been more fully developed, there may be a hope on those lines of really bettering humanity.

‘These are the things that for me are consciously of chief importance. But underlying them, there are others. The great philosopher Kant once said that there were two things that continually filled him with wonder: the starry heavens above him and the moral law within him.

‘Like him I, too, continually wonder at the moral law within me, which dictates my conduct, or perhaps I ought to say the ideals of conduct, which I wish I could fulfill. But I am entirely lacking in the thing which so many people seem to regard as their mainstay in life, a mystical sense of religion. This I lack, and I am perfectly content to be without it.’

Though Charles Galton Darwin devoted a large part of his life to promoting the ideals of a humanity improved by selective reproduction of the best and most fit, he was pessimistic about the prospects for eugenics. When asked what might practically be done in the post-WWII West, he said “very little indeed … for the simple reason that most human beings do not care in the least about the distant future.”

C.G. Darwin's 1953 book, The Next Million Years

As he said in his radio speech, Darwin had little use for the world-improvers whose endless crusade to transfer wealth to the “wretched refuse” of the Earth he saw as not only destructive but pointless and doomed to failure: “…the policy of paying most attention to the inferior types is the most inefficient way possible of achieving perfectibility of the human race… this preoccupation with the weaker members is part of the present menacing trend of political thought which insists on absolute equality.”

C. G. Darwin was no black sheep of the Darwin family in his support of racial betterment. His father (Charles Darwin’s son, the mathematician George Howard Darwin) supported the Eugenics Society, his mother was a member from about 1915, and five of his six aunts and uncles were members too.

He restated the perennial problem of the dysgenic effect of civilized society, implying that the genetic doom entailed by “social democracy” was almost upon us: “…the well-to-do are rather more likely than others to possess hereditary ability … but the more prosperous members of the community are not producing their share of the next generation … The whole thing is a catastrophe which it is now almost too late to prevent …”

Darwin knew that superior men and women might arise from the lower classes, and he was well aware that existing Western societies were far from perfect meritocracies. In fact, he helped to shift the Eugenic Society’s focus from negative eugenics (discouraging the reproduction of the unfit) to positive eugenics (encouraging — through rewards, taxation, and state policies — the reproduction of the best among us).

Nevertheless, he felt that success did very roughly correlate with genetic fitness and that therefore it would be good if ways could be found to encourage the successful to have more children, which surely they could afford more easily than the perversely more fecund lower strata of society. “There is no better rough and ready way of estimating a man’s value than by the amount he is paid,” he said, “… our national organisation ought to be such that the number of children would bear some close positive relation to income.” He advocated what he called “eugenics by taxation” but despaired of its enactment in the age of equality, saying that trying to turn his tax plan into law was probably “hopeless because it would never get votes in a democracy.”

Listen to Charles Galton Darwin’s statement (1953; mp3)

Articles on eugenics

TODAY I’VE BEEN READING a book entitled Personal Beauty and Racial Betterment. The book is very rare today. It was published in 1920, during that hopeful time when a strong and mostly-healthy America was awakening to the scientific truths about race and the infinite possibilities of racial progress. Knight Dunlap, the author, was a professor of experimental psychology at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and a substantial portion of his book was delivered by him as a lecture at Randolph-Macon College, just down the road from me in Lynchburg, Virginia. Despite some faults, the book is insightful and inspiring.

Dunlap, who later went on to head the psychology departments at both Johns Hopkins and UCLA, says much in his book that would get him hooted off the stage by the equalitarian thugs who dominate the academy today. Dunlap’s thesis is that what we call personal beauty is really the emotional appreciation of the many qualities which make an individual a fit and healthy parent for a fit and healthy next generation of our race.

Beauty, then, is more than just something that thrills the lover and the poet — though it is assuredly that.

Dunlap tells us that beauty is “something which… is for the race and for civilization of such profound importance that no other fundamental consideration of human welfare and progress can be divorced from it.”

Beauty is a measure of racial fitness for the future. Men and women ache for it in their mates, even if they do not understand the nature or significance of their ache and their passion. The desire for a beautiful mate is an ineradicable, primordial urge. It is an instinctive part of us. It guides us on our recently-interrupted upward journey to higher intelligence, greater strength and power, and increased consciousness and wisdom.

Dunlap says that the preservation of beauty is inseparable from the preservation of all civilized values and progress. Lose one and you lose the other. And further, Dunlap warns, our civilization is fostering an increase of human ugliness and a withering away of human beauty so drastic that only strenuous and radical changes will suffice to reverse it. This was in 1920, mind you — things have gotten far worse since then.

