by Kevin Alfred Strom (American Dissident Voices broadcast of January 1, 2006)

A NATION FOUNDED on ideas or religion or on geography alone is an artificial construct. It will die when its founding race is replaced, even if it lives on in name only.

It’s like this: If a criminal kills your German shepherd named Rolf and replaces him with a Siberian hamster, it doesn’t matter if you name the hamster Rolf — it doesn’t matter if you pretend the hamster is Rolf’s pup — it doesn’t matter if the hamster lives in the same house and sleeps in the same bed as Rolf — it doesn’t matter if you teach the hamster to bark like a dog — it doesn’t matter if you apply the same training to the hamster that you did to your German shepherd. The hamster is different genetically from the shepherd and it will therefore never act the same, never have the same potential, and never in any meaningful way be related to, or deserve the name of, the now-dead shepherd.

And that’s a good analogy for what’s happening to America, as White Americans are replaced by Mexicans and other non-Whites while George Bush and his billionaire cronies purr that they can all “become Americans” if they just “believe” in the right things and are “educated” properly.

The “nation as idea” concept leads, ultimately, to death for the people. That’s how it always is in artificial nations based on ideas or religion or geography. All of those things — political ideas, church dogma, lines drawn on a map — have no physical reality whatsoever. They’re just mental constructs; electrical activity in our brains. Nations founded on blood, however — on peoplehood — have the potential to live forever. The gene-patterns from which our life and our ideas and our culture all stem are real. They constitute Life itself. And Life trumps ideas, life trumps the artificial constructs of man every time.

Life demands self-determination and freedom for our people. Self-determination means a territory for our people alone, and a government answerable to our people alone. This is not a hateful idea. A world based on the principle of self-determination would be a world in which there was no room for multiracialism or Jewish supremacism, to be sure. But there would be room for races, many races. Many nationalities. In fact, a world based on self-determination is the best imaginable kind of world for preserving the diverse races and cultures of the Earth in the face of globalism.

Now, don’t misunderstand me. I am not saying we should fight other peoples’ battles and obtain self-determination for them. That’s their affair. We have our hands full right now trying to find a path for freedom and self-determination for our own people. And doubtlessly a world organized along the lines of racial self-determination would still have conflicts.

But endorsing the maxim of self-determination will help us concentrate our fire on the enemies who would take away the freedom of all peoples, and avoid conflicts with others who essentially just want to be left alone. This is the maxim of self-determination which I coined in 1998:

“Every people which considers itself to be a people should, to the maximum extent possible, live under its own government.”

Yes, this maxim applies to Tibetans. It applies to Palestinians. All but the most slopeheaded devotees of Pat Robertson acknowledge that. But most of us have blinders on. We can’t see the most important fact of all: The self-determination maxim applies to White people, too.

So let’s apply it. Since we White Americans are a people who consider ourselves to be a people, it should go like this: “We White Americans should, to the maximum extent possible, live under our own government.” That means we need a government answerable to White Americans alone. It means no Zionist lobby or Zionist bribes or Zionist media pressure. It means no Jesse Jackson racial blackmail. It means no La Raza pressure groups and no Mestizo immigration and no Mestizo vote. It means no “diversity”-driven Jewish or Mestizo or Black appointments to the Supreme Court or the President’s cabinet. It means no Black vote.

Now, is that an anti-Black or anti-Mestizo concept? No, it isn’t. In a rational world, they’d have their own governments and their own territories where they wouldn’t have to accommodate or compromise with White folks — which is something they’re constantly complaining about anyway.

The self-determination maxim applies to other White peoples of the Earth, too. “The British should, to the maximum extent possible, live under their own government.” That means no Pakistani MPs. No Middle Eastern Mosques in London. No Jewish Lords. No Caribbean Blacks taking over whole city wards. No Zionist lobby.

“The Canadians should, to the maximum extent possible, live under their own government.” That means no Chinese takeover of British Columbia and no Jewish control of the legal system.

“The Italians should, to the maximum extent possible, live under their own government.” That means no Africans flooding into Rome anymore, and no more Gypsy gangs preying on White people.

