ERECTUS WALKS: Richard D. Fuerle holds degrees in math (BS), law (JD), economics (MA), physics (BA), and chemistry (BA). He has written what may be one of the most important books on anthropology in this decade: Erectus Walks Amongst Us. He persuasively argues that racial differentiation preëxisted the emergence of “modern man” and that some of the ancient strains, though evolved, persist today; with the genetic difference from common ancestral types varying from race to race. Although Mr. Fuerle has generously made the entire book freely available as HTML on the ‘Net, I believe we should all support his efforts by buying the very impressive coffee-table size, lavishly illustrated physical book.

by Kevin Alfred Strom (pictured)

Free Speech magazine, December 1995

AUTHOR’S NOTE: This publication corrects some typographical errors and omissions which have been present since this article’s first appearance on the Internet in the 1990s. I would also add that the term “separatist” has become, in the intervening years, an opprobrious media smear word almost as frightening to two-legged rabbits as “supremacist.” The word “compound,” referring to someone’s rural house or business or intentional community, is another coöpted word which has been given newly-negative implications.  – K.A.S., January 26, 2009

I RECEIVED an electronic mail message a while back accusing me of being a “White supremacist.” I won’t give the name of the person who wrote me with this comment, even though he left the message, including his name, in a public forum on a computer network that can be accessed by anyone. I won’t give his name because he didn’t give me permission to do so. I had left a message on the computer network, asking everyone who read the message to tune into American Dissident Voices, and giving our latest radio schedule.

This fellow wrote back, without so much as a how-do-you-do, and called me a “White supremacist,” and a few other names that I won’t mention. Well, I’m not a White supremacist. But the fact that this person called me one is illustrative of just how much ignorance and malicious misinformation is out there when it comes to racial matters in general and the ADV program in particular.

My dictionary defines “White supremacy” as “The doctrine arising from the belief that the White race is superior to the Negro race and that the latter must therefore be kept in an inferior economic and social position.” To explain a little further, a White supremacist believes that the different races ought to live together in the same society, and that the Whites ought to rule over the other races. I don’t believe in that idea at all.

I believe that each race or ethnic group within a race, which considers itself to be a separate and distinct people with its own distinctive qualities and values and interests, ought to be free to pursue its destiny with perfect independence and freedom. And I am rational enough to see that when different races are forced to live together in the same society, their interests naturally collide and each group will try to get its way. This always results in one group dominating the others. Sometimes the tables will be turned and a group on the bottom will take control and wreak vengeance on their former oppressors.

But whenever people are forced to live in a multiracial society, there is almost always this situation of conflict and/or supremacy. I also note that force is usually necessary to create a multiracial society, since in nations, neighborhoods and school lunchrooms, human beings naturally gravitate to their own kind. This is a behavioral characteristic that is inborn in us and therefore, we must agree, of value.

No matter how many “integration” laws the criminals in Washington pass, this natural tendency to want to live and work among one’s own kind, this self-segregation if you will, continues to confound the bureaucrats. Left-wing intellectuals regularly wring their hands over the supposedly terrible fact that the races in the United States are nearly as separate now as they were in those supposedly bad old days thirty years ago.

I’m not for White supremacy, Black supremacy, Jewish supremacy, or any other kind of supremacy in a multiracial nation. We’ve taken a multiracial road in America, first with slavery, and now, more than ever, with integration. It has been a disaster for everybody. It ripped America apart once, and, if we let it go on too much longer, it will rip it apart again.

If you must choose a label for me, make it Nationalist or Separatist — not supremacist. Since I am a White American and I care about the future of my people — and I dare you to say that there’s anything wrong with that — I suppose you could call me a White Separatist. I find common ground with separatists and nationalists of other races, though, for they are mostly working for the same thing I am working for — the peaceful and voluntary separation of the races, and true independence and freedom for all peoples.

I find more common ground with Black or American Indian nationalists, for example, than I do with White liberals who want to force us all to mix together to fit their unrealistic dream of world government, or with rich White conservatives who want to force White working people to mix with Blacks and Mexicans because cheap labor increases their “bottom line.” I find no common ground with Whites who think like that!

Now, it may be argued that I would have to use force to separate the races and gain for each the independence and freedom that I desire. Well, our American forefathers had to use a bit of force to gain their independence and freedom from King George III; so, I suppose there is some merit in that line of reasoning. But the separatist idea has a lot going for it that I think makes it one of the most peaceful and non-violent ideologies extant. For one thing, as I’ve already said, people naturally form families, extended families, voluntary associations, and yes, nations and governments, with those with whom they feel a kinship, with those of their own race. So if you took away the implied force of all the so-called “integration” laws we have now, people would just continue to do what they have done naturally for many thousands of years, and 90% of the separation of the races would be done automatically, without a law being passed or a shot being fired.