And so this is the theme of today’s program: beauty and its significance to the race. I shall go a little beyond Dunlap’s subject, which was strictly the beauty of the person, and also discuss the beauty of our surroundings, particularly the beauty of art, which is also withering away in today’s multiracialist society.

Personal Beauty

What is beauty of the person? Dunlap tells us that it varies distinctly from race to race, so that such concepts cannot be accurately compared across racial lines, though he acknowledges that darker races sometimes change their standards when influenced by Whites, and some even come to desire White mates — a phenomenon with which we are all too familiar in our century. Dunlap states:

“The broad flat nose and thick wide lips are often repulsive [to us] because they suggest the African, if for no other reason….

“Among certain African tribes, whose men are uniformly over seven feet tall, and as thin as a rail, a normal Anglo-Saxon is probably not beautiful. Among other African tribes, and certain Islanders of the Pacific, a woman is not considered beautiful unless she reaches a degree and a distribution of fatness which makes her either repulsive or comical to European eyes….

“[But] the type which is highest in value tends to approximate the European type, wherever the European type becomes known. All dark races prefer white skin, and it is a general rule that the female of the inferior race prefers the male of the superior race to the male of her own race, no matter how striking the difference. That the inferior male considers the superior female more beautiful than the female of his own race is indicated everywhere, and clearly demonstrated among the Turks.”

Dunlap is highlighting one danger of multiracialism: the unique racial standards of beauty and sexual attractiveness held by each race can break down when there is prolonged contact. Whether this unnatural attraction for mates of a higher kind is some kind of instinctive longing for what is greater and better, a primitive proclivity to improve one’s stock by mating upward, or whatever, it nevertheless represents a great danger — and no benefit whatever — to the higher race. The danger is particularly acute if many members of the higher race are characterized by out-group altruism and empathy.

What is personal beauty for us? My answer must be very abbreviated and incomplete, but we can trace the outlines.

Personal beauty first consists in the lack of a number of negative characters. It is lack of deformity. It is lack of visible weakness or sickness. It is lack of extreme thinness or obesity. It is lack of a slack-jawed or moronic appearance. It is lack of body or limb size wildly outside the norm. It is the lack of misplaced sexual characteristics — femininity in men is undesirable, as is masculinity in women.

For the woman, stature and strength greater than her own rank high in her estimate of male beauty (as long as the man’s stature is not far beyond the norm) — both signs of a man who can protect and provide. And the most attractive man for the single woman is usually one who is sufficiently young to have years of vigor ahead, so he will still be strong when the couple’s offspring are almost grown — even though his age may be considerably greater than the woman’s in some cases.

For the man, the woman’s body is beautiful which has the harmonious swelling of the hips and breasts so much celebrated in art, and the perfect softness of the skin (which shows not too little nor too much underlying fatty tissue), the glowing complexion, and the vivacity and energy that together show a healthy ability to bear and nurture children. The greatest sexual beauty is found in the woman in her child-bearing years.

And there are a great many characters of beauty which apply to both sexes. In some cases, these marks of beauty are also marks of an advanced race, characteristics which signify the greatest possible difference from more primitive forms.

Facial angle: from Edwin J. Houston, The Elements of Physical Geography, for the use of Schools, Academies, and Colleges

Looking at the profile of the face, we note the facial angle (the angle, relative to the horizon when a man is standing normally, of a line drawn from the greatest protuberance of the jaw to the most prominent part of the forehead). The average facial angle of the European race is the closest to vertical of any human race. We also see that non-human creatures have lower and lower facial angles as we make our way from the more advanced to the more primitive. Less-advanced and smaller-brained creatures (and races) have a lower, more sloping forehead (and hence less capacity in the frontal regions of the brain). More primitive races and creatures also tend to have larger teeth, and larger jaws which jut forward, thus making the facial angle even closer to the horizontal.

The man or woman with a high or ‘noble’ forehead is better-looking to us than a man or woman with a steeply-sloping forehead, which we instinctively view as primitive and ugly, whether we use those words or not. The protruding jaw, so common in Africans and Australasians, or the underdeveloped chin and outsized nose common to some Semites, to European eyes give the human profile a convex and snout-like appearance, and hence are bars to beauty as we perceive it. We may not be conscious of the reason, but our instincts, our souls if you will, are telling us that the highly-evolved is beautiful and the primitive-looking is not.

The facial angle of various primates can be clearly seen in this illustration of cranial capacity: provided courtesy of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University

The most primitive human races have rather stiff and kinky hair, and so, to the European, softly curling, waving, or smoothly soft and straight hair are the most beautiful. Again, we instinctively admire the advanced traits and shrink back from the primitive.

