Hal Turner, Federal employee.

by Kevin Alfred Strom

MUCH HAS BEEN written about the effects of the Hal Turner conviction on what is left of free speech in America. I agree that it will have what lawyers and the cliché-ridden call a “chilling effect.” But so much of what has been written misses the most important fact in the case.

Hal Turner was a fake. A phony.

He was not really a critic of the regime in Washington.

He worked for that regime, and his job was 1) to make critics of that regime’s racial and foreign policies look like dangerous, violent lunatics by promoting stupidity and violence; and 2) to put the regime’s critics under close surveillance and, if possible, in jail. (I realized early on that he was a liar, that the articles he wrote were exaggerated or created out of whole cloth, and that his moronic “kill ’em” rhetoric was designed to defame and denigrate racially conscious Americans by association. He was enraged by my refusal to give him publicity.)

Despite the fact that he was fairly effective at his dishonorable profession, his employers were even more dishonorable.

A few months after a hacker publicly disclosed that Turner was working for the FBI’s “Joint Terrorism Task Force” (the same outlaw outfit that falsely charged and imprisoned me and was complicit in the theft of all of my property), his handlers decided he was more of a liability than an asset. So they arranged to have him prosecuted and imprisoned for doing the very things that they had hired and paid him to do.

There is a lesson here:

The regime in Washington and the ethnically distinct oligarchs that control it has no friends, and no honor. Cooperate with or work for it at your extreme peril.

This lesson will sooner or later be learned by the native inhabitants who have collaborated with the invaders in Afghanistan and Iraq. The regime in Washington will betray them when it is expedient to do so. And the Earth will be soaked red with their blood.

*   *   *

What will Hal Turner’s life be like in Federal prison?

His life may be in danger. Violence doesn’t happen every day, but it does happen. The billionaires’ media are allowed into the prisons, and the vilification of some prisoners as “haters” in the money-men’s press and TV does agitate the mostly-Black inmates, sometimes to fury.

There are some very nasty people in there, who — unlike me and the other 50 per cent. or so of innocent folks in prison — are really guilty of unimaginable crimes: people who enjoy hurting other people for the smallest reasons, or for the sheer fun of it. Or for racially- or politically-motivated “revenge.”

It’s doubtful that such persons would be able to comprehend the subtleties of Turner’s case, or care if they did.

There is little oversight of what prisoners do to one another in their huge filthy, open, stinking pens — sometimes none for hours at a time.

Turner will also will be provided with “medical care” that is essentially nonexistent, from alleged doctors who can’t make it in the real world (who might deign to see you if you’re in really severe pain… in a few days or weeks) and most of whom, like almost all the guards and administrators, don’t give a solitary damn and are there in Hell with you strictly for the Federal paycheck and retirement.

In addition to the violent criminals, there are some people in there — and some of these were falsely convicted, or convicted of “crimes” which shouldn’t be crimes — who are extremely bitter and are looking for any way out. Some of these will willingly lie and perjure themselves to help corrupt U.S. Attorneys advance their careers  — and get more convictions against hapless people in prison who have little or no means to defend themselves.

The system itself is a crime, and it is irremediably corrupt.

To put someone in that Hell who is guilty of nothing more than possessing a recreational drug — or not possessing the right paperwork for his firearm — or who is guilty of no crime whatsoever, as I was — is absolutely unconscionable.

I’m very leery of wishing that anyone — even the most thuggish Black drug dealer imaginable — be put into such a Hell. Like the system that created it, it is too cruel.

Of course, Hal Turner supported that system with all the vigor and dishonesty and cleverness he could muster. And he accepted the system’s filthy dollars. He helped put others — innocent others — into that Hell. So perhaps he is a special case.

POLITICAL PROSECUTION: At the urging of the Joint Terrorism Task Force, European-American activist and writer Kevin Alfred Strom is (wrongfully) convicted of possessing eight images of child pornography, based on the testimony of a perjurer who was having a relationship with the JTTF “investigating officer.” Kevin Strom is sentenced to 23 months in prison, most of that in brutal solitary confinement. He is placed under supervision for 15 years. Contrast that with the case of Korean-American “youth leader” Timothy Han of Miracleland Korean Baptist Church, who was convicted of actually having sex with a child. Han was sentenced to 45 days in jail and 45 days in a work-release program.