“The Germans should, to the maximum extent possible, live under their own government.” That means no Jewish-dominated occupation government. That means no Turkish “guest workers.” That means no laws making doubting the “Holocaust” story into a crime. That means Ernst Zundel is set free instantly.

“The French should, to the maximum extent possible, live under their own government.” That means no laws making the questioning of Jewish atrocity stories a crime. That means no North Africans burning down Paris.

“The Australians should, to the maximum extent possible, live under their own government.” That means no more “Asianization.” It means a White Australia policy with real teeth in it. And it means no Arabs raping White girls and killing lifeguards.

The current rulers of America fear this idea. Presidential hopeful Senator John McCain, who, by the way, has publicly pledged his loyalty and devotion to Israel, verifies this by saying: “We are a nation of many races… (and) many points of origin. But our one shared faith is the belief that a nation conceived in an idea will prove stronger, more enduring, and better than any nation… made from a common race or culture.” McCain is a prime example of one who has abandoned the American people for the “nation as idea” concept. He hasn’t abandoned the Jewish people to that concept, though. He fully supports the concept of “Israel as a Jewish state,” a programmed phrase that politicians left and right are required to repeat as a mantra in order to receive favorable coverage in the media.

George Bush and John McCain work together to flood America with non-Whites. The British magazine, The Economist, estimates that there are over 1,100,000 invaders coming to the U.S. every year. There are surely dozens of millions here already — in violation of our laws, by the way — who have taken our jobs and who are a direct threat to our people’s survival. McCain and Bush support numerous efforts to give aid and comfort to these invaders, to legalize their presence, and to facilitate an even larger invasion in the future. They’ve proposed, for example, to automatically give citizenship to illegal aliens who say they have been working in our country for three to six years.

What a brilliant scheme that is. McCain and Bush know that even most of the opponents of the immigration invasion have either bought into the “nation as idea” concept — or give lip service to it to avoid being called “racists.” So just legalize the non-White invaders, so they’re no longer illegal. Problem solved.

Can you see now that a kinship-based racial nation is the only solution? Laws are just one form of idea. Like the ideas I discussed earlier, they have no physical reality. They are just electrical activity in our brains translated to spots of ink on paper. Unlike our gene patterns, which are the real basis of nationhood, they can change at the whim of a crooked politician, and often do.

Jewish-American General (and former Presidential candidate) Wesley Clark also believes in the “nation as idea” concept — with a vengeance. He told CNN, as his forces savagely bombed Serbian civilians in 1999, “Let’s not forget what the origin of the problem is. There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That’s a 19th century idea and we are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multi-ethnic states.”

As nationalvanguard.org writer D. Kearney puts it:

Clark, who led operations against Serbia in 1999, openly admitted that his goal was to dismantle what he saw as a dangerously ethnically-exclusive nation…. ‘”Ethnically pure” nation states are indeed a “19th Century idea” — they replaced vast empires which oppressed minority populations. …When Clark says “we are going to do it with multi-ethnic states,” the same sentiments do not apply to Clark’s kinsmen in Israel.’

No indeed! According to Clark and Bush and McCain and all the other operatives of our people’s enemies and hypocritical promoters of the “nation as idea” fraud, an ethnically pure Israel is a good thing, worth fighting and dying for, while an ethically pure White nation, whether it be in America or Europe or Australia, is the ultimate in evil and immorality, and must be opposed at all costs.

We are witness to the takeover of the American government by those who have successfully converted it from an instrument of the American people into an instrument of international Zionism and international capital. Some, mainly on the right, call this world government-in-the-making “the New World Order”; some, mainly on the left, call it “globalism.” Whatever you call it, its goal is to kill blood-based nations and natural racial communities, and it will kill us if we let it. It is a tool of the Jewish supremacists.

The globalists have their disagreements of course; they have their Marxist wing and their finance-capital wing; but they are united in their pursuit of universally multi-ethnic states under phony “democracy” where their media always hold the balance of power; they universally push for an end to national independence and self-determination. They see self-determination (and the related idea of the nation as a biological entity) as an impediment to the free flow of labor and capital to maximize profits, and a stumbling-block to levelling schemes by which they hope to prevent the rise of anyone who opposes their power.