Dunlap tells us that the eyes are special beauty marks, though the precise analysis of why or how that is so — why we instinctively feel that the eyes are expressive windows on the soul — is a subject that needs further study:

“Aside from the indication of physical condition which the eyes afford (and every physician makes use of these indications), the importance of the eye is probably largely racial. The blue or the black, the large or the small, are not in themselves of moment, but they indicate stocks from which we expect certain other characters, mental and physical.”

The eyes of the people of our race range from brown to the lightest hues, but I think that in general our race possesses — not exclusively, but more than any other on average — the quality of clarity of the eyes, of whiteness of the orbs when healthy, and of translucency of the iris so that the colored matter is visible clearly through the cornea. This is what gives our eyes an expressive and lucid quality which we see as beautiful.

The cast of the expression of the human face may be the most important single factor in personal beauty. Even in classical art, where the ideal of European beauty is literally set in stone and the entire nude form is revealed, it is still the sublimely high and spiritual expression of the face which arrests our attention more than any other single quality. Dunlap tells us:

“The voluntary muscles of the face, scalp, trunk, arms, and legs are kept in a condition of tonus by nerve currents constantly supplied to them by the motor nerves. Tonus is a state of partial contraction, which constitutes the state of readiness for action of the muscle. If the motor nerve trunk which supplies any voluntary muscle be severed, the muscle at once becomes flabby. …the muscle must be in the appropriate chemical condition to receive the stimulus, and this chemical condition is dependent not only on the general metabolic conditions of nutrition, fatigue, and rest, but also on the specific actions of hormones….”

The face is the site of the most complex muscle structure anywhere on the body, with a complex nerve structure to match, thus giving our faces an extremely wide and subtle variation of expression. With the dependence of these many muscles on the structure, health, and current state of the nerves, it is not surprising that we can learn much of the temperament, state of health, and intelligence of a man or woman by looking at his or her face. The face, and to a lesser extent, the other parts of the body, are giving us a constant and multifaceted ‘readout’ of the brain and nervous system within.

The ‘look’ that we call beauty is partly composed of an harmonious arrangement of these complex muscles, combined with an overall poise of the body — both achievable only in a healthy organism with a healthy nervous system.

Of course, we find that our instinctive ideals of beauty — not only as expressed in our sexual selection, but also in our art when it was uncorrupted and free — far outstrip reality in these regards. Very few of us embody all these ideals anywhere close to perfection, though on average we approach them more closely than any other race. But they are our ideals, and insofar as those ideals are favored in our selection of who will be the mothers and fathers of generations to come, they will indeed be a glimpse of those unborn generations, a glimpse of what will be, a glimpse of the future.

The Death of Beauty

We also find that in modern society, it is the highest and most intelligent and most beautiful who effectively sterilize themselves and have the fewest children. It is the best among us who have the most urgent and difficult career tasks to perform; the least time for children. It is largely the bright and the beautiful who are siphoned off to be used and abused by the ‘entertainment industry’ in their prime parenting years, and who are the most likely to be able to ‘arrange things’ for the consumerist ideal of a life of trinkets, gadgets, indolence, indulgence, and childlessness. To the dull and the dark come the largest families, these days.

We are effectively exterminating the beautiful.

Part of this problem is due to anti-natal propaganda (which has its greatest effects on the intelligent and responsible), to be sure, and the intensive promotion of every kind of sexual activity except the kind that leads to offspring. But much is due to the simple collision of modern reproductive technology with selfishness and laziness and shortsightedness. (When Margaret Sanger promoted birth control in the early part of the last century, she honestly believed it would relieve the misery of the underclass — and simultaneously have a eugenic effect — because the genetically poorly endowed would still be rational enough to see the quality-of-life benefit in having fewer children. She was wildly optimistic. On balance, it is the responsible and intelligent who limit their numbers. The irresponsible and stupid are as profligate as ever. The effect of Sanger’s crusade has been the opposite of what she intended: It has been dysgenic.)

Our social policies — which greatly reward the childless career woman who spends her life, say, overseeing the making of landfill-destined widgets in a Chinese factory, and which also reward the borderline-retarded semi-savage who can increase her tax-money handout by having a seventh child — are also dysgenic in the extreme. The same policies essentially punish the intelligent White woman who has Tommy and Sally and Jenny instead of having a position on the board of the widget company or a corner in the crack house. That has got to stop.

By essentially killing off and sterilizing our best and multiplying our worst, we are killing beauty and killing ourselves. We are doing the exact opposite of what Nature is urging us to do.

