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

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

by Kevin Alfred Strom

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

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

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

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

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

What exactly is multiracialism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Solution to the Race Problem?

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

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

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

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

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

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

What if our positions were reversed?

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

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

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

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

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

But cultures do change!

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

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

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

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

What will racial mixture bring?

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

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

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

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

It’s magic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*   *   *

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

CRAZY PEOPLE say some really funny things, if you like absurd humor. A crazy person may believe that locomotives are actually made out of marshmallows. Or he may think that the only reason we can’t drink bleach without harmful effects is because we haven’t prayed to the right deity in precisely the right manner. And some lunatics are quite intelligent in their way, and may be able to produce creative and internally consistent arguments at some length to justify their positions, even if their premises are quite nutty. And all that’s good for a laugh.

For example, one Flat Earth believer insisted that the Earth was two-dimensional and shaped like a plate. And he could even explain how, on this plate-shaped Earth, people could apparently travel in a straight line and eventually end up back at their starting point. “They simply fall off the edge,” he said, “and since the Earth is two-dimensional with no thickness whatsoever, they ‘fall’ into an area comprising no space at all and reappear instantly on the opposite side of the plate to resume their straight-line journey back to their starting point.”

“But,” someone objected, “wouldn’t people notice all this ‘falling off’ and being transported across thousands of miles?”

But the Flat Earther had an answer for that. “No, they wouldn’t,” he continued. “Since the area ‘off the edge’ of the Earth comprises no space, it therefore takes no time to traverse it, and the traveller is not even aware of his movement.”

All very logical, of course, if you accept the man’s premises. Even ingenious. But still completely insane.

We can laugh at our Flat Earther. And we should laugh at the multiracialist who believes that all human races are “equal,” or that “races do not exist,” for his ideas are equally kooky — and are even more at variance with observed reality than the Flat Earther’s. But crazy people are funny only at a distance. When they’re in the same room with you, you start getting nervous — and for good reason. If they ever get the upper hand over the sane people, then it’s really time to worry.

It’s all well and good for kooks to spout their theories behind padded walls or in isolated basements. But when they have the power to hold your wife and children on the railroad track so they can sample the delights of the rapidly-approaching marshmallow locomotive, then they become deadly. When they require us all to drink bleach because the right gods have been propitiated, then they are homicidal. And when they decide that “races don’t exist” or that “we’re all the same” and then start opening our borders and making social policy and propaganda to encourage racial mixing, then they are genocidal — and they must be stopped.

Eventually, we’ll have to remove all such people from positions of power. For now, I think that one of the best weapons against them is laughter — the demonstration that multiracialist ideas are indeed quite insane. This will help build the consciousness and confidence of Whites who have remained rational — and it will jar some of the good but miseducated folks who accepted multiracialism back into sanity. Let’s take a look at some of the multiracialists’ lunacy.

Groupthink: Suppressing Real Thinkers

Much of what passes for writing and education today contains an implicit assumption that is totally erroneous: the assumption that it is somehow “immoral” to recognize the reality of the inequality of the human races.

First of all, I see no validity whatsoever in any moral system which condemns free inquiry, rational thought, or recognition of ascertained facts. And I am going to question such pernicious nonsense wherever it appears.

To our shame, there was once a religio-legal system in place in the West which imprisoned or killed persons who questioned the existence of transubstantiation or demons (and many other fantastic delusions, too numerous to list). I have publicly condemned that system, and continue to do so, and obviously do not want it to return.

But we are returning to it, in a way.

We of the West are now veering toward the establishment of the doctrine of “equality” — racial, and other varieties as well — as a kind of secular religion. The “hate crime” laws which are now being imposed by the elites’ hired legislators (with the acquiescence of the boobs) are part and parcel of the new faith: Like most priesthoods, the prime movers of the “equality” hoax have a yen to punish, imprison, or kill those who question their profitable racket. In some countries, like Canada and Germany, they already have that power. (The same thing applies to belief in “the Holocaust,” another faltering styrofoam prop of the current establishment.)

‘Racism’

A precursor to the legal persecution of those perceptive enough to realize that neither individuals nor races are, or should be, “equal” is the promotion (only begun in the last few decades, by the way) of the idea that such “evil” thoughts constitute “racism” and that “racism” is an awful awful bad thing — mustn’t do or Daddy spank. Slowly the idea is being added that not only is “racism” veddy veddy bad, but it is also somehow illegal.