In addition, large numbers of people, of all races, are already on our side, although they often don’t get to hear the separatist point of view because of certain interest groups that work to keep our books out of the libraries and our programs off the air.

The vast majority of decent White and Black people would prefer that their sons and daughters mate and marry among their own kind. I know this from personal experience, and the marriage statistics bear me out. Though the number of interracial unions has, tragically, increased, it is still a tiny fraction of the total despite the largest and most sustained propaganda drive in history promoting it from our pulpits, newsstands, television, Hollywood, and so-called “music videos.”

Since the majority of people want freedom and independence, and prefer to live under their own government and among their own kind, once we can get our separatist message spread far and wide, the situation may evolve to the point where on one side you’ll have the global elitists and their allies in the media and the bureaucracy who promote world government and multiculturalism — and on the other side you’ll have nearly everybody else. That is why the Anti-Defamation League and the other organizations of subversives and traitors in this country are so desperate to keep American Dissident Voices off the air. They realize that more and more people are wising up to their genocidal plans, and they want to plug the hole in their dike of media lies so that no more truth leaks out.

A lot of the people who are wising up to the genocidal nature of the multicultural agenda are Black people, Black nationalists to be exact. Pondering that fact, I am concerned by the realization that my own people have not measured up to other races in this regard. So I think I will confound my critics again by devoting the rest of this essay to describing, not the superiority, but the inferiority of the White race.

The inferiority of the White race is obvious. Now there are many ways in which we are superior, at least by our own standards. We did put a man on the Moon. We did invent the transistor and the computer and virtually every other technological marvel of this age. Our race has produced men like Shakespeare and Socrates, Pythagoras and Poe, Robert E. Lee and Julius Caesar, Michelangelo and William Shockley. These men and the civilizations that we and our kind have built are worthy and admirable. We deserve to survive. I have devoted a good part of my life to saying that.

But as worthy and admirable as our race may be, by our standards, it must be admitted that there is a higher standard. It is the only objective standard. It is Nature’s standard. As one of the greatest minds of this century, Dr. Revilo Oliver, has stated in his book America’s Decline:

“The only objective criterion of superiority, among human races as among all other species, is biological: the strong survive, the weak perish. The superior race of mankind today is the one that will emerge victorious — whether by its technology or by its fecundity — from the proximate struggle for life on an overcrowded planet.”

In other words, if we succeed in surviving the next few centuries, we can objectively be called superior to those races that do not survive. That’s a big “if.”

White Americans are at present markedly inferior to other races in many crucial survival skills. One such skill is the ability to organize and stand up for the interests of our own race. We are all familiar with the NAACP, the Nation of Islam, the Black Caucus, the Urban League, and many other racial organizations working for what they perceive to be the interests of Black people. Those well-known names are just the tip of the iceberg.

I have before me the standard reference work on organizations in the United States, the Encyclopedia of Associations. Under the category of Black organizations, I find some 300 separate listings, including the Black Book Writers Association, the National Association of Black County Officials, the National Association of Black and Minority Chambers of Commerce, the National Association of Black Veterans, National Association of African-American Students of Law, the Emergency Black Survival Fund, the Black United Fund, the Association of Black Women Historians, the National Conference of Black Mayors, the National Black-Owned Broadcasters Association, the Council for a Black Economic Agenda, the National Association of Black Journalists, etc., etc., etc. I could go on for hours.

Now let’s turn to the page which lists Jewish organizations. Numerically, there are far fewer Jews in the United States than Blacks — but in the Encyclopedia of Associations there are at least 600 Jewish organizations listed. We’ve all heard of the biggies — the B’nai B’rith, the American Jewish Committee, the Zionist Organization of America, etc. But have you heard of the other 5 or 6 hundred? The Jewish Committee on International Affairs, the Jewish Student Press Service, the Coordinating Body of Jewish Organizations, the Jewish Documentation Center, the Association of Jewish Campus Professionals, Association of Jewish Book Publishers, and on and on and on and on . . . .

Now far be it from me to criticize Black or Jewish people for organizing themselves. It is natural and logical for them to do so.

But ask yourselves this question: Do White people have comparable organizations to these, standing up for White American interests? Clearly, we do not. There is no White Press Council, no White Broadcasters Association, no Miss White America beauty contest, etc. If there were, can you imagine the stink that would be raised in the controlled media? In regard to having the will to organize for their own self-interest, White Americans are clearly inferior.