Art

Multiracialism also leads directly to the death of beauty in art. Different races have vastly different ideas of beauty. Michelangelo did not produce African masks. Chopin did not write rap or beat on hollow logs. John William Waterhouse and Jackson Pollock inhabited very different inner worlds. In a multiracial society, standards and traditions are abandoned — White standards are too “Eurocentric,” and no group can impose its standards on any other nor even hold on to its own traditions for long. In painting, sculpture, architecture, music, literature, and the decorative arts, there is no center any more. The continuity of thousands of years is broken. There is chaos.

Out of it all, a bland, offensive-to-no-one, make-it-as-cheaply-as-possible artistic ethos invades our lives from every side, coupled with an “avant-garde” which revels in the equally-empty perverse. As we begin to live in a society of ugly people, we also see ugly paintings, ugly advertisements, ugly clothing, ugly body deformations and decorations, and ugly buildings everywhere we look. A people disconnected from its own traditions of beauty, a people inundated with the bland and ugly — mixed in with the weird and trendy and ugly — is sickened and greatly weakened.

As I’ve said before on this program: White children need White art. We need to inculcate a feeling for the highest kind of beauty — our kind of beauty — in our children from the very first day of their lives. In every direction we turn, we should see or hear something beautiful. Most important is the beauty of the human body, European man and woman portrayed in art that exalts and worships, but never degrades.

Beauty Speaks to Us

When romantic love first strikes a man and a woman, beauty speaks loudly: The lovers may consciously think or say, my beloved has beauty, but aeons-old instincts are saying at the same time he is strong and wise and will make a good father; she is bright and fertile and life-giving and will make a good mother. And also they are saying of the loved one that he or she is a fine example of my own kind, a perfect match for me. That is what Nature is telling us with that rush of love and beauty that greets us in our youth.

And Nature is right. We as individuals have lives that are too short for the tasks that Nature is trying to accomplish. Nature needs generations upon generations to reach her goals, the ultimate ends of which even our best minds cannot see, though we know the path leads upward. And so that wisdom, that strength, that vitality, that intelligence, that character — that beauty that our race still possesses — must be carried on from generation to generation, getting stronger, or at least not diminishing, if we are to reach that destiny, if we are not to prove ourselves to be one of Nature’s dead ends who failed to do what must be done to survive. Beauty is Nature’s way of giving us that message on an emotional level.

I believe that for our race to follow that upward path, for us to maintain the strength it will take to endure the trials of competition with other races and the unknown disasters of the future, we must treasure that beauty and increase it every year, every day. We must build a culture of European beauty and splendor so we shall ever have before our eyes and in our ears the beauty that we and only we can create. If we do that, we shall never forget that our primary purpose on Earth is to bring forth the future generations of our uniquely beautiful race.

by Kevin Alfred Strom (American Dissident Voices broadcast for June 4, 2006)

THE EARTH IS REGULARLY struck by objects from space.

Some of these objects are large enough to cause massive destruction, dwarfing that of even a full-scale nuclear war. A few of these events have come agonizingly close to wiping out all life on Earth, and did in fact cause the extinction of thousands of species — including the dominant life forms of those times.

I mention these facts only to give you a single example of why creative intelligence — the kind of intelligence possessed in the highest degree by Western man, and the kind of intelligence we are breeding out of ourselves by importing and mixing with more primitive races — is of such absolutely vital importance.

As recently as 1908 an object from space impacted our world. It exploded over Russian Siberia, coming ominously close to striking the Earth. Even exploding in the air as it did, it flattened 1,200 square miles of forest, with huge old-growth trees — 60 million of them — broken off instantly like matchsticks. Near the center, trees and animals were vaporized or instantly incinerated. This event, called the Tunguska Event, is believed to have been caused by very small asteroid, thought to be a mere 60 yards across. It exploded three to four miles in the air.

The fireball did more than flatten trees. Even though the area was sparsely populated, it damaged buildings and smashed people to the ground hundreds of miles away. Even 300 miles from the center of the event, witnesses reported hearing “deafening bangs” and seeing a huge fiery cloud. Some witnesses described “a column of bluish light, nearly as bright as the Sun.” Dust from the event brightened the night sky in London, England for 48 hours — with enough light to read by, according to some accounts. The New York Times of July 3, 1908 reported “remarkable lights” being “observed in the northern heavens on Tuesday and Wednesday nights.”

The asteroid’s impact with the Earth’s atmosphere alone created a superheated wind that destroyed everything in its path.