Preposterous? Well, demons, witches, and transubstantiation are preposterous, too, but hundreds of thousands have been killed by “well-meaning” folks fired up for blood by an utterly false and insane belief system. I don’t want it to happen again.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the human races are equal in intelligence (or in many other characteristics), and in fact it would be a bizarre anomaly of Nature if they were. After many thousands of years of divergent evolution in vastly different environments, it would be astounding if we found the human races to be “equal” in physical structure or mental conformation. The whole concept of the evolution of life by branching and speciation depends on the ever-flowering inequality of races or subspecies. This applies to every form of life and, frankly, it’s not quite sane to believe it doesn’t apply to human beings.

There should be no moral opprobrium attached to the stating of this obvious fact.

I once had a multiracialist “explain” to me the consistent failure of Blacks and Mestizos to achieve at a level comparable to Whites. He said: “The only reason they could possibly fail is if they are discriminated against.” So, in his mind, “equality” of the races is a given, an almost divine law of the universe. The only reason we don’t have racial equality in the real world — the only reason — is “discrimination” by Whites. He then went on to demonize “discrimination,” as if it were a Satanic thing practiced by Whites for the sole purpose of preventing his perfect heaven of “equality” from coming into being.

But racial “discrimination” merely means choosing between races for some purpose. For example, when the founding fathers of this country instituted the Naturalization Act of 1790 (in effect until treasonously abrogated in 1952), which explicitly stated that only members of the European race could become citizens of the United States, they were certainly choosing in that sense. They were trying to ensure the practical fulfillment of what had been stated in the Constitution: that this new nation was for their “sacred posterity” — that is, the actual lineal descendants and kin of the European men and women making up this nation. They chose not to give their new nation, purchased at the cost of so much blood and toil, to others.

If you are an American basketball coach engaged in a bidding war to award “scholarships” to some of the lengthier African tribesmen, you too are engaged in racial “discrimination,” though of the crassest commercial sort.

Discrimination merely means choosing between alternatives. The expression “discriminating shoppers,” meaning “intelligent shoppers who care about quality,” survives in American English as a reminder of the original meaning of the word in the days before the insanity really got started.

Racial “segregation” — which multiracialists condemn as even more terrible than discrimination — is, of course, the state of affairs which obtained between the races, wherever they intersected, for millennia before the advent of multiracialism and the equality cult. Absent laws forcing their association, the vast majority of the members of all human races segregate themselves quite naturally. An examination of high school lunchrooms — or metro area neighborhoods — in “racially diverse” areas will easily confirm this.

Before the racial “equality” nuttiness came on the scene, people organized their societies that way naturally without even thinking about it. Even today, Whites who are as “liberal” as you can get without actually being off your rocker still make housing purchase decisions in a manner absolutely indistinguishable from contributors to National Vanguard.

It’s unconscious. It’s biological. And it really has nothing to do with “hate” — and everything to do with divergent evolution.

If you are not free to discriminate, you are not free to choose.

If you may only discriminate when an authority says your choice is based on what the authority says is “relevant” (as in “best qualified for the job” or “able to pay,” or whatever), then you are a slave to that authority.

I prefer the principles of the founders of my nation, the United States of America, which give me the freedom to choose and to decide for myself what is relevant and what is not.

Persecution, Hate, and Conflict: Caused by Multiracialism

Multiracialists often claim that racial realists like us want to persecute and dominate other races. As far as persecution and domination are concerned, I’m absolutely against them. They implicitly assume a multiracial society. Wherever two or more races are required to live under the same government, there is always racial conflict and claims of domination or “unfairness.”

Once every race has its independence and freedom, and its own territory, such things will be as rare as racial conflict is in Iceland or Japan today. The Maxim of Self-Determination eliminates and makes impossible persecution and domination of one people by another to the same extent that it facilitates racial separation. It’s in the forced multiracialist states — which sadly includes most of the White world these days — where racial conflicts erupt. The multiracialist belief is the precise opposite of the truth.

The Law

Multiracialists condemn the former American laws which, until quite recently, prevented marriage between members of different races. Laws forbidding racial intermarriage were, as Jefferson stated, an unfortunate necessity because of the proximity of the races — unless one was willing, as the Founding Fathers and most Americans throughout history were not, to accept the genocide, by mixing, of one’s own race.

Jefferson, along with many other founders and also Abraham Lincoln, thought that the best answer was racial separation on a continental scale: that is, repatriation of Africans to the land of their ancestors, or, in the interest of economy, their transportation to the island of Santo Domingo in the Caribbean.