Self-determination and freedom received another blow when the regime in Washington, in cooperation with Communist operatives like “Martin Luther King” changed the fundamental idea of America from a nation of free men of the stock of Europe (the idea held by the founding fathers) to a “nation” composed of anyone who happened to be standing on the correct side of an artificial line drawn on a map.

The criminals in Washington repealed, sometimes even without benefit or pretense of legislation, all the laws which protected the White gene pool in this country — including immigration laws, anti-miscegenation statutes, eugenics laws, and many others.

Biological kinship is the great bond that gives birth to nations, and helps them survive when persecuted by tyrants. By rewriting the definition of “American” so that biological kinship (race) was no longer a factor, the subversives and traitors were able to engineer an invasion of aliens who would facilitate an unending “balance of power” game in which the founding American stock would always lose. They also created and promoted a new moral paradigm in which to defend the survival of the White race is defined as moral “wrong” and advocacy of genocide against Whites by racial mixing is defined as moral “right.” Such a notion would have been considered absolutely spurious and noxious by America’s founding fathers.

A nation composed of a unified people with genetic kinship, a shared history, and one culture is unlikely to be snookered into “world government” or into giving up its hard-won rights. A unified people might coalesce and throw off the oppression called globalism. A “nation” composed of fifteen or fifty different nationalities, as many languages and cultures, and unable to agree on what constitutes right and wrong in even the simplest cases, is unlikely to coalesce into an effective force for any purpose — except maybe self-destruction. Our enemies were smart enough to know that when they began their once-subtle (but no longer subtle) program to bring “diversity” to America.

Our enemies like to claim that a race-based state would be “dictatorial” and “oppressive.” Absurd. A blood-based nation, with its relative lack of social conflict, could thrive under a far more limited government than we endure today. So it is hardly fair to state that advocates of White self-determination are apostles of tyranny. We would decriminalize the right of free association. The last thing we want to do is rule over others. We want all others to rule themselves.

We hope for a new paradigm under which a man has the ability to live in a country of his own people, run by his own people, and for his own people; with full self-determination and independence for that people.

Perhaps there’s even a place for the deluded souls who want to stay with multiracialism. Perhaps they might be allowed their own state where they may continue indulging in their terminal obsession without killing or infecting my children. They could name that place Hell, for all I care. But they absolutely must not interfere with or threaten our people in any way.

Left to themselves, Europeans tend to devise societies relatively congenial to Europeans; Africans to Africans, and so on. The Old America, before she was destroyed by the multiracialists and their employers, was a marvelous nation, and a place congenial to the White men and women who built her — and a fine place to raise White children. But she was far from perfect. Her racial laws and racial consciousness were not explicit enough, not as fundamental and deeply ingrained as they should have been. In the American renaissance we envision, the Constitution and laws and other public institutions must be amended to render the present ongoing genocide of our people absolutely impossible.

Racial disagreements and conflicts and parasitism fill our newspapers from front to back every day, and are the driving force behind much unconstitutional government action. By allowing each race its own government, governmental intrusion into our lives would decrease overall, especially considering the fact that the European race invented and seems particularly skilled at self-government. Non-Whites, with vanishingly small exceptions, have existed in perpetual tyranny. Let them have whatever form of government seems best to them, however intrusive and statist it might seem to us. And let us have our own way.

An excellent first step would be to re-legalize freedom of association in employment, education, neighborhoods, and businesses. Thus would the races peacefully re-segregate themselves, voluntarily, as they do everywhere they still can legally do so today, such as in school lunchrooms. We would call also for an immediate restoration of free speech on racial matters, an end to all Jewish censorship efforts, and the use of all America’s influence and power to obtain the release of thought criminals like Ernst Zundel around the world.

For those who have attempted to submerge our race and nation in their New World Order, we will call for a fair trial.

* * *

RECENTLY, I had to change planes at Philadelphia International Airport on my way back from the Phoenix Eurofest. Philadelphia International Airport is not an attractive place.