Now imagine if the Tunguska Event had happened over New York City or Paris instead of Siberia. Nickolai Vasiliev of the Russian Academy of Sciences, has said that “Had such a cosmic body exploded over Europe instead of the desolate region of Siberia, the number of human victims would have been 500,000 or more, not to mention the ensuing ecological catastrophe. Two years ago an asteroid of probably several hundred yards diameter passed Earth at a distance of only 700,000 kilometers. On an astronomical scale that is very close. The Tunguska episode marks the only event in the history of civilized man when Earth has collided with a truly large celestial object, although innumerable such collisions have occurred in the geological past. And many more are bound to occur.”

Imagine if the asteroid had been 60 miles across instead of 60 yards: three million times the mass of the Tunguska asteroid. Imagine if it had been made of slightly more durable material and had actually struck the Earth.

But we really don’t need to imagine these or even more extreme scenarios. They have actually happened, as recent scientific studies have shown in frightening detail.

It’s only in the last ten years or so that scientists have known that a massive Earth impact from space, probably an asteroid, occurred 65 million years ago, causing the extinction of the dinosaurs and the rise of mammals, which eventually led to human life. Scientists have discovered a huge crater in Mexico which confirms what was once only a tenuous theory. And to clinch it they’ve found heavy concentrations of iridium — an asteroid “signature” — in soil layers dated to that time at sites all over the globe, exactly what one would expect from such a huge blast, which would result in a world-circling cloud of ejected material that would persist for many years, changing the climate to a years-long winter and forever changing the course of life on this planet.

The Chicxulub crater, as it is called, in the Yucatan peninsula was caused by an asteroid estimated to have been 6 miles across.

And just a few days ago, it was announced that a much larger crater has been discovered in Wilkes Land in Antarctica — a crater some 300 miles across, the size of Ohio — which evidently was responsible for an earlier die-off, the Permian-Triassic extinction of 251 million years ago, when almost all animal life on Earth was wiped out, the greatest mass extinction in history. The object which made the Wilkes Land crater is believed to have been some 30 miles across.

There are some 500,000 asteroids with diameters in excess of 1 kilometer — and they are constantly colliding with one another and being sent off into erratic orbits. According to the B612 Foundation, a group of researchers and scientists which includes former astronaut Russell Schweickart as its chairman, Earth is swimming in a virtual “swarm” of Near-Earth Objects (NEOs), any one of which could trigger devastation to Earth in the event of an impact. The goal of the foundation is to develop the means to deflect asteroids into new, non-collision courses.

Schweickart tells us there are several givens: “1) Earth is infrequently hit by asteroids that cross our orbit while circling the sun; 2) The consequences of such impacts range from the equivalent of a 15-megaton explosion to a civilization-ending gigaton event; and 3) For the first time in the history of humankind, we have the technology to prevent such occurrences from happening in the future — if we are properly prepared.”

Now I am not trying to be sensationalistic here and convince you that a major impact will happen tomorrow. No one knows when the next such disaster will strike, and no one knows what its size may be. But I am trying to make an important point.

According to Dr. Christopher Chyba of Princeton University and science writer Robert Britt, Earth’s biosphere is likely “regularly disrupted, every 100 million years or so, by giant impacts that would render human life impossible….”

Chyba added at a news conference at NASA Headquarters, “A biosphere only has a certain amount of time to develop a technical intelligence which is capable of realizing that there is an impact hazard, cataloging that hazard and… avoiding the next impact.”

“Bottom line,” according to Britt: “Only a civilization smart enough to spot the hazard and mitigate it can survive.”

And Earth impacts are just one threat. There are many other scenarios which would potentially leave the Earth unlivable. Shouldn’t we have a backup plan for that possibility, so our genes will survive even if Earth does not? Interstellar space travel may one day be our only option.

According to Geoffery A. Landis, of NASA’s Glenn Research Center, “The Earth itself is not entirely a safe place. It would be a good thing for our survival if we lived on more than one planet.”

Only the intelligence that brought us understanding of our place in the universe can save us when zero hour comes — and I am not just talking about impacts from space. Pandemics, nanotechnology warfare launched by an enemy, climate change and other environmental disasters, and a thousand other potential threats loom in the unknown future. Only the intelligence that brought us Western science can even detect the presence of such threats before it is too late, to say nothing of fighting them. Only the creativity that characterizes Western man can come up with solutions to the kinds of disasters that would forever wipe out lesser creatures.

But the intelligence and creativity that characterize Western man are themselves under threat.