The Jewish Strategy by Revilo Oliver, Professor of the Classics at the University of Illinois

by Kevin Alfred Strom

QUITE A FEW READERS have written to ask about the availability of Revilo P. Oliver’s posthumous book, The Jewish Strategy, which I published in 2002. Almost all print copies of this book were stolen from me — and quite possibly destroyed — by the same individual who worked with the government to falsely accuse me of heinous crimes.

Though my reduced economic circumstances don’t allow me to bring out a new print edition at this time, I have recovered the PDF file from the printer (almost all of my computer files were stolen, too, including the original Framemaker files for this book and an unpublished book by Dr. Oliver on the John Birch Society) and I am happy to offer it as a free download. If you have learned or otherwise benefited from my efforts, please consider making a donation using the link in the upper right-hand column of my site.

The Jewish Strategy is a concise 101-page book on the Jewish people and their strategies, conscious and unconscious, to assure their biological survival, written from an uncommonly rational point of view by University of Illinois Classics professor and writer, the late Revilo P. Oliver.

The Jewish Strategy is not an ordinary book. Dr. Oliver, who was one of the founders of both National Review and the John Birch Society in the days when those entities still stood for the survival of Western culture and Western Man, gives us insight into the genesis, ancient and modern history, and probable future of the Jewish nation-state-people. Dr. Oliver states:

“The international race… by arduous, intelligent, and indefatigable work for more than twenty-five centuries, has, through its own efforts, made itself the major world power today.

“History provides no parallel for that stupendous accomplishment. It must be regarded with respect, even awe.”

Historian Mark Weber states that this book is “a very good one-volume, not-too-lengthy look at the Jewish strategy through the ages — from the perspective of a man who’s just about uniquely qualified to write on the subject.”

Weber continues: “The recent discussion about Mel Gibson’s film The Passion of the Christ has brought up the hostility that’s existed over time — on occasion, anyway — between Christian and Jewish interests in history. One of the values of this book by Revilo Oliver is to show that this same tension — this same strife — has existed in non-Christian societies as well. It’s not unique to Christian societies.

“Very often in the context of The Passion Jewish commentators have said in essence, ‘Well, you see, the problem of anti-Semitism is really rooted in Christianity and that’s why the Gibson film is really dangerous.’ Well, that’s really inaccurate. That’s just wrong, because the same tension and the same problems — the same difficulties that we’ve seen in Christian history, in Christian Europe, and the United States to some degree — have also been present wherever Jews have existed in large numbers in non-Christian societies. Right now, of course, this obviously exists in the Arab Muslim world, but as Oliver points out, it also existed in the Roman and Hellenic world before Christianity was really a factor.”

Read The Jewish Strategy and decide for yourself. And, if you enjoy wit and irony, Oliver’s Uber-Menckenesque style will not disappoint.

download the book

more from Revilo P. Oliver

PERSONAL BEAUTY AND RACE: Thanks to the Food of Vietnam site for excerpting my article “Beauty, Art, and Race” for their “Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder” series on the Westernization of standards of personal beauty in Asia. As they state, huge numbers of Asian men and women undergo painful and risky procedures every year to make their eyes, skin, and even bone structure look more like those of Europeans (click on image above). This goes against Nature and is fundamentally unhealthy, just as unhealthy as the adoption of “Ghetto” styles and standards by young Whites. In both cases, media-driven “pop culture” is the primary cause.

FRENCH TRANSLATION PUBLISHED: Thanks to the 843@rien site for publishing a French translation of my essay Facing Racial Realities, and thanks also to the indefatigable Irmin Vinson for doing the translation.

OUTRAGEOUS IMPRISONMENT: Two Britons — Simon Sheppard, a writer and behavioral scientist, and Stephen Whittle, a freelance writer and satirist — languished a year in American jails though they committed no crimes whatever under American law. They fled to the U.S. seeking asylum because they fell afoul of tyrannical anti-free-speech laws in Britain and faced imprisonment merely for expressing their ideas and publishing the ideas of others — such as Robert Crumb cartoons! — on a Web page. If anyone deserves asylum here, they do. The pair, dubbed the Heretical Two, are prime examples of our abandonment of our once-proud tradition of freedom of expression. They’ve now been forcibly returned to Britain, where they face sentencing for their “crimes” on July 10. Before we cast stones at Iran, we need to examine our own societies.

PROMOTE DIVERSITY: A college student wrote, saying that his teacher (with whom he did not agree!) was saying that interracial marriage “promoted diversity.” How sad. Especially sad since racial mixture doesn’t promote diversity — it destroys it.

It destroys biodiversity just like forcing or encouraging the varieties or subspecies of, say, eagles to live in the same territory and crossbreed would destroy biodiversity.