Multiracialists reject the rational and humane vision of the Founders. They dream of racial mixing as an ideal — they dream of racial mixing like some people dream of the Second Coming or winning the Publisher’s Clearinghouse sweepstakes. They dream of racial mixing as if it will usher in a new, ideal world of good and virtue. They are dangerous, crazy people. One actually told me once: “When we have mixed our gene pools enough, probably 10 or 20 generations from now, we will all be pretty close to the same color. End of the race issue. Interbreeding between races improves genetic vigor and dilutes race-specific defects… I am doing my part, as often as is practical.”

I am glad that such multiracialists forthrightly admit that they want the genocide and extinction of our race — most of their ilk are not so honest.

Fantasy Future

But I am afraid that their dream of the one happy mixed race of the future is a hopeless fantasy.

Wherever racial mixing has occurred on a large scale, the result has not been one harmonious mixed race, but exactly the opposite. New racial combinations come into being, with multiple layers of stratification, and there is a tremendous increase in racial conflict. (Spike Lee’s School Daze dealt with this process of race-formation and stratification among Mulattos and Blacks.)

India, which has now spun off into four separate nations, with at least another two about to be born in blood, is a good example; as is Brazil, where they are now shooting unwanted Mulatto children like mad dogs in the streets, with the apparent approval of many in all social classes, who are now so degraded that they only wish to see life go on with a minimum of trouble.

Those are not futures I would wish on my children. The only way to prevent them is to preserve the European racial character of our nation.

‘Race Does Not Exist’

Multiracialists like to claim that since many racial traits have no hard-edged geographic boundaries, that therefore “race does not exist.”

I am sure that few would assert, because the Earth’s atmosphere possesses no hard-edged boundary with the emptiness of interplanetary space, that the atmosphere does not exist or that it is identical to a vacuum.

The boundaries between pre-man and man were also not hard-edged when we were diverging from our pre-human ancestors. That racial division led to a very significant speciation indeed.

There is also an infinite series of gradations and no hard-edged boundaries between Lake Itasca, the Mississippi River, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Atlantic Ocean. I think we shall have to agree, though, that it is not wicked to regard the Atlantic Ocean as different in many most significant ways from Lake Itasca. And there are special rooms for people who seriously believe that these gradations somehow prove that the Mississippi River doesn’t exist.

And, further, there is a very long series of gradations of life forms between pond scum and the Queen of England, and the precise divisions we make between all of these life forms are to some degree “social” and arbitrary. But they are also useful; they describe real hereditary distinctions of structure and behavior; and they have greatly increased our understanding of the Life processes which allowed something not too dissimilar from pond scum to eventually become the Queen of England.

It is also true that chemical waste dumps blend to some extent with ground water, and that without extensive tests you cannot be sure that your well water is absolutely pure. But that is no excuse for pouring in a quart of dioxin, or for claiming that dioxin is “the same” as water. That’s essentially what the multiracialists are doing to our gene pool.

Everyone who acknowledges the evolutionary process acknowledges that races exist. (It’s only when we come to the ever-so-sensitive topic of human races that religious and political delusions make some avert their eyes from reality.)

The Engine of Evolution

Race-formation is the very engine of evolution itself. Without it, Life as we know it would be impossible.

Due to mutations and the actions of natural selection on existing variations, new types develop. When these varieties become significantly distinct, we call them races or subspecies. When they become even more distinct, diverging to the point where interbreeding is the exception rather than the rule, or even becomes impossible, then we call them a new species.

All mammals had a common ancestor (now extinct), and there are now many species of mammal. Therefore all existing mammal species must have gone through a race-divergence process, evolving into many different subspecies and eventually new species.

Note that we are applying hard-edged concepts (species, subspecies) upon what is really a continuous process, the branching process of divergence and speciation.

This divergence has certainly happened to the human races, and indeed it would be a biological wonder approaching the fantastic if it hadn’t. In fact, it is still happening.

The Most Significant Question

The really interesting question isn’t where we hang the precise labels of race and species, though.

The question of greatest significance is this:

Will we, through our social policies and our popular mythologies, allow this branching process to continue; or will we attempt to terminate it?

Speciation is a gradual process which could not happen without race-formation. It’s absurd to deny this.

Race-formation occurs even in beings not possessing a consciousness, such as plants, and in fact took place for many millennia before the development of consciousness in any form. Astoundingly, all of this happened despite the fact that the big-brained multiracialists weren’t provided with a definition of race that suited them.