The superstition, promoted by Jewish supremacists, of “racial equality” is leading the nations of the West to literally exterminate themselves through population replacement of their founding race with the teeming masses of the Third World, whose response to a cosmic threat would be a shrug of the shoulders while they concentrate on debauchery, fornication, and mindless violence below the animal level — or who would attribute the disaster to “evil spirits” and attempt to mitigate it with Voodoo chants or Santeria sacrifices for the brief remainder of their miserable lives.

And the peoples of the West themselves, with failing educational institutions and with religions under the thumb of Jewish supremacists and Jewish myths, are increasingly losing their grip on scientific knowledge and on reality itself, as they descend to an understanding the world thousands of years behind the times. Increasingly, instead of seeing the world as it is seen by the best minds of our civilization, our people see it through the lens of a school system that fails to teach them how to find France and Russia on a map, but does teach them about the roots of “hip-hop” and “White racism” — or through the lens of the writings of primitive and wildly ethnocentric non-White desert nomads whose knowledge of the universe was essentially zero.

So we’re dumbing ourselves down with a dysfunctional school system and superstitions which militate against rational thought. And we’re dumbing ourselves down biologically, too, through some of the most tragic results of these superstitions: open borders and racial mixing. We import and mix with tens of millions of Mestizos from Central America with an average IQ of around 80 and almost no geniuses — and we import and mix with Africans with average IQs in the 60s and 70s, the retarded range by our standards, and almost no people who are even moderately bright. And so much of our national wealth and energy and effort is soaked up by dealing with the horrible social costs of having these primitives among us — wasted wealth and energy and effort that one day may make the difference between life and death for us.

Look at how we are allocating our resources.

The B612 Foundation gets no government money. The biggest spender on the study of potential Earth impact objects is NASA — and they spend only 4 million dollars on it in a year: less than one fiftieth of the amount spent on the Iraq War in a single day. The total number of people monitoring Near Earth Objects (most of them amateurs), is, according to Astronomer David Morrison of NASA’s Ames Research Center, equivalent to one or two shifts of employees in a single McDonald’s restaurant.

Compare this with the huge and growing infrastructure devoted to making sure that our rapidly-multiplying underclass is housed and fed and entertained. Compare it with the huge amount of national wealth — and the very lives of intelligent, creative White men and women — which are being thrown away every day securing the borders of conquered Iraq for Israel.

As I said, I mention the subject of inevitable space-borne catastrophe as but a single example of the challenges we will face that will require the best minds that our race can produce for their solution. The next challenge may be different: a new virus ten times more tenacious and deadly than AIDS, a superhurricane that makes Katrina look like an April shower, a doomsday weapon developed by China or Israel that holds all civilization hostage, a sudden change in the Gulf Stream triggering catastrophic climate change with no comet or asteroid needed — who knows what may come? The issue which screams for our attention is not only are we going to be ready when disaster strikes? – but also what are we doing to ourselves? — how are we ourselves changing, and do those changes militate for our survival or against it when zero hour comes?

When that hour comes, will we as a race and as a civilization stand poised with our best minds in control of an advanced technology able to literally change the fate of star systems — so that our genetic patterns will live on and advance forever, whatever the cosmic challenge?

Or will we be mired in the genes of the jungle, ruled — despite the presence of a few high-IQ Whites — by the needs and desires of the primitives among us, and stand helpless holding our TV remotes, our fast food wrappers, our holy books, and our totem sticks — unable to do anything to alter the onrushing death of our world?

The choice is ours, ladies and gentlemen. The choice is ours.

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.

TODAY I WILL step back from the minutiae of social and political issues, and attempt to answer what are really the ultimate questions. Why should we or anyone else make sacrifices for our nation or our race? Why is it important for our race to survive? What is our basis for saying that some acts are right and good and others are wrong?

I can think of no better way to introduce this subject than with an essay written by Mr. Martin Kerr entitled, “White and Proud”:

“There is a lot of talk these days about Black pride, Jewish pride, Hispanic pride, even gay pride. In fact, there is only one major segment of the population which is not encouraged to take pride in its heritage and in the achievements of its ancestors. That group is the White race.

“The lack of White pride is truly a sad and strange thing because no group has more to be rightfully proud of than the White people of the world. The glories and greatness that the men and women of our race have won over the centuries should serve as a source of eternal pride and inspiration to White people everywhere.

“Since the dawn of history we have been a mighty race of builders, explorers, artists, warriors, inventors, philosophers, and cultivators. We have sailed the seas, tamed vast wildernesses, scaled towering mountains and journeyed to the depths of the ocean and into the cold void of outer space. We have built great civilizations, created breathtaking works of beauty, and made the deserts bloom. The technological achievements of our people — from the megalithic calendar of Stonehenge to the moonwalk of the Apollo astronauts — are unequaled. We have devised sublime philosophies, conquered deadly diseases, and performed soul-stirring acts of heroism and self-sacrifice.