Just like forcing or encouraging the subspecies of the lovely shell-builders of the genus Murex to interbreed would destroy biodiversity — and destroy much unique beauty as well.

Evolution is the process which gave us all this diversity and beauty.

And evolution is a branching process, with subspecies varying — at first almost undetectably, then quite visibly — and eventually evolving apart enough to form new species.

It’s insane, pointless, and destructive to try and force the branches back together when they have begun to evolve apart, as the major human races certainly have.

LIBERALS AREN’T THE ENEMY: Too many Euro-folk have a habit of describing those who oppose our survival as “liberals.” But some of the most ferocious opponents of our self-determination today call themselves “conservatives” or “fundamentalists.” And it’s a bad idea to alienate those who self-describe as liberals. Many of them are intelligent, highly-evolved White people, with a strong streak of altruism (even if it is misdirected at times). Many of them understand how Zionism has hijacked the U.S. government. They most often believe in the validity of the scientific method and the reality of biological evolution — both of them absolutely crucial concepts for anyone who wants to understand our people’s plight and possible great destiny.

The lovely scarlet tanager: one of many songbirds threatened by invaders who induce the birds to care for alien offspring.

The threats to American songbirds dramatically illustrate the dire plight of European-Americans.

by Kevin Alfred Strom

published as part of the American Dissident Voices broadcast of August 10, 2005

ONE OF MY small pleasures in life is bird watching, which gives me some peace in this world of constant conflict.

Over the years, I have discovered that there is a great deal to be learned from our avian neighbors, lessons that illustrate the laws of Nature that apply to us as much as to them.

Recently, a listener sent me this article from the Richmond, Virginia Times-Dispatch entitled “Songbirds in the Midwest are singing cowbird blues — Raising orphaned chicks wipes out foster families”:

‘The Midwest has become a disaster area for migrant songbirds and a paradise for a feathered freeloader who tricks other birds into raising its young.

‘Songbirds that fly thousands of miles from South America to nest in the forests of the Midwest are being pushed toward population collapse by cowbirds that lay eggs in other birds’ nests and force the hosts to feed and nurture cowbird chicks.

‘A study to be published today in the journal Science shows that migrant songbird populations are in steep decline in the Midwest, and naturalist, Scott K. Robinson, of the Illinois Natural History Survey, says that parasitic cowbirds are the principal cause. Robinson said a single cowbird female lays eggs in a dozen songbird nests and then leaves them in the songbirds’ care. “The cowbirds hatch earlier, grow faster and then crowd out the host young,” said Robinson. “The songbird young just starve to death.”

‘Robinson said the cowbirds are thriving in the Midwest because the big woods have been felled for farm fields and pastures, depriving the migrant songbirds of the protection of the deep forests. The songbirds include tanagers, warblers, thrushes, flycatchers, and grosbeaks.

‘A survey by more than 125 researchers and assistants of 5,000 nesting sites in five states found that up to 50 per cent of the songbirds were not successful in raising young. This is not enough to maintain the songbird population at those sites, said Robinson. The survey was done in Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Missouri.

‘”These birds don’t have an evolutionary history of dealing with cowbirds,” said Robinson. “They haven’t learned to recognize that a cowbird egg is not their egg and that cowbird young are not their young.”

‘Most migrant songbirds, he said, “imprint on the young and take care of whatever is in the nest,” even if it is a cowbird chick. Some resident birds, however, won’t tolerate the freeloading cowbirds.’

‘”The Baltimore Oriole will puncture a cowbird egg and throw it out,” he said. Robins also reject the cowbird egg. Both robins and orioles are thriving.

‘Robinson said that the study shows that the problem could be corrected by establishing a network of forests no smaller than 20,000 acres. This is the minimum size, he said, to give the migrant songbirds a haven from the cowbirds.’

I’m amazed that the controlled media allowed that article to leave their presses in that form, but there it is. There are so many lessons to be learned there.

Here we have beautiful, brightly colored, noble-looking creatures with sweet poetry and music their art; threatened by ugly brown parasite birds, whose only distinction is that they can sometimes fool the beautiful ones into thinking that there is no difference between them.

Pushy and aggressive: the brown-headed cowbird.

Here we have parasite young crowding out the legitimate young in the nest. Have you seen a big-city classroom recently? Here we have parents spending their precious time and energy feeding and caring for the parasite young. Its parallel is the vast wealth and even lives which are squandered to “uplift” the forever miserable here or overseas. Its parallel is the Christian Children’s Fund and interracial adoptions fostered by our governments and our churches. We are digging our graves with a stupid — extremely stupid — smile on our foolish White faces.

The songbirds are dying as we will die. Some populations have fallen as much as 93% and experts are predicting multiple extinctions across this continent. As the warbler’s trill is replaced by the raucous cowbird squawk, so Vivaldi is eclipsed by killer rap.

What is the solution for the songbirds? What are the only hopes for their survival? One was mentioned in the Times-Dispatch article I quoted. It is the establishment of a habitat for the songbirds, to give the songbirds a “haven from the cowbirds.” The songbirds need — as we also need — and as every species needs to survive, a defendable territory of its own, where its parasites and other enemies are not present, where it can raise its own young, where its own precious and uniquely wonderful and beautiful genetic heritage will be passed on, unmixed, to the next generation. Without our own territory we perish. A nation that declares itself a melting-pot of all races will soon cease to be anything but a graveyard for its people.

Now songbirds could survive the clearing of the forests, if that was all there was to it. They nest reasonably well in meadows and near farmer’s fields. Change of habitat by itself isn’t fatal. What is fatal is that due to the clearing of their traditional forest habitat, they are now forced to share all their territory with cowbirds. In other words, they are being forcibly integrated with cowbirds. It is the integration with cowbirds that is fatal. Give songbirds their own territory, by whatever means, and they will thrive again.

A Discover magazine article last year mentioned another, more controversial solution advocated by some conservationists. In areas where the last remaining songbirds are now threatened, they are capturing and killing the invading cowbirds with poison gas. The results? I quote:

‘Some [songbird] species are in trouble …they’re raising too many baby cowbirds and not enough young of their own. Among the songbirds that have been pushed closer to extinction by cowbirds are the Least Bell’s Vireo of California, the Black-Capped Vireo of Texas, and the Kirtland’s Warbler of Michigan. The situation has forced conservationists into the uncomfortable position of advocating cowbird extermination programs.

‘”While we don’t like killing cowbirds,” says Jane Griffith, a biological consultant, “we do like to hear the songs of endangered species.” On a local level, at least, such programs seem to help. An example is the one that Griffith and her husband, John Griffith, have worked on at Camp Pendleton, a Marine base in Oceanside, California, that is one of the last refuges of the Least Bell’s Vireo. In the early 1980s, half the vireo nests there were parasitized. By 1994, after some 4,800 cowbirds had been trapped and gassed with carbon monoxide, parasitism had declined to 1 percent. More important, the number of male vireos had increased more than fifteenfold, from 27 in 1981 to 420 in 1993. Similar success has been reported by cowbird control program at Fort Hood, Texas, which has become a retreat for the Black-Capped Vireo.’

The outsized cowbird chick uses up food, parental energy, and other resources so that the parents' own chicks often die. As a result of this parasitism, many songbird populations have gone into dangerous declines. The parallels to the misplaced altruism and the percentage decline in European-descended human populations are ominous.

Some bird species, especially orioles and robins, are thriving despite efforts by the cowbirds to parasitize them. They are thriving because they do not welcome the cowbirds to their nests. They are thriving because they defend their territory from invaders. They are thriving because they will puncture the cowbird’s egg and eject it from the nest. The Condor magazine, for August 1995, mentioned another species, Couch’s Kingbird, that has successfully resisted parasitism. What is the successful survival technique of Couch’s Kingbird? — Egg discrimination. Consider that technique’s parallel in human terms. What natural survival technique, when used by us, has been made into a “crime” and into a dirty word by our enemies?

The ability to discriminate — which simply means to choose — sometimes makes the difference between life and death.

There are other amazing parallels between the cowbirds’ parasitism and our dispossession. Since they don’t have the burden of raising their own young, cowbirds reproduce at a much faster rate than other bird species. A single female cowbird can lay as many as 50 eggs in a single breeding season. Since welfare recipients are freed of much of the burden of raising their broods, they also …well, you get the picture. And you also know who carries the burden.

And as we are threatened by multiform parasites, both those already here and those flowing across our southern border, so are the songbirds. Read this excerpt from the Discover magazine article:

‘Meanwhile, a new threat to songbirds has surfaced — an invasion of another species of cowbird. Since 1985 the Shiny Cowbird of South America has been sighted in Florida. According to Alexander Cruz, a biologist at the University of Colorado in Boulder, it hasn’t yet been caught parasitizing nests, but that’s just a matter of time.’

Ladies and gentlemen, please consider this lesson from Nature. For if we as a people continue to violate Nature’s laws, we shall surely perish.

*   *   *

Thanks to the Locust Blog and to America First Books for archiving and republishing this text and preventing its loss.

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

by Kevin Alfred Strom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Articles on eugenics

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.

TODAY MARKS the 200th anniversary of the birth of the European-American literary genius and racially concious writer Edgar Allan Poe. I have paid my respects to the eternal memory of Edgar Poe in person at the Poe Museum in Richmond and at his and his beloved Virginia’s grave site in Baltimore, and I offer them again to all who read my words today.

Just as an abomination like Barack Hussein Obama could only be elected in an artificial multiracial slave state (and never in the White America of recent and lamented memory, and likewise never in a healthy all-Black nation) — just as a degenerate like “Martin Luther” King could only be lionized by a degraded, ignorant, and servile population — so Edgar Poe could never be published in modern America. His recognition of individual and racial inequality would have made him anathema to those who control the media today, and his private life and reputation would have been ripped to shreds by the international vermin and the vultures they employ.

According to the most plausible theory of his death, Poe died as a result of the corrupt mass ‘democracy’ he despised. Never able to withstand drink without severe reactions, it appears that Poe was shanghaied by ward politicians who were sweeping people off the streets and pumping them with free liquor in between sessions of herding them to the polls to be “voted” several times in succession. (Similar techniques are still used today, especially in “communities of color.”) He was found on the street inebriated and half-mad with alcohol poisoning. He died shortly thereafter. He was only 40 years old and had been planning to remarry when he died.

Who knows what works this sensitive genius might have bequeathed to us had his life not been ended so early? What might he have said about the tragic war brought to this nation by the abolitionists’ equalitarian delusions? What advance might he have made to the Cosmotheist ideas he began to express in his late work Eureka ? What would he have said of Karl Marx and Nietzsche and Wagner and Herbert Spencer? What works of ratiocination and romance and high poetry might he have given us in his second 40 years? We will never know.

Had he been born in our times, we would never even have heard of him. How many European-American geniuses have been relegated to obscurity and despair, about whom we will never know because they refuse to serve the alien masters of the media? We will never know that, either.

Here is one of Poe’s greatest short poems, A Dream Within a Dream :

Take this kiss upon the brow!
And, in parting from you now,
Thus much let me avow—
You are not wrong, who deem
That my days have been a dream;
Yet if hope has flown away
In a night, or in a day,
In a vision, or in none,
Is it therefore the less gone?
All that we see or seem
Is but a dream within a dream.

I stand amid the roar
Of a surf-tormented shore,
And I hold within my hand
Grains of the golden sand—
How few! yet how they creep
Through my fingers to the deep,
While I weep—while I weep!
O God! can I not grasp
Them with a tighter clasp?
O God! can I not save
One from the pitiless wave?
Is all that we see or seem
But a dream within a dream?

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.

(composed while forcibly separated from my family and loved ones and imprisoned by the U.S. government on false charges)

THEY PUT ME in a prison
They tried to take my soul
They sullied my good name
My destruction was their goal

They tore me from my family
They tortured my three kids
They lied about their daddy
The mercenary feds.

They obey their foreign masters
For dollars they are whores
Destroying families, nations;
Don’t believe them any more!

Every people needs its freedom
I tried to point the way
So they used perjured ‘evidence’
And locked my voice away.

But I have not surrendered
I raise the banner high
Western Man shall rise again
Fools and traitors always die.

Their lies shall not attach to me
For those I love are true;
And I’d gladly do it all again
To be once more with you.

Soon we’ll be sharing Nature’s joys
That we’ve been denied so long
In all the years that yet remain
We will be great — and good — and strong.

You know I love my people
So creative, fair, and kind –
You know I love my children
More than my soul, above my mind.

And you know I love the special one
Who will be true to me
There’s a secret place inside her soul
That only I will see.

And whether we shall meet
In time to come, or time forgot
Our embrace remains eternal
Our love it changes not.

Kevin Strom, 1956

by Kevin Alfred Strom (American Dissident Voices program of June 19, 1993)

I’M RECORDING this show on the week just before Father’s Day, and this year I’m a father for the first time. Looking at my baby boy and helping my wife care for him have made me think quite a bit about my own life, the world I grew up in, the lessons I learned, and the world my son is going to inherit. I’m going to tell you a little about myself, and how I came to the conclusions and the world-view that I express to you every week on this radio station.

I was born on a Summer morning in 1956, in Anchorage, Territory of Alaska. My parents had moved to Alaska some five years earlier, shortly after they were married, since that was where my father, an Air Force Master Sergeant, was assigned. I was my parent’s first child.

Both my father and mother were of Norwegian descent, hard-working farm kids from Minnesota born during the Depression. They were just three generations removed from their immigrant ancestors. My father’s father, Alfred Strom, in the early part of this century, had cleared his homestead of several hundred acres himself, and built a very substantial two-story house, large barn, and numerous outbuildings with his own two hands. They still stand are in still in use by the family today.

In my mother’s family, Norwegian was the only language spoken in the home for many years. My mother only began to speak English when she started attending school at the age of six.

Growing up in Alaska, I came to love its wild beauty, its endless twilights, and its titanic scale. I developed an appreciation for wild animals which expresses itself today in my abhorrence for any mistreatment or unnecessary killing of my fellow Earth creatures.

My family maintained close ties with their kin in northern Minnesota. Some of my happiest memories were of our months-long visits to my grandparent’s farm, where the 1880s farm house stood in a commanding position on one of the few hills in that flat land of big skies. It was also a great adventure to travel by car from Alaska to Minnesota in those days, across the Yukon and western Canada on thousands of miles of curving gravel roads, including the Alcan Highway.

My father eventually left the Air Force and took a position with the United States Department of the Interior. After several years, he was promoted to a job in Washington, D.C. We moved to Alexandria, Virginia, a suburb of D.C.

I became interested in electronics at an early age, spurred by an exposure to shortwave radio at the age of 11. I became an amateur radio operator at the age of 16. This interest eventually led to a career as a broadcast engineer, which I still pursue in addition to my patriotic work.

Patriotic Feelings

Even as a very young child, I can remember having strong positive feelings about America — both the grand and majestic land itself, and its optimistic, intelligent, deeply feeling, creative, and truly beautiful people. I might not have known how to put it into words at the time, but I loved my country and I loved my race. I was a born patriot.

The America I grew up in was the Old America, White America. Prior to the mid-1960s, when the social and racial and cultural fabric of America began to unravel, America was a very different place than it is today. With a few exceptions, the men were strong, sturdy, honorable and able. The women were feminine, nurturing, and beautiful. Everyone seemed to know who they were and where they were going. Identity crises were almost unknown. Everyone seemed to share decent values. There was a beautiful sense of optimism and almost innocence in the air. People trusted each other. They left their doors unlocked. They helped each other. There was a real sense of community.

I loved the Old America. I loved its art and its architecture. I loved its celebrations and its piety. I loved its civilized codes of dress and conduct. Even today, in the closing years of the twentieth century, you can still get a feeling of what the Old America was like in some small towns where the old buildings still stand, where the streets are still kept clean by the increasingly elderly White inhabitants, where the minority invasion has not yet made its presence known. Imperfect the Old America may have been, but it was, comparitively speaking, a wonderful place to grow up. I truly felt it to be my country, a place where I belonged.

Looking back on the 1950s and early 60s now, I can see that the people of that time were too carefree and innocent. They were foolish. They let the Old America slip out of their hands. They allowed alien mind-molders and subversives to take it away from them. They didn’t listen when patriots tried to warn them of the conspiracy against their freedom and their very race itself. They failed to understand that “Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty.” But that’s getting ahead of my story.

Washington and Social Turmoil

It was with eager anticipation and high hopes that I arrived in Washington, D.C. in November 1963. At first I loved the city. Crossing the Potomac River, I was filled with feelings of awe, wonder, and reverence as I looked upon the great gilt statues of Winged Victory, the great Classical-style monuments to Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln, and the majestic Capitol and Supreme Court buildings, among many others. Here, I thought, are fitting monuments to America, the country I love! Here, I thought, is graven in stone the greatness and the unchangeable principles of my beloved nation! Here, surely, must work the great men, the leaders who will apply those principles and ensure that our nation, our people, and our freedom shall never perish from the Earth!

I was to be greatly disappointed.

By the late 1960s, America was being literally ripped apart by two interrelated battles: the so-called “civil rights” revolution and the Vietnam War.

I well remember the marches, the assassinations, and the riots. I particularly remember the so-called “Moratorium” marches on Washington, which the largely Jewish New Left leaders had organized around 1969 to 1970. I didn’t attend them, though many of my schoolmates did. Many of those who didn’t attend wore black armbands to school to show their solidarity with the marchers. At the time, like many American patriots, I believed that the war in Vietnam was a righteous war against Communism. I made my own red, white, and blue armband to wear to school to show my defiance to the New Leftists and the others who were, in my view, pro-Communist and anti-American. What really disgusted me was the fact that so many of my fellow students supported the New Left and wore the black armbands not because of any reasoned opposition to the war or political ideas, but merely because it was the fashionable, “in” thing to do.

Like millions of Americans, I watched these so-called “anti-war” marches on television. I was revolted by the spectacle of half-naked young people of my generation carrying Communist flags and publicly using drugs, declaring that the country that gave them birth was evil. If their opposition to the war had been based on the fact that it was a waste of young American’s lives (which I now realize it was) or on the fact that it was a sham which wasted our country’s resources and demoralized us while a corrupt, criminal, and pro-Communist establishment made a pretense of “fighting Communism” (which I now realize it was), then perhaps I would have listened with interest to the protesters. But these protesters, who flouted all standards of civilization and patriotism, were openly declaring that their opposition to the war was based on the fact that a few darling Asiatic Communists were being killed. They were carrying the red flags of Communism in the streets of our nation’s capital. They were chanting “Ho – Ho – Ho – Chi – Minh, Ho Chi Minh is going to win!” — along with various obscenities.

And I noticed, with growing amazement, that the major newspapers and television commentators, whom I, along with most other Americans, had regarded with respect as icons of the American establishment, were siding with the Communist swine who had openly declared their hatred for — and intention to destroy — America. It was at this point that I first began to sense that something was profoundly wrong with this country. I began to see that the problem was far deeper than just a few obvious Communist revolutionaries in the street. I began to understand that the Establishment itself, the institutions of money and power in America, were themselves aligned with the subversive forces that were destroying us.

I began to see that decent Americans were being squeezed from both above and below; from below came the Black and Communist rioters in the street and on the campus — and from above came the news media, mainline churches, Liberal think-tanks, foundations, and other powerful institutions promoting a “social change” agenda. From both above and below came the push to change America from an outpost of European civilization and the traditional values that that implies, to a multiracial province of a one-world “utopia” ruled by all-wise and all-powerful “social planners.”

My awakening was reinforced when, not much later, our heretofore rather conservative Lutheran church began praising the virtues of Black Communist “freedom fighters” in Rhodesia, singing “We Shall Overcome” after Sunday School in solidarity with “Martin Luther” King’s “civil rights” movement, and condemning those terrible right-wing extremists who dared to criticize King, Communists, or the United Nations. When the parents weren’t around, the assistant pastor even told the high-school Sunday school class that “If Jesus came back to Earth today, he would be called a Communist.”

I knew something was wrong. I began to look for answers.

A Very Special Teacher

I must give credit for part of my awakening to a courageous and patriotic history teacher at my junior high school. He encouraged his students to look beyond the clichés and the headlines for the real forces at work behind the scenes. Though he never preached in class, he did present patriotic pro-American ideas as one point of view to be considered in the ongoing political and social revolution that was taking place. I inwardly resonated with and gravitated toward those ideas. As an antidote to the leftist bias of most of the other teachers, my history teacher brought into his classroom a number of books, newspapers and magazines with a pro-American, Rightist, or pro-White point of view, for his students to read after they had completed their assignments or to borrow and read at their leisure. How many other 12- and 13-year-olds were reading The American Mercury, American Opinion, Western Destiny, Richard Cotten’s Conservative Viewpoint, or H. L. Hunt’s Lifeline? My history classes were a welcome island of intellectual freedom and patriotism and sanity; a refuge from the anti-White, anti-Western, and anti-American influences that were almost everywhere else at the school.

Inspired by my courageous teacher, I began to seek out the truth on my own.

The Birch Business

Eventually this quest for truth led me to a group known as the John Birch Society. The Society was attractive to me for many reasons. It was forthrightly and unashamedly pro-American and anti-Communist. It claimed leadership in the field of patriotic endeavor, with some justification. It had a long and, I thought, honorable history of exposing and fighting internal subversion, which, in America, has always been a much greater threat than external conquest. It was not saddled with a lot of irrelevant religious baggage, as were far too many patriotic groups. It exposed those high on the ladder of the American establishment who were working to destroy this country, whom the Society called “insiders.”

Though the Society had the grandest of intentions, and though it did do a limited amount of education and awakening of the public, it really didn’t seem to be getting anywhere. I later discovered that this was because members of the group were forbidden to discuss a certain topic, a topic that is crucial for a full understanding of our nation’s dilemma. This topic was race. Ultimately, I came to realize that the Society was a dead end, a cul-de-sac where patriots expended their precious time, money, and energy going in circles while America’s real enemies smiled from a distance, secure in their safety because of the Society’s self-imposed censorship.

While a member of the John Birch Society, I continued to maintain friendly contact with patriots in other groups. One day in 1981, while I was visiting with a lady who led a weekly patriotic forum in Arlington, Virginia, I noticed a newspaper on her coffee table with the provocative headline “Equality – Man’s Most Dangerous Myth.” The newspaper was edited by Dr. William Pierce, a man I was to meet and with whom I began working just a few months later.

Racial Awakening

Kevin Strom and son, 1993

Though I had long felt that the “civil rights” agitation was destructive and served the purposes of America’s enemies; and though I had instinctively chosen to associate mainly with members of my own race; and though the art, architecture, and music which I loved were all the creation of White Western Civilization; and though I had sympathized with White Rhodesians and South Africans as they tried to protect their world from a Marxist-led savage onslaught; the truth is that before 1981 I had never thought really seriously about race. If you had come up to me with the idea of the primacy of race in all things I would have dismissed it. I, like so many right-wingers today, was enamored of the theory that gives primacy to ideas, to what a person or a society believes. What patriots were fighting for, I thought, were the ideas of freedom and liberty and order that undergirded America and the Western world. Although in a limited sense I was right, what Dr. Pierce forced me to see was that what a person or group believes is not nearly so important as what they actually are. For what one believes is mutable, and often changes throughout one’s lifetime. But what a person actually is, all of his potential for knowledge or ignorance, understanding or obtuseness, kindness or cruelty, altruism or selfishness, achievement or failure — all of these things are graven into his body and soul by the immutable and unchangeable patterns of his genetic inheritance.

Dr. Pierce expanded the horizons of my understanding from a narrow political-ideological point of view to an all-encompassing biological view of the world and all life in the world.

I learned that America, and indeed Western civilization itself in all its aspects, was a result of the genetic inheritance of its creators, the European race. So also was Oriental civilization the product of the tendencies and potentials inherent in the Asian race, and so on. This was not a doctrine of “hate,” as its detractors had painted it. It was a doctrine of respect for Life and Nature’s laws. I felt as though a cloudy film had been peeled from my eyes and I could for the first time see my surroundings with crystal clarity. The racial world-view puts patriotism in its proper place in the natural order of things. I saw that patriotism is not a mysterious concept to either be accepted without question or jeered at by sophisticates who see its lack of logical foundation — patriotism is simply loyalty to one’s kind, one’s tribe, one’s race. And those who created Communism and who are, under a thousand guises, subverting America, were exposed for the vicious parasites they always were, whose loyalties have never been with America or with the West — and never can be, because of what they are.

The biological world-view of Dr. Pierce expanded my horizons in other ways as well. I now thought not just in terms of years or decades, or just in terms of solving temporary political or social problems, but instead in terms of millennia, and in terms of the gradual development of my people from their earliest origins to their ultimate destiny.

This is the way in which Americans must begin to think if they are to remain a viable nation, if they are to have descendants who will be Americans in anything else but name. If we are to survive, we must not only have a burning desire that our descendants will carry on in the land our ancestors conquered and built; but we must also have an unshakable conviction of who we are. This is the contribution that the racial point of view makes to the patriotic struggle. Without a sure sense of our own identity, all else is for naught. If the enemies of America and the West manage to destroy all of our cities — if they raze them to the ground and with them destroy all our libraries, all the knowledge that prior generations of our race accumulated over thousands of years; if they destroy every work of art and science that has ever been created — it could all be built again, even greater than before. There could be another Athens, another Parthenon. There could be another Caesar, another Shakespeare, another Poe, another Darwin, another Edison, another Shockley. Our entire civilization could be built again from scratch, and our outreached hands could still grasp the stars, as long as the germ of our civilization — the gene pool of our race — remains intact. But if the evil or the thoughtlessness of a single generation corrupts that gene pool through racial mixing, or attenuates it through childlessness, what is lost can never be regained. If such evils persist much longer than a generation, the race will cease to be what it once was, and we and our kind will no longer walk the face of this planet. These are the truths that William Pierce and my other mentors taught me. They are hard truths. Perhaps I was, in some sense, already prepared for them. I hope that I am preparing the way for a generation who will carry the Truth, and our uniquely beautiful and noble race, to victory.