I needed to go from my arrival gate to a departure gate in a distant part of the huge complex, so I had to use a shuttle bus. I and a dozen other passengers had an interminable wait for the bus to arrive, while standing in a chairless and filthy room that smelled strongly of cigarettes even though there was a prominent “No Smoking” sign on the wall. My theory is that the place hadn’t been cleaned since the Ford administration. The “diverse” workforce there didn’t look like they had much pride in the place. In fact, they looked like they shared at least one thought with me: They just wanted to get out of there as soon as possible.

Finally, the shuttle bus arrived, discharged its passengers, and we got on. Then there was another wait of about 15 minutes, for no discernible purpose that I could see. I sat with my luggage and looked at my surroundings through the bus’s greasy windows and open doors.

As I sat and waited and inhaled air which smelled like a toxic cocktail of latrine, diesel exhaust, and kerosene, I noticed a remarkable thing. Except for my fellow passengers, I could not see a single living thing at that airport. There were no living birds in the sky, just metal birds. Not a single blade of grass was visible from where I sat. Every square inch of the Earth’s surface that I could see was paved with slovenly-made and lumpy asphalt and painted with faded arcane symbols. All around me, as far as the eye could see in every direction, were angular and ugly “modern” buildings of corroded metal and dirty glass, covering hundreds of acres, doubtlessly larger in area than some small cities. The sky was a shifting haze of different shades of brown and grey, without a trace of blue.

As I realized what I was seeing — or, rather, what I was not seeing — I turned in every direction to try to find an exception, to try and find a single sign of Nature and Life. But I couldn’t. It was a totally artificial, totally dead, world.

And just as I was feeling the bleakness and ugliness and utter totality of this dead world that man had built, just at that very instant, something amazing happened.

A dandelion seed, suspended by its little snow white parachute, floated in through the open door of the bus and landed on my arm. I looked down in amazement at this little answer to my seeking, at this tiny messenger of Life.

And I realized at that moment that this bit of genetic code, this seed, could utterly defeat and obliterate the huge city-sized complex of steel and wire and petroleum and electricity where I was temporarily trapped. The humblest seed has the force of Life within it. Through growth, it has the power to crack any stone and overturn even the strongest artificial foundation that can be built. And it has the power to multiply itself a million times squared and squared again. And it has the power and the patience to ever renew itself, to replace itself — and so to be ever young and strong and growing.

And that airport — and even all of Philadelphia itself or even all of man’s civilization itself — could not prevail against that single seed without the constant application of our efforts to renew what we have built. Turn away but a moment in historical time, and the seed will prevail. The asphalt runways will be ground into dust again by the seed’s trillion offspring in a new green forest whose denizens will never know that they stand on what was once called Philadelphia.

That tiny seed, which did not even span my fingernail, has the power to do all this; it has the power of Life, the greatest power the universe has ever seen.

We too have the power of Life within us. We too can be ever-renewing, ever-young, vital, and expanding. We can build a world incomparably greater than anything which has been seen before. We can defeat the artificial construct of multiracialism. We can defeat the death-world of globalism and the “nation as idea.” We can build a blood-based nation. All Nature cries out that ours is the right way, the natural way. We have the power of Life within us. Our enemies do not. Their path leads to death. Ours leads to renewed Life and immortality for our people.

Life trumps the artificial constructs of man every time. Let us live our lives with that in mind.

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.

James Watson, who once said re eugenics: "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great."

by Kevin Alfred Strom

(sent to the Economist last November 10th but not published)

SIR:  THE AUTHOR of ‘The Nature of Nurture‘ deserves to be fired on the grounds of scientific illiteracy and an egregious lack of journalistic integrity.

He unjustifiably insults James Watson, the co-discoverer of the DNA double helix, as ‘stupid’ for making the incontrovertibly true assertion that the average intelligence level of Africans differs from that of Europeans. Decades of scientific tests confirm that fact, and it is simply not in dispute.

The major human races differ in average intelligence as well as in many other characteristics — and it would indeed be astonishing if they did not, considering that they have evolved along unique paths for thousands of generations.

Just because one of the lamentable effects of modern economic theories and quasi-religious belief systems is the gradual elimination of this precious human biodiversity through mixing is no reason for pretending it doesn’t exist — or for punishing truth-tellers like Dr. Watson. Economic determinists and equalitarians, the bell tolls for thee.

Sincerely,

Kevin Alfred Strom.

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.