“We are the race of Shakespeare, Leonardo da Vinci, Beethoven, and Homer. We are the sons and daughters of Leif Erikson, Christopher Columbus, Sir Francis Drake, and Magellan. We are the folk of Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon, Washington, and Robert E. Lee. We are the descendants of Pythagoras, Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, and Darwin. Just to list the great accomplishments of our race would require the work of a lifetime. No one has more to be proud of than we do.

“In order for an individual to be psychologically healthy, he or she must have a clear-cut sense of identity and self-worth. And for our race as a whole to be strong and healthy, White people everywhere must develop a sense of racial identity and racial worth. There is no better way to obtain this very necessary level of racial awareness than in having pride in your people and their accomplishments.

“So take pride in your race, pride in what we have achieved in days gone by — and pride in what we will yet accomplish as we reach for the stars.”

There is something about our race which makes us indisposed to brag or talk very much about our accomplishments. We feel it is “bad form,” or bad manners, and furthermore we see it as a sign of weakness. Our instinct tells us that the inferior man will flap his gums and tell the world how “great” he is to cover up his lack of real achievement and character. The superior man has no such need. And we often apply this principle to our race and our nation as well as to individuals. We see excessive chauvinism or nationalism as ungentlemanly and somehow suspect.

This reticence, which may be allied to our race’s inborn tendency to seek out objective truth and discount subjective feelings, seems a fine and noble thing, and it has served us well and made life more tolerable during the millennia that our people lived almost exclusively among our own kind. But in the distinctly unnatural environment in which White Americans now find themselves, where we are mixed with and jostled by a thousand different tribes and peoples in what used to be our country, this reluctance to “blow our own horn” can work against us. An unspoken, instinctive acknowledgment of our own preeminence is no longer enough. Our instinctive pride of race and nation is now attacked on all sides by peoples who have no such reticence and among whom the virtue of humility is unknown.

An entire generation of Americans has grown up in an environment in which the news media, the entertainment and music industries, the major publishing houses, and the public school system have all spoken with one voice and that voice has said: “White people are the cancer of the Earth. They have enslaved and killed and polluted and destroyed everything they have touched. There are no differences between the races except skin color. White people have no right to keep their nations White. White people have no right to live and work among their own kind. There is no reason for the White race to survive. Racial mixing is the inevitable wave of the future. White racial feelings are a manifestation of ultimate evil. It would be better if all the races mixed so there would be an end to the White race and thus to White racism.”

It is vital that our young people be given an antidote to this alien poison. It is vital that they be given back a pride in their people, and the will to survive as a people in the dangerous, hostile world into which they were born. That is the mission of this program.

I know that Americans are reluctant to speak about race. I know that they look over their shoulders and lower their voices when about to utter an unapproved opinion. But we must overcome this reluctance. In our present situation it can only be described as suicidal.

We must succeed in the mission of this program because we must survive as a people. In ages past no one needed to explain that. We knew it in our hearts, in our souls. We knew we must survive. It was the unspoken assumption that made our work worthwhile, our cooperation necessary, and our patriotism vital and alive.

In today’s urbanized, globalized, money-oriented, multiracial society, though, we have lost touch with our souls, with our true inner spirit, with our instincts. We are more… “rational.” We demand answers and reasons for everything.

Western man stands at a point of crisis brought on partly by his own spirit of reason and partly by the aliens and traitors who have purposely shaken his will to live. For today we ask ourselves, “Why should we survive?”

And the answers given to that question, even by the most sincere, are usually incomplete and unsatisfactory. Often they depend on an interpretation of ancient religious writings, the relevance and meaning of which are subject to endless debate and disagreement.

There must be an answer to that question which does not contradict our true spiritual feelings and which also does not contradict the observed facts of Nature.

“Why should we survive?” implies another deeper question –- “Why are we here?” In a way, that latter question answers itself, as I’ll show.

Why are we here? Why are we alive in this incomprehensibly vast universe, on this mote of dust that we call Earth that hangs suspended near the trailing edge of one among billions of galaxies which each contains a billion suns? What is it all about?

I said that, in a way, the question answers itself. Now I am not saying that we have complete and specific answers to every aspect of that question. Many gaps remain in our knowledge of the evolution of matter and of life, for example. But we have achieved, through uncounted eons of upward development and struggle, the ability to understand ourselves and to understand the processes of life and of the universe to an almost infinitely greater degree than any other creature on this planet.