To claim that we must precisely or genetically define races before we acknowledge their existence is equivalent to claiming that Amazonian tribesmen may not distinguish between food and offal because they haven’t studied the chemical structures thereof.

Actually, it’s even more ridiculous than that: it is equivalent to claiming, because the tribesmen can’t make the requisite molecular diagrams, that there actually is no difference between the waste products of a chicken and its eggs.

So multiracialism is an absurd and dangerous body of ideas, bound to be ultimately fatal to any people that embraces it for long.

Cui bono?

The Jewish supremacists who dominate our media have promoted multiracialism 24 hours a day for two generations at least. Yet, clearly, from their opposition to Jewish intermarriage and their support of the racial-nationalist-supremacist state of Israel, we can see that they clearly do not believe in such insanity themselves.

So why do they promote it to us? Their culture is one of infiltrating and altering the other cultures within which they live. What they promote for us is based on what they want us to do. And what they want us to do is not what is best for us, but whatever they believe is best for them. That — like their talent for haggling over the price of a carpet in a Levantine market, or for getting the rubes to think the pea is definitely under the third shell — may ultimately be genetic.

To be continued

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

by Kevin Alfred Strom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

WHAT WOULD YOU SAY if a Liberal “social scientist” told you to jump into a pool filled with five hundred ravenous piranhas?

If you valued your life, you’d certainly refuse the invitation.

But what if the Liberal “social scientist” tried to convince you to go ahead and jump in, with the argument that “not all of the piranhas are aggressive. Some of them probably just want to make friends with you, and really aren’t hungry either. To say that a piranha is going to attack you, just because he’s a piranha, is a wicked stereotype, and probably contributes to the piranhas’ negative feelings about you.”

If that argument was made to you, would you then jump into the pool filled with piranhas? I don’t think so. You’d probably reason, quite logically, that even if there were one or two or even a dozen piranhas that by chance or due to a recent meal decided not to attack you, that certainly wouldn’t change the bloodthirsty behavior of the other 488.

And it certainly wouldn’t change the outcome of any foolish foray into the pool.

But let’s say you were foolish enough to listen to the Liberal “social scientist,” and you did jump into the pool filled with piranhas. You somehow managed to survive. You made it to the other side of the pool, where you jumped out, but you were seriously injured in the process. After you got out of the hospital, where your wounds were stitched up and your lost blood was replaced, you were paid a visit by your old “friend,” the Liberal “social scientist.”

Needless to say, you weren’t too happy to see him, but before you could say a word, he started talking.

“I’m awfully sorry to see how you’ve been hurt,” he said, “but it isn’t my fault at all, you see.”

You replied, “You mean, oh great and wise social scientist, that you can finally see that those piranhas are vicious and I don’t belong in the pool with them?”

“No, I don’t mean that at all,” answered the Liberal “social scientist,” “It’s not the piranhas’ fault that you almost got eaten alive. It’s not the poor piranhas’ fault at all! It’s your fault!”

“My fault!” you exclaimed, “How the Hell could it be my fault?”

“Ah, how little you bourgeois middle Americans understand,” sighed our Liberal genius, “Don’t you see that what happened to you only happened because those poor piranhas were underprivileged and hungry? If you’d given them enough food and a decent chance at life, then they wouldn’t have attacked you like they did. When was the last time you helped a piranha? They’ve been struggling for centuries while your kind lived in luxury. Don’t you think it’s time the tables were turned? And not only that, but you ordinary Americans have caused the poor innocent piranhas to feel left out in your society. Naturally they harbor negative feelings about you, when you never want to have anything to do with them. You should understand that we all hate what we don’t know. We must integrate piranhas into our society, keep them in our swimming pools and bathtubs and introduce them into all our rivers, mountain streams, and lakes. By associating with piranhas every day, and by feeding them as much as they want to eat, eventually a spirit of brotherhood will emerge and we and the piranhas will live together in peace, harmony, and joyous diversity evermore.

“But you, Mr. Ordinary American” — and here the Liberal “social scientist” thrust his flabby little finger into your face — “you are going to have to change your evil ways before we can have that happy world!”

“You’re out of your mind!” you replied. “Piranhas may be fine in the Amazon jungle, but you’re crazy if you think we can live and associate with them every day. We and they just don’t belong together — and if you’re so in love with piranhas, why don’t you go on a little swim with them? And if you think I’m going to waste my money and time feeding them and helping them multiply just so they can eat me and my family alive at some time in the future, Mr. Genius social scientist, then you’ve got another think coming!” With that you kicked his delicate carcass downstairs.

Still smarting from his fall, and rapidly retreating backwards, the Liberal “social scientist” shook his spindly fist and called back to you, “Your generation is hopeless. You’ll never understand the need to integrate with and support piranhas. But your children will. Our ‘brotherhood’ program at the elementary school will teach them that it’s their duty to live with and help the poor piranhas. They’ll be swimming with them every day at the school’s pool. And that’s just the first step! There’s nothing you can do about it!”

Gradually the voice of your former friend the Liberal faded away, but he certainly gave you something to think about, didn’t he?

The ‘Liberal Social Scientist’ Returns

Now it seems Mr. Social Scientist has become a bird lover. He’s still smarting from the last time you kicked him downstairs, but just to show you that there are no hard feelings, he has decided to invite you to a meeting of an organization he’s working with called the “Bird Benevolent Society.” Since you’ve always been a bird watcher and animal lover, and since you foolishly believe that the Liberal Social Scientist has learned a lesson, you agree that you’ll go.

On the appointed day you show up at the meeting hall, and find several hundred other people, some obviously drawn from the dregs of society by their appearance, but also mixed with a strong contingent of the empty-headed wealthy, whom you’ve seen at various charitable and “world-improving” functions in town. There’s the usual collection of “homeless advocates,” pervert agitators, “Feed the Africans” charity types, and a motley collection of minority activists and “Rainbow Coalition” idiots.

All the conversations in the room stop when our learned humanitarian friend, the Liberal Social Scientist, strides past his international banker and tax-exempt foundation friends up to the podium to address the group.

He clears his throat and begins speaking:

“Welcome dear friends and friends of progress,” he says, “to this meeting of the Bird Benevolent Society. I know that we are all united in our love for our feathered friends, the birds, and I know that we all yearn to bring them into the coming new millennium of progress and unity and global cooperation and peace. But the birds of this world are being held back by evil ideas and outmoded traditions that border on fascism. It will be the mission of the Bird Benevolent Society to enlighten the birds and help them to change their ways, assisted by you people of goodwill, and of course by government grants of taxpayer money and the behind-the-scenes help of my banker and foundation friends here beside me on the dais.

“We look at the world of the birds with dismay and sadness. Everywhere we find disunity, strife, misunderstanding, and conflict. We see the sparrows off in one corner among themselves, eating seeds and singing their songs; while off in another far corner are the eagles, fishing in the sea and singing an altogether different song. Every species and variety of bird seems to have its own place, its own territory, and this leads to conflict among birds. Every species of bird has its own habits and behavior and language and this leads to misunderstanding among our feathered friends. It leads to further and further separation and isolation among the different types of birds and we all must of course agree that this simply won’t do in this modern age of global unity, peace, and understanding. I call all this separation and misunderstanding ‘bird racism.’

“We must conquer these problems. What we will do is this: We will gather all the birds of the world together, and teach them a new way of living, all for their own good, of course. The eagle will nest with the sparrow, the chicken with the crows, and the cardinal with the chickadee. By close association, they will eventually come to love each other, aided by our extensive program of re-education which will replace the old bird-racist ways taught to the young birds by their parents. After a few generations of enforced togetherness, the birds will forget their evil old ways and will never know that they were separate species once upon a time. We will call this bird-paradise the ‘United Birds.’

“And then, my friends,” and here our Liberal Social Scientist’s eyes begin to gleam, “we will begin the final phase of our plan, which is really the ultimate solution to all the problems of the birds. We will teach the birds that it is virtuous and desirable for them to choose mates who are not of their own species. Black birds will mate with white birds, and red with yellow, and so forth. Our educational programs will teach them that it is the worst kind of wickedness and evil to oppose this. Of course, we know that this goes against the instincts of the birds, and so we might have some trouble with it. But within the structure of the United Birds, we will have complete control over all education and information received by the birds. Even their recreational activities will be under our guidance. So we are confident that, in time, our efforts to encourage cross-species mating will be successful, and there will be a new kind of bird in the world — one kind of bird — a one-world bird — a true citizen of the United Birds, with its mind and behavior molded by our scientific guidance, totally free of the old ways of separation and conflict.”

A huge wave of applause fills the meeting hall, and the wealthy members of the audience begin to pull out their checkbooks to make donations to the Bird Benevolent Society. But you’ve sat there politely listening to this nonsense long enough. You leap up onto the dais, grab the microphone, and begin speaking:

“You people are crazy to give money to this outfit! Bird Benevolent Society, indeed! This organization must be run by people who hate birds, not love them! Different species’ different habits and ways are the result of thousands and thousands of years of natural selection. Each is particularly suited to its environment, both in its physical appearance and in its mental makeup and behavior. That’s what makes a blue jay not only look different from a cardinal, but act different, too. The difference in external appearance is just a sign of the inner difference in genetic makeup, which determines how they act, what they eat, how they choose a mate and build a nest, raise their young and every other thing they do. If you force them to live together and to give up their different modes of living, you’ll just end up causing conflict, violence, confusion and misery for them instead of the paradise you’re promising! Their natural, inborn differences are what make our feathered friends what they are! Can’t you see that? Can’t you see that you’ll be destroying all that by making them all mix together, that you’ll literally be killing them? How dare you try to tear down all that Nature has taken millennia to build up! How dare you claim you are doing this for the ‘good’ of the birds! How dare you call yourselves bird lovers! And let me ask you this question, what the Hell good does it do for you to set up this United Birds nonsense? Why can’t you just leave the birds alone to live as they always have, just as Nature intended?”

At this point, your old friend the Liberal Social Scientist motions to a couple of burly men in dark uniforms, who proceed to remove you from the stage and into a back room, where you are roughed up enough to keep you quiet for a while. Then the Liberal Social Scientist enters the room and gives you a little lecture:

“My friend, my friend, you have so much to learn — and to unlearn — here in the New World Order. I can’t have you doing foolish things and wrecking our well-laid plans. But you have drive and energy that we may be able to use someday, once you learn the rules. So I will be happy to explain what we are doing in, ah, a bit more detail. Have you caught your breath enough to ask me some questions?

“Ah, well, I see you’re in no condition to speak at the moment. Here’s my handkerchief, wipe that horrid blood away. I hope you’ve learned your lesson and your place. I think I can anticipate your questions anyway.

“Look out that window on your left, and you’ll see our construction crews putting the finishing touches on our latest building project. You see they’re not working in wood or brick. Because they’re not building a headquarters for the Bird Benevolent Society. No indeed, they’re working in wire mesh, building a great dome, just one of many great wire mesh domes we are building, within which will be the United Birds itself. We’ve found that the poor birds don’t know what’s good for them, and are constantly trying to find a way to fly away from us, so we’re building these new homes for them, where our great social experiment can take place. Oh, it’s true, some have called them cages, but we prefer to call them planned housing projects. And of course, there are many birds outside the domes still living in the old ways, but soon we will have enough of the United Birds in our peace-keeping forces trained to attack their fellows who refuse to submit to our beneficent rule, and I can confidently predict that within a few years the United Birds will encompass all birds and there will simply be no place to fly to that isn’t already under our central administration. Then we can go on to the final stage of our glorious plan.

“Oh, and I almost forgot your final impertinent question. You wanted to know what we got out of it, what our personal motivation was for this plan for social change among the birds. I seem to recall you even questioned our right to call ourselves ‘bird lovers.’ Well we are bird lovers — of a kind. We want a world of peaceful birds, just as we said. Peaceful and docile. We want a world of well-educated birds, just as we promise. Educated — by us — to do what we want them to do. We want a world of birds which has forgotten their own separate and traditional ways, since those old ways might get in the way of our plans and might form the basis of loyalty and cohesion among some birds. We don’t want that. We want their loyalty to be only to us, only to the United Birds.”

And at this point he turns to face you directly, with his hooked nose only an inch in front of yours, and he concludes his little lecture:

“Then it will be much easier for us to practice our love of birds. We did it all for the love of birds!”

And as he leers menacingly into your face you can detect the smell of raw flesh upon his breath, and you can see on his throbbing lower lip a thick drop of blood in which is suspended a tiny white feather.

*    *    *

These “Bird Lovers” Say They Love You, Too

I have little to add to this fable of the Liberal Social Scientist and the Bird Benevolent Society, except to say that the same kind of people who claim here to be bird lovers also say they’re just overflowing with love for you, too.

And if you can’t see through their nonsense about “world government” and “world law” and “peace-keeping forces” and “racial diversity” and the “democratic community of nations” and all the rest of it, then you and your family are nothing but food on the tables of your rulers, and you will deserve exactly what you get.

*    *    *

The illustrations used here were created by the Swedish Folktribunen.