In defense of White Americans, it might be stated that there are some signs of hope. Two such hopeful signs are the organizations producing the ADV radio program and the Free Speech newsletter, and this Web site. It might also be stated that the criminal politicians and the controlled media do everything they can to suppress any effort at White American self-determination. But there is no excuse, really. The existing organizations for White Americans would have to be 10,000 times as large to be comparable to non-White organizations. And they aren’t. American Whites have proven themselves inferior in this crucial survival skill.

Another area of White American inferiority is our gullibility, which at times approaches the supernatural. We seem to have willingly suspended our critical faculties, and believe almost everything we are told.

Here’s one small example from recent history: I was listening to Tom Brokaw pontificate on NBC-TV a while back, and he said that Nelson Mandela was the first Black ruler of South Africa in over 300 years. Now that isn’t true. The truth is that Nelson Mandela is the first Black to rule South Africa ever. Anyone who cares to research the history of South Africa will find it recorded that the White pioneers of that land did not encounter Black tribes until they had pushed to their northern frontiers. Prior to the White settlement there was no nation of South Africa. After the White South Africans had built a civilization there, millions of Blacks willingly immigrated there because of the economic opportunities.

Now the White South Africans have proved their inferiority by abandoning their fair and reasonable program of setting aside separate territories for the various White and Black peoples of that region, called apartheid, and by acquiescing in the turnover of their entire nation to the Communist ANC.

When the controlled media told Americans over the last 30 years right up to today — that Nelson Mandela is a saint, a fighter for human rights and democracy in South Africa — the gullible Americans believed it. This is the same Nelson Mandela who authored the essay “How to be a Good Communist,” the same Nelson Mandela who regularly speaks before huge hammer-and-sickle Communist banners, witnessed by thousands. They tell you that Nelson Mandela is a demigod and a friend of Black people, and they tell you that I am a White supremacist. Well, I have never harmed a hair on the head of a single Black person, yet the controlled media would have you revile me as a so-called “hatemonger.” Whereas Nelson Mandela’s ANC, as has been extensively documented, has killed tens of thousands of Black people in South Africa, because they wouldn’t submit to Communist domination.

One of the main techniques used by the Communist ANC to discipline recalcitrant Blacks is called “necklacing.” In case you don’t know what necklacing is, I will describe it for you. Usually the tendons are cut in the victim’s arms and legs, so that he cannot flee or remove his “necklace.” The necklace is an old tire which has been soaked in gasoline, which is placed over the victim’s head and set on fire. Anyone unfortunate enough to witness a tire fire knows that tires burn slowly and are almost impossible to extinguish. The burning rubber slowly boils and bubbles its way into the victim’s skin. No matter how he rolls or struggles, nothing he does will put out the fire which is literally consuming him. He will die a prolonged and extremely painful death.

Multiply this picture in your mind by several tens of thousands, and you will have a realistic picture of just what a great friend of Black people Nelson Mandela really is. The victims of necklacing were almost all Blacks who opposed the Communist ANC. Nelson Mandela’s wife, Winnie Mandela, spoke for the ANC when she said, “With our matches and our necklaces we will liberate this country.”

All of these facts about Mandela and the ANC are in the public record. All of them could be found by anyone who wants to find out for himself. But most White Americans believe whatever they are told. The media masters in New York and Hollywood must laugh at our gullibility, at our belief in their picture of Nelson Mandela which is completely at variance with the facts. “We can make the American swine believe anything,” they must roar.

Regular readers of this magazine well know that Nelson Mandela is just one of many things that the media masters lie about. But the point I am trying to make is that most White Americans are very, very gullible. If you told them in a serious voice that the Martians had landed in New Jersey they would believe you. They won’t or can’t check the facts for themselves, and as long as the beer and the football and the girlie magazines keep coming, they apparently don’t care that their country is being stolen from them. Fifty years of lies from the controlled media, and still they believe, still they trust. These characteristics cannot be regarded as boding well for their future survival. They must be counted as more evidence for White inferiority.

But of course, not all White Americans are inferior.

There are more and more of us who are awakening to the fact that we have been used and lied to by the media and the government for our entire lives. And there are millions who may not have figured out the plan in detail, but who are nevertheless aware that something is seriously wrong in this country, who are just awakening to the fact that we have lost control of our nation and our destiny. It is my job — and it is your job too — to awaken those who can be awakened, to educate those who can be educated, to communicate the facts to those who can think for themselves — because in the next American revolution, they will be the only people who count.

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.