For all of our hard won knowledge, however, the best men among us know all too well that we cannot at this time fully answer the question which I posed a moment ago — “Why are we here? What is it all about?” Our quest to understand the majesty and the meaning of creation has left us with a profound realization of our own limitations. If they are honest, our most advanced scientists will admit this, as will our profoundest philosophers and theologians.

Therefore, if we are to understand the purpose of our lives, if we are to answer my question “Why are we here?” then we most urgently need to surpass ourselves, to increase our understanding and our knowledge a hundred fold, a thousand fold, a million fold. Merely because the best men of our race represent the highest development of consciousness on this planet at this time is no reason to believe that a higher development is not possible.

Aware of our limitations and of our inability to honestly and completely and certainly answer the ultimate question of meaning and purpose, we can see now with unblinking eyes the certainty that at our present stage of development, our mission, our purpose, must be to do whatever is necessary to continue this process of increasing knowledge, of increasing consciousness, of upward development. Our purpose must be to make possible the answering of those ultimate questions. By laying the groundwork for a higher humanity, a higher consciousness, which will be able to answer those questions, we are fulfilling the highest purpose that Man can conceive at  his present stage of development.

To successfully pursue this mission we will need better scientists, more profound philosophers, more creative inventors, and more responsible leaders than have ever existed before on planet Earth.

I ask you, ladies and gentleman, is that the direction that America is taking today? Are we still advancing, still heading for the stars?

Or are we headed for the gutter?

At the beginning of this program I asked another important question: What is our basis for saying that some acts are right and good and others are wrong? In other words: What is the basis of morality? Our answer to this question must not be at variance with our inborn moral sense nor must it be based on any absolutist dogma which cannot be carried out in the real world. For morality to have any meaning at all it must be a realistic guide to action. If you believe, as we do, that our purpose on this Earth is to continue on the upward path, to advance, insofar as it is in our abilities to do so, in our struggle for a higher, nobler consciousness — then the answer to that moral question becomes obvious.

First, we must realize that, despite all its imperfections and shortcomings, the gene pool of our race represents the highest development that Nature has yet produced on Earth. It is our most precious possession. Our present stage of development was reached by countless generations of struggle and natural selection — but it can be destroyed beyond any hope of repair or restoration by a single thoughtless and selfish generation. We must never allow our gene pool to be corrupted. Nature’s gift to our people must be jealously guarded.

Secondly, we must recognize that these gifts of mind and spirit and beauty which mark us as a race apart from the rest of mankind were obtained only as a result of a relentless winnowing of our people over hundreds of thousands of years in accord with Nature’s unalterable law of survival of the fittest.

We must also recognize that our civilization and our technology have over the last few millennia largely shielded us from a continuation of this winnowing process, thus slowing or even reversing our upward development at the genetic level.

Armed with a love for our people, with the will to fulfill our destiny, and with our scientific knowledge, we can return our people to the upward path and become conscious agents of our own evolution.

In short, the answer to our moral question is this: Whatever is good for our people, for our race, in the long term, is good. Whatever will advance our race toward ever higher levels of physical and spiritual development, whatever brings us closer to that destiny which our Creator intends for us, is good. And whatever threatens the survival of our people, or which puts us on the downward path, is evil.

This moral standard must be relentlessly applied to every individual, to every institution, to every organization, to every religion, to every proposed program or course of action, and to every expenditure of money in our entire society.

When seen through the lens of a true morality the scales fall from the observer’s eyes and the hypocrisy and treason and criminal waste of our time and our inheritance become painfully, almost unbearably, obvious.

I’m sure that you’ve said to yourself, “White Americans don’t stick together anymore.” We are a divided people and the enemy’s strategy of divide and conquer is working very well. Our people think of themselves as Democrats or Republicans, conservatives or liberals, Christians or free thinkers, Baptists or Catholics. The fallacy of that line of thinking is that it gives primacy to what a person believes. If a person shares our beliefs, it is thought that he is “one of us” — if a Hottentot or Jew professes a love for the Bible or the Constitution then he magically becomes a Christian or an American.

Rather than giving primacy to what a person believes, however, we ought to give primacy to what a person actually is. Our race and our nation are one, and every member of our people, regardless of the brainwashing to which he has been subjected and the alien belief system which has been stuffed down his throat, is one of us. And within our souls lie the same spiritual urges which motivated the greatest men of our race to give their all so that our world could be born.

Let us not shirk our responsibility to pass on that heritage increased, not diminished, to the next generation